U.S. Law For Prosecuting Torture and Other Serious Abuses Committed by Civilians Abroad

...

The War Crimes Act of 1996
18 U.S.C. § 2441

The War Crimes Act provides federal jurisdiction over prosecutions for "war crimes," which the law defines as "grave breaches" of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, violations of Common Article 3 to the Geneva Conventions, and certain other offenses. These so-called "grave breaches" can include offenses against noncombatants, or surrendered or injured combatants, involving "willful killing, torture or inhuman treatment . . . [or] willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health."

The Act applies whether the crimes are committed "inside or outside the United States," and whether the "person committing such war crime...is a member of the Armed Forces of the United States or a national of the United States." (It does not apply to non-citizens or nationals of the United States.) The statute also applies if the victim is in one of these categories. War crimes committed in the course of declared or undeclared armed conflicts, or during military occupation, are covered by the Act.


The Torture Act of 2000
18 U.S.C. §§ 2340, 2340A, and 2340B

The Torture Act makes it a federal crime for any U.S. national (or anyone later found present in the United States) to commit torture or conspire or attempt to commit torture outside the United States. Crimes under the Torture Act are punishable by fine and/or imprisonment up to 20 years; or, if the victim dies, by life imprisonment or death.

Although the Torture Act is intended to implement the United States' treaty obligations under the Convention Against Torture (which the United States ratified with certain reservations in 1994), there are some important differences between the definition of "torture" under U.S. law and the concept of torture in the Convention, particularly with regard to "mental pain or suffering," which is more narrowly defined in the Torture Act.

The Torture Act defines "'torture' [as] an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control." The law then limits the scope of "severe mental pain or suffering" to mean "prolonged mental harm" resulting from (i) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction upon the victim or a third person of "severe physical pain or suffering"; (ii) the administration or threatened administration upon the victim or a third person of "mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality"; or (iii) the "threat of imminent death" of the victim or a third person. Unlike the U.S. law, the Torture Convention does not require that mental harm be "prolonged," nor does the Convention limit the types of causes for mental harm.



Crimes of the State

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Note that in the 4 years of WW2, no combatants were tortured for the purpose of extracting information or even confessions. So, why was it necessary here?
Also, based upon reports made by detainees in Pakistan, people were being rounded up, and tortured, to death, just for the hell of it. The same was true in Iraq. The keyword there was "quota". They (we?) needed a quota of victims to prove to the american public that it was being protected.
It was also therapy; the perpetrators were acting out our collective 911 revenge fantasies.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Wasn't that excuse shot down in Nuremburg?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I suspect Bush's last words as President will be "pardon me." This shameless thug will undoubtedly protect his underlings, as he did with the devious and vicious Scooter Libby, in order to protect himself. But it is a settled principle of international human rights law that crimes against humanity are not subject to immunity. The Quisling Congress, beginning with the conniving, if not collaborating, torture dominatrix Nancy Pelosi must finally, if only for the sake of their careers and reputations, hold public hearings and take action. Memento Fujimori!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

By definition, torture is an abuse of another human being and none of us want to be abused. So it's easy for one to take the high road on this and denounce it and even politicize it. But before we let our anti-Bush reflexes govern what we do with this issue, let's consider some different kinds of torture.

For instance, I think that having ones fingernails pulled out with pliers is a much harsher form of torture than water boarding. Having ones testicles shocked by John Kerry’s telephone wires is probably worse too. How about bamboo splinters thrust under ones fingernails? I think that pretty much any physical form of torture that leaves the victim maimed is too cruel for me to accept in pretty much any circumstance.

Some people actually like a little physical torture though. There are porn sites that feature all sorts of physical and emotional torture that is somehow thought to be sexually stimulating. I never got that, but never the less, it’s out there.

I think that we can use a real broad definition of torture and maybe even say that having to listen to elevator music in public buildings could be a form of torture. There are a lot of things we call torture and a lot of them we accept.

I can accept the torture that I go through if I've over imbibed and am hung over (after all, that's self torture). I also feel a little tortured when people smoke cigarettes around me but I still allow myself to undergo that. I draw the line at having to listen to rap music though, at least in my own establishment. I’m not going to allow myself to be tortured like that.

