Torture or "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques"

[Cosmic]

The United States has a long list of exceptions to the treaty, however. From your second source concerning the treaty:

United States of America 22
Upon signature :

Declaration:

"The Government of the United States of America reserves the right to communicate, upon ratification, such reservations, interpretive understandings, or declarations as are deemed necessary."
Upon ratification :

Reservations:

"I. The Senate's advice and consent is subject to the following reservations:

(1) That the United States considers itself bound by the obligation under article 16 to prevent `cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment', only insofar as the term `cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment' means the cruel, unusual and inhumane treatment or punishment prohibited by the Fifth, Eighth, and/or Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.
(2) That pursuant to article 30 (2) the United States declares that it does not consider itself bound by Article 30 (1), but reserves the right specifically to agree to follow this or any other procedure for arbitration in a particular case.
II. The Senate's advice and consent is subject to the following understandings, which shall apply to the obligations of the United States under this Convention:

(1) (a) That with reference to article 1, the United States understands that, in order to constitute torture, an act must be specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering and that mental pain or suffering refers to prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from (1) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering; (2) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality; (3) the threat of imminent death; or (4) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality.
(b) That the United States understands that the definition of torture in article 1 is intended to apply only to acts directed against persons in the offender's custody or physical control.
(c) That with reference to article 1 of the Convention, the United States understands that `sanctions' includes judicially-imposed sanctions and other enforcement actions authorized by United States law or by judicial interpretation of such law. Nonetheless, the United States understands that a State Party could not through its domestic sanctions defeat the object and purpose of the Convention to prohibit torture.
(d) That with reference to article 1 of the Convention, the United States understands that the term `acquiescence' requires that the public official, prior to the activity constituting torture, have awareness of such activity and thereafter breach his legal responsibility to intervene to prevent such activity.
(e) That with reference to article 1 of the Convention, the Unites States understands that noncompliance with applicable legal procedural standards does not per se constitute torture.
(2) That the United States understands the phrase, `where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture,' as used in article 3 of the Convention, to mean `if it is more likely than not that he would be tortured.'
(3) That it is the understanding of the United States that article 14 requires a State Party to provide a private right of action for damages only for acts of torture committed in territory under the jurisdiction of that State Party.
(4) That the United States understands that international law does not prohibit the death penalty, and does not consider this Convention to restrict or prohibit the United States from applying the death penalty consistent with the Fifth, Eighth and/or Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, including any constitutional period of confinement prior to the imposition of the death penalty.
(5) That the United States understands that this Convention shall be implemented by the United States Government to the extent that it exercises legislative and judicial jurisdiction over the matters covered by the Convention and otherwise by the state and local governments. Accordingly, in implementing articles 10-14 and 16, the United States Government shall take measures appropriate to the Federal system to the end that the competent authorities of the constituent units of the United States of America may take appropriate measures for the fulfilment of the Convention.
III. The Senate's advice and consent is subject to the following declarations:

(1) That the United States declares that the provisions of articles 1 through 16 of the Convention are not self-executing.

Unsure if it makes any relevant exception, as I haven't read the entire bit yet.

 

[InfiniteJest]

 

[David]

Unsure if it makes any relevant exception, as I haven't read the entire bit yet.

I read through it and nothing really says the USA will allow torture under government control. It merely wants to correlate with the US constitution and make clarifications. (unless the constitution allows torture, which then you would need to see if it aligns with their reservations)

 

[Cosmic]

The constitutional amendments it cites are:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

 

[Zenrer]

Whatever method that works the best to save lives, torture or not, I will fully support it

 

[David]

Whatever method that works the best to save lives, torture or not, I will fully support it

What do you mean by "save lives"? Like the off-topic debate was about, would killing a certain 200,000 lives in order to not kill (save) an "estimated, and probably flawed" 1 million lives be in your favour?

(I don't expect some counter-attack by Cosmic; just a general question 😛)

@Cosmic, the Amendments just clarify the Convention, eg. some countries support capital punishment, and others don't. I didn't see any real link to torture.

 

[Zenrer]

f I definitely knew killing 200,000 people saved 1 million peoples lives, I would support it. If it was killing 200,000 civilians and saving 1 million terrorists, my view would change.

 

[Cosmic]

"The needs of the many out-weight the needs of the few." ~ Spock

 

[David]

f I definitely knew killing 200,000 people saved 1 million peoples lives, I would support it. If it was killing 200,000 civilians and saving 1 million terrorists, my view would change.

But we are not certain that it will save 1 million lives; it's merely a guess, so I'm guessing that would alter your view. Would you liked to be that 200,000 to save the other 1 million unknown?

 

[Cosmic]

f I definitely knew killing 200,000 people saved 1 million peoples lives, I would support it. If it was killing 200,000 civilians and saving 1 million terrorists, my view would change.

But we are not certain that it will save 1 million lives; it's merely a guess, so I'm guessing that would alter your view. Would you liked to be that 200,000 to save the other 1 million unknown?

Just FYI, but the 200,000 isn't/wasn't a constant either.

 

[David]

f I definitely knew killing 200,000 people saved 1 million peoples lives, I would support it. If it was killing 200,000 civilians and saving 1 million terrorists, my view would change.

But we are not certain that it will save 1 million lives; it's merely a guess, so I'm guessing that would alter your view. Would you liked to be that 200,000 to save the other 1 million unknown?

Just FYI, but the 200,000 isn't/wasn't a constant either.

It's far more calculable then the other 1-5million. Taking note of the population of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and taking note that almost everything was wiped out, we can determine a much more accurate estimation then for US troops. Also, here are some Truman documents from the bombing. Link

 

[Cosmic]

This was the second time that this new weapon was used (give or take one or two tests I don't know about) and may have been the first time it was used out of a bomber, I don't know. However, from the perspective of before the decision was authorized, it could have just landed and gone "thud". Also some fluke could have occurred which would not have destroyed the entire city, just a couple blocks.

 

[David]

However, from the perspective of before the decision was authorized, it could have just landed and gone "thud".

The perspective of the A-Bomb was reliant on one person; Einstein. Einstein confirmed that a fission reaction was possible in a bomb, thus the belief was that the A-Bomb was very possible. This was during January 1939, much before the bomb was made, and at that time, Einstein held a very authoritative voice, being the world leading scientist.

 

[Cosmic]

And? Wasn't Einstein the one that failed a math class once?

 

[David]

And? Wasn't Einstein the one that failed a math class once?

I'm just saying what you said for the perspective isn't true. Leaders knew that if they could develop the A/H-Bomb, they will have worldly power/control. If they didn't believe Einstein, then why the sudden race for A/H-Bombs, namely USSR, USA and Germany? They needed something more than an idea; they needed some confirmation from a world known scientist.

And so what if Einstein failed a maths class once? It doesn't prove anything. Also, define "fail". What determines a fail? A fail back then could be a pass today.

 

[Cosmic]

That race happened after two cities were destroyed by the weapon. That was the ultimate qualification.

 

[David]

That race happened after two cities were destroyed by the weapon. That was the ultimate qualification.

I didn't say "nuclear arms race", I said race in the context that those named country's had a sudden interest/dash/race/movement in nuclear arms.

Clearly, if Einstein did not give the thumbs up (ie, he signed a confirmation document), then I don't see any reason for a country to spend millions in nuclear arms, or nuclear arms facilities.

 

[Cosmic]

What's your point, then?

 

[David]

What's your point, then?

I've made my point, and this is supporting my point. You said that the perspective was that it "could have landed and gone 'thud'", and I am making an argument against that, saying that it was scientifically judged and accepted that it would cause a nuclear fission reaction, which is not just "thud".

 

[Cosmic]

I doubt Einstein appraised either bomb directly. It could of malfunctioned.