qwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwerty uiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasd fghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzx cvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmq Human Rights Law wertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyui opasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfg Gawie Kanjemba

hjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxc vbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmq wertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyui opasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfg hjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxc vbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmq wertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyui opasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfg hjklzxcvbnmrtyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbn mqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwert yuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopas
John Nakuta 5/6/2011

201030845

.... ........ the Terrorist and the Ticking Bomb............................................................................................ 13 Reference: ........Contents 1. ................................................ .......2 Case Study.................... ....................... 7 4............. 10 Human rights violations......... 4............ ............................ ............................... ................. 3.......................................................................................................... ..... ..... ........... 14 Book ............................................. .... .......................................... ......................................................... ......... ....................... ......... 2....... 7........ ....... ............... .......... 8 5................... 11 The prohibition of torture ............................ ................... ............1 Case Study................ ................... 7 4..................... 14 2 ...... ....................... ..... ....... 5 Is torture ever justifiable? ................ .............. 12 8. .................................. 10 GUANTANAMO BAY .............................. ...... .................... ................................... 6.................. 3 What is wrong with Torture?.................. the Beating .. ........... .... ............ Conclusion ....... II..................................................... . 14 International Conventions................................................................................... ................................ ............................. ..................... 3 What is torture?........................... 11 International Legislation Prohibiting Torture.. ........ Introduction..... 10 Right to habeas corpus and the US Courts ................................................................................... . I... ................... ............ ................................................................................................ ...... Necessity as a ground of justification for torture . .......................................................... 9.............................................................. ......

the purpose of this paper is primarily to shed some light on arguments that are pro torture and in the end truly justify why torture cannot be used in any circumstance. when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. inserting a needle under the fingernails. entrails or genitals. this is just one example that a State can use as a way of violating our human rights. Civilians took control over another plane that targeted the White House (government). is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession. A plane was crushed in the Pentagon (military) which killed over 300 people. tongue.g. applying thumbscrews. water boarding (submersion in water or dousing to produce the sensation of drowning). Introduction In 2001. The use of torture is a violation of our human rights. With this authority. After the world witnessed these horrors. but not all of them. Torture includes such practices as searing with hot irons. Today we find a lot of people that are against torture not because they have enough knowledge to take such a position. cutting out parts of the body. e. the American military. any act which sever pain or suffering. Over 2000 Americans were killed in the collapse. but their papers and arguments are lost in the myriapod of documents that deem torture to be illegal. there were no survivors. It is with this borne in mind. involve the infliction of extreme physical pain. inter alia. economy and government were targeted by a terrorist organisation. What is torture? The United Nations Convention against Torture1 defines torture as: . Bigoted if you ask me! For this reason. e. two planes crushed into the Twin Towers (economy). sleep deprivation does not necessarily involve the infliction of extreme physical pain. making a person crouch for hours in the Z position. burning at the stake. which crushed in the woodlands of Pennsylvania. 2. civilians were just so willing to give up some of their civil liberties and freedoms. whether physical or mental.. the victim is strapped to a chair.g. All of these practices presuppose that the torturer has control over the victim's body. 1 Article 1(1) of the Convention against Torture of 10 December 1984 3 . severe beatings. electric shock treatment to the genitals. but just because they follow the because the rule says so argument.A discussion on the justification of the use of torture by the State 1. There are many scholars that are pro torture. For example.. drilling through an anaesthetised tooth. Most of these practices. water or sleep for days or weeks on end. that there is a school of thought that advocates for nations to be given some level of total authority in times when national or international security is at a threat. living them to crumble to the ground. fundamental rights of people will be open to exploitation by States and it will be perfectly justifiable. suspending by the legs with arms tied behind back. and denying food.