I think that being incarcerated is a form of torture by definition. It is intended to inflict mental pain and suffering. Being incarcerated is supposed to be a deterrent to crime for that reason. If it didn't cause suffering, it wouldn't be a deterrent.

So what about water boarding? Water boarding isn’t anything as terrible as the fingernail thing or even Chinese water torture. I’m sure it can’t be pleasant for the victim, but does it actually physically harm them? No. Will it cause them emotional trauma? Maybe for the short term. Our own soldiers are made to undergo the procedure so that they know what to do if they get put in that situation. It’s intended to make them feel so uncomfortable that they are willing to do whatever they have to, to get out of that circumstance, but they are being conditioned to resist that urge. Are we torturing our own soldiers then?

This ex-CIA guy who doesn’t think we should do it anymore and thinks that it was probably a mistake to do it in the first place, testified that it probably has saved many of our own soldier’s lives. It’s not likely that we could have gotten the information that we did without at least making the prisoner feel pretty damned uncomfortable and so if not water boarding, it would have to be something else that would also probably be considered torture by the people who want to politicize this issue.

It doesn’t sound to me like we’re doing this for some sadistic fun. In fact, it sounds to me like we are only doing it in certain rare circumstances where all other efforts to extract information fail. It’s true we don’t want to be abusers of other humans. We don’t want to be like the enemy whom we criticize for their human abuses. But the military has a mission and sometimes the enemy doesn’t cooperate with us under standard interrogation methods. I think that there certainly are times when enhanced methods can and should be used. The lives of our troops are worth it, I think.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Bush initiated his "war on terror" against Afghanistan and then quickly extended it to Iraq. There are still indications that he wants to extend it again to include Iran.

Others have pointed out that a "war on terror" is nonsense, that wars are conducted against states, not tactics. However, the focus of this criticism is wrong. As is frequently the case, Bush simply mis-spoke. These three theaters are all part of his war of terror. At the start the talk of shock and awe showed clearly that the intent was to terrorize and certainly the bombings of homes and even weddings brought terror into the hearts of those in the war theater.

Many interrogation authorities have pointed out that torture is not a good way to gain intelligence and in fact it has never really been used for that purpose except on popular television shows like 24. The true purpose of torture is to terrorize and this purpose is served best by applying it randomly to people plucked off the street for little or no reason.

Historically it has also been used to obtain confessions and it works quite well for this purpose too. A tortured prisoner will confess to anything whether that prisoner is in a Soviet camp, in Guantanamo or in a domestic U.S. prison.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

America was in far more danger in the beginning of WWII. Yet no one saw the need to torture captured German or Japanese officers. Even though we knew that the Japanese were mistreating American POWs to the point of torture, we did not retaliate in that fashion.
The Germans were racing to build an A bomb, yet we tortured no German spies or scientists.
What has changed since then? Let's contrast and compare the character of our current leadership with that of those magnificent men and women who won WWII.
Look at who we were and who we are now.
Who do we want to be?
FDR said "All we have to fear is fear itself."
Today fear is what the current administration pimps.
There was a time when torture produced significant intel. The French brutalized and tortured a large segment of the Algerian opposition in the 1950s and early 1960s. They won some battles as a result. But ultimately it proved counter productive, they alienated the population and lost that war.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Those familiar with the writings of linguistic scientist George Lakoff know that punishment is a fundamental tenet of conservatism. I suspect that some of the torture had nothing to do with gathering information but was used simply to punish the victims for wrong thinking and wrong behavior.

And where have we seen that before? The Inquisition.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The week end before 9/11 there was a power down of the towers, every one was sent out. That was the first time that had ever happened.

Check out (I had to cut links in two because too long, omit added space.):
http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction
=vids.individual&videoID=1361056082

http://georgewashington.blogspot.
com/2005/11/interview-with-scott-forbes.html

George Bush's brother Marvin and his cousin worked for the security firm that worked the Twin Towers and Dulles Airport.

Google Scott Forbes for more power down info.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

for ANYONE for terrorism in this country!!!

Ridiculous. What is this administration afraid of? The truth coming out?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]