all of them involve theintentional infliction of extreme physical suffering on some non-consenting and defenceless person. A is undergoing electric shock treatment. might be inhumane without being sufficiently extreme E. B is certainly undergoing extreme mental suffering. e. defenceless person necessarily torture? Michael Davis thinks not (2005: 163). If A accidentally sears B with hot irons A has not tortured B. In various national and international laws2. assume that B is in a hotel room in another country and live sounds and images of the torture are intentionally transmitted to him in his room by the torturer in such a way that he cannot avoid seeing and hearing them other than by leaving the room after having already seen and heard them.g. To see this. B is surely not himself being tortured. Is the intentional infliction of extreme mental suffering on a non-consenting.g. intention is a necessary condition for torture. all of these practices involve the infliction of extreme physical suffering. On the other hand. if as appears to be the case. At any rate. a mock execution or a situation in which a victim with an extreme rat phobia lies naked on the ground with his arms and legs tied to stakes while dozens of rats are placed all over his body and face. Indeed. A. it is not my body that is being electrocuted. but that B himself is untouched.g. a distinction is made between torture and inhumane treatment. Convention against Torture and Other Cruel. For one thing. Consider. and the above case of the person being made to believe that his friend is being tortured on the other hand. in order for it to be an instance of torture. if A intentionally sears B with hot irons and B consented to this action. so B's mental suffering is as in the original scenario. Nevertheless. or my uncontrollable extreme fear of rats that is being experienced. exhaustion in the case of sleep deprivation. Further. Assume that B's friend. e. is that in the latter case the mental suffering is at one remove. albeit some instances (such as the above one) are not. Indeed. e. An exception to this general rule might be cases involving the torture of persons with whom the sufferer at one remove has an extremely close relationship and a very strong felt duty of care.However. then B has not been tortured. there are some cases of mental torture then the above definition will need to be extended. for example. e. albeit B is imprisoned in the room adjoining the torture chamber.g. is being tortured. Assume that A is not in fact being tortured. defenceless persons are cases of torture. albeit in a manner that does not admit all cases of the infliction of extreme mental suffering as being instances of torture. albeit torture is a species of inhumane treatment. such suffering at one remove is in general less palpable. but B could have physically prevented A from searing him then B has not been tortured. it might be argued that some instances of the intentional infliction of extreme mental suffering on non-consenting. a child and its parent. Such a distinction needs to be made. after all. rather the torturer is only pretending to torture A.) However. In that case surely he is not torturing B either. my life that is being threatened. flogging. A is being tortured for the purpose of causing B to disclose certain information to the torturer. reflect on the following revised version of the scenario.g. However. However. The difference between the mock execution and the phobia scenario on the one hand. That is. and more able to be resisted and subjected to rational control. some treatment. it is suffering caused by someone else's (believed) suffering. Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment (United Nations 1984 see Other Resources) 2 4 . B believes that A is being tortured. even if B did not consent. (Alternatively. B has to be defenceless. In this revised version of the scenario the torturer is not torturing A.

torture is a very great evil indeed. typically. Nevertheless. torture hurts very badly. specifically killing and murder. it is certainly torture3 and another author says Yet while there is a very strong moral presumption against both killing and torturing a human being. Secondly.to count as torture. torturing an innocent person to death is worse than murder. 5 . torture does not necessarily involve killing. namely: 1) To obtain a confession 2) To obtain information 3) To punish 4) To coerce the sufferer or others to act in certain ways. some inhumane treatment does not involve physical suffering to any great extent. severe pain. e. For example: Both torture and (premature) death are very great evils but. then it is an even greater evil than otherwise would be the case. What is wrong with Torture? In terms of the above definition of torture there are at least two things that are manifestly morally wrong with torture. there is some dispute about how great an evil torture is relative to other great evils. 3. For another thing. The above-mentioned U. torture is an evil thing. if one is a greater evil than the other. On the other hand. For with respect to each one of these four purposes. torture of human beings consists in part in the intentional. or even morally worse than. torture is an evil thing. as are some forms of morally degrading treatment.N.g. It seems that in general torture is undertaken for the purpose of breaking the victim's will. let alone murder. that is. it seems that we take the 4 presumption against torture to be even greater than that against homicide Certainly. it is not the case that in general torture is undertaken for that purpose.g. causing a prisoner to pretend to have sex with an animal. Certainly. in most contemporary society s torture is not generally undertaken for the purpose of punishing the victim. especially in the maximalist sense. substantial curtailment of individual autonomy. 3 4 Michael Davis claims (2005: 165) David Sussman (2005: 15). torture consists in part in the intentional infliction of severe physical suffering. Given the moral importance of autonomy. the treatment in question may be as morally bad as. properly speaking (albeit. these are all possible purposes of torture. (And if torture involves the breaking of someone's will. and is therefore not torture. For this reason alone. this distinguishes torture for the sake of breaking the victim's will from the other four purposes mentioned above. torture). Convention identifies four reasons for torture. e. If true. Firstly. even considered independently of the physical suffering it involves.) Given that torture involves both the infliction of extreme physical suffering and the substantial curtailment of the victim's autonomy. for it involves torture in addition to murder. Many have suggested that torture is a greater evil than killing or even murder. Some forms of the infliction of mental suffering are a case in point.

is always followed by no life whatsoever. For the victim might be able to strongly influence the torturer's actions. the victim cannot prevent the torturer from torturing the victim. but not the existence of dead bodies. Consider also a situation in which both a hostage and his torturer know that it is only a matter of an hour before the police arrive. torture is a very great evil. i. Moreover. and therefore physically harm. The conclusion to be drawn from these considerations is that torture is not necessarily morally worse than killing (or more undesirable than death). Nor does it follow that torturing someone is morally worse than killing him.e. the infliction of pain in police cells can be kept secret. by contrast. Torture is an infringement of the right to autonomy. Dead people necessarily have no autonomy or power. First.. but who do not. Consider the clichéd example of the terrorist who is refusing to disclose to the torturer the whereabouts of a bomb with a timing device which is about to explode in a crowded market-place. By physically powerless two things are meant: the victim is defenceless. However. though in many instances it may well be. So. Perhaps the terrorist could negotiate the cessation of torture and immunity for himself. i. If the harm brought about by an act of torture is a lesser evil than the harm done by an act of killing then. free the hostage and arrest the torturer. The person being tortured is for the duration of the torturing process physically powerless in relation to the torturer. either by virtue of having at this time the power to harm people other than the torturer. it does not follow from this that being killed is preferable to being tortured. But equally during the period a person is being tortured (and in some cases thereafter) the person's world is almost entirely taken up by extreme pain and their asymmetrical power relationship to the torturer. torture is consistent with the retrieval of the victim's autonomy. so killing people is an infringement of their right to autonomy as well as their right to life. the torture victim's powerlessness. It does not follow that being killed is preferable to being tortured because the duration of the torture might be brief. Killing is an infringement of the right to life and the right to autonomy. or by virtue of having at some future time the power to defend him/herself against the torturer. Consider police officers whose superiors turn a blind eye to their illegal use of torture. if he talks. cover-up the murder of those tortured. as already noted. other things being equal. and could not. For the same reason it does not follow that torturing a person is morally worse than killing that person. and the victim is unable to attack.e. the torturer. torture is similar to killing in that both interrupt and render impossible the normal conduct of human life. but not the former.and indeed torturers do not necessarily have the power of life and death over their victims. and/or attack the torturer. Indeed. the latter is morally worse than the former. On the other hand. Nevertheless. the following points can be made. necessarily forever. perhaps the hostage is a defence official who is refusing to disclose the whereabouts of important military documents and who is strengthened in his resolve by this knowledge of the limited duration of the pain being inflicted upon him. theological considerations aside. the victim would presumably rather be dead than alive during that period. albeit the latter. On the moral wrongness of torture as compared to killing. it does not follow from this that the victim is entirely powerless vis-à-vis the torturer. A second point pertains to the powerlessness of the victims of torture. one's will might not ultimately be broken. the period during which the victim is being tortured is surely worse than not being alive during that time and torture can in 6 . whereas killing is not. but not necessarily of the right to life. given the extreme suffering being experienced and the consequent loss of autonomy. being killed. and one might go on to live a long and happy life.

The police fear that if the car is not found on time. torture can in principle involve the effective destruction of a person's autonomy. London. a black man with a distinctive scar turns her around and demands for her to give her purse. morally justifiable. In fear for her life. The woman s purse was found on him and he was ID d by the woman and security cameras outside the service station. The most obvious version of the argument in favour of one-off acts of torture in extreme emergencies is consequentiality in form. she bands down to get her purse from that front car seat. it was provided by a former police officer from his own experience. the baby could die of suffocation 5 1999. both examples are realistic. has in the past sought to acquire a nuclear device to detonate in a western city and the 9/11 attacks and bombings in Bali. and the military/police tactics short of the routine use of torture. the second a terrorist example. 4. then some of what is said here would not be to the point. indeed. or could well be. according to our n's adopted definition. FRG1 (5) 7 . However. Inter alia. The first is a policing example. the assumption is that the routine use of torture is not morally justified. So is it entirely fanciful that there could be such an attack and that an Al Qaeda operative known (on the basis of intercepted communications) to be a member of the cell involved in the planned attack might not be arrested. He is later spotted and arrested by the police in a town mall. interrogated and tortured(?) prior to the detonation? At any rate. these are the two most popular kinds of example discussed in the literature. he denies it. Arguably. so if it turned out that the routine use of torture was necessary to. it is widely reported in the media that Al Qaeda.1 Case Study. He rolls up the windows and abandons the car deep in the woods. this is not necessarily the case with killing. Madrid and Mumbai should leave no doubt whatsoever that Al Qaeda would use such a device if they could get their hands on one. say. albeit the terrorist ticking bomb scenario is often claimed by moral absolutists to be utterly fanciful. all things considered. Later he finds that there is a three year old boy sleeping in the back seat. Certainly.principle extend for the duration of the remainder of a perso life. Moreover. the Beating A woman is parked outside a service station to fill up. one-off acts of torture in extreme emergencies that are. 4. The police take him in and then. liberal democratic governments and security agencies have not even begun to e xhaust the political strategies. These cases include the real-life Daschner case5 involving the threat to torture a kidnapper by German police in 2002 which resulted in the kidnapper disclosing the location of a kidnapped child. Further. win the war on terrorism. Accordingly. Is torture ever justifiable? There are. the policing example is realistic. for example. available to them to combat terrorism. and question him for some time. behind her. The man knocks her down and speeds of with the car. torture is an intentional or purposive attack on a person's autonomy. Finally.

4. Moreover. the terrorist is refusing to talk and time is slipping away. cannot be undertaken in the limited time available. too weak to cry. y The car thief is known not to be an innocent his action is known to have caused the threat to the baby. If it does it will kill thousands and make a large part of the city uninhabitable for decades. he finally realised the beating would go on until he told the police where he had abandoned the child and the car. in pain he had never known. The police know the terrorist in question. Consider the following points: y The police reasonably believe that torturing the terrorist will probably save thousands of innocent lives y the police know that there is no other way to save those lives. for example. all their other sources of information have dried up. there is no other way they see to avoid catastrophe. evacuation of the city. Eventually. Furthermore. the police know that there is a reasonable chance that he will talk.or hyperventilation. and he is refusing to allow the baby's life to be saved. and indeed it is unlawful to use it! 7 In this case study there is also a substantial moral justification for torture. the location of the stolen vehicle and the infant inside it was portrayed as having been volunteered by the defendant. Torture is not normally used by the police. y The baby is innocent. even if it does not convince everyone. in the past. When found. the Terrorist and the Ticking Bomb A terrorist group has planted a small nuclear device with a timing mechanism in London and it is about to go off. the stolen child was dehydrated. albeit one that many moral absolutists do not find compelling. y the threat to life is more or less imminent. Consider the following points: y The police reasonably believe that torturing the car thief will probably save an innocent life. and if he can be made to disclose the location of the device then the police can probably disarm it and thereby save the lives of thousands. they start to beat him and question him on where he dumped the car.2 Case Study. The police officers' statements in the prosecution brief made no mention of the beating. there were ice packs and dehydration in the casualty ward but no long-time prognosis on brain damage. kneeling on hands and knees in his own urine. The defendant's counsel availed himself of this falsehood in his plea in mitigation. 6 In this case study torture of the car thief can be provided with a substantial moral justification. Unfortunately. albeit non-nuclear ones. However. They know he has orchestrated terrorist attacks. if tortured. Moreover. on the basis of intercepted mobile phone calls and e-mails the police know that this attack is under way in some location in London and that he is the leader of the group. y The police know that there is no other way to save the life. One of the terrorists has been captured by the police. so he did so. 6 7 Summary: John Blackler v New South Wales police 1997(USA) Kym 46 (2) Own scenario 8 . y The threat to life is more or less imminent.

In short. namely. American Criminal Law of the 21 Century. say. even if he were not actively participating in the bombing project. Note also that since the terrorist is. and murdering also the police about to torture him. the bare fact of torture being illegal does not render it morally impermissible. if it explodes. justificatory moral reason for murdering them the terrorist is known to be (jointly with the other terrorists) morally responsible for planning. He has already undertaken his individual actions of. he will be (jointly with the other terrorists) morally responsible for the murder of thousands In addition to the above set of moral considerations. the deception plan that fooled the Germans into stationing 450. and in a different situation from someone who might have inadvertently put life at risk (it still begs the question whether such a bystander can also be tortured)8. 4 edition. If it is held that compliance with the law for its own sake has some moral weight 9. The terrorist is culpable on two counts. To this extent the terrorist is in a different situation from a bystander who happens to know where the bomb is planted but will not reveal its whereabouts. it does not have sufficient moral weight to make a decisive difference in this kind of scenario. General Principals of Law. and arguably it has none.y y the thousands about to be murdered are innocent the terrorist has no good. disclose the location of the ticking bomb. Were the terrorist to do what he ought to do. 5 (1) 9 . let alone decisive. The reason that Admiral Wilhelm Canaris. when being tortured.000 Wehrmacht troops 130 miles north of the Normandy beaches. torturing the terrorist or allowing thousands of lives to be lost. consider the following points. the terrorist is forcing the police to choose between two evils. This would be true of the terrorist. Operation Fortitude. the terrorist is in the process of completing his (jointly undertaken) action of murdering thousands of innocent people. Firstly. he has performed these individual actions (in the context of other individual actions performed by the other members of the terrorist cell) in order to realise the end (shared by the other members of the cell) of murdering thousands of Londoners. Hill (2007) th KB Muller. was utterly convinced of this was because every single one of his 19 agents.10 The very success of the D-Day landings themselves can largely be put down to the enhanced interrogation techniques that were visited upon several of the 19 Nazi agents who were infiltrated into Great Britain and turned by the British Secret Intelligence Service (SIS) between 1939 and 1945. the post factum legal defence of necessity may well be available to the police should they subsequently be tried for torture. the police could refrain from torturing him. 59 (5) 10 st Phillip McConnell. transporting. the head of the Abwehr. In refusing to disclose the location of the device the terrorist is preventing the police from preventing him from completing his (joint) action of murdering thousands of innocent people. if torturing the terrorist is morally permissible absent questions of legality. A am of the view that if anyone believes that SIS persuaded each of these 19 hard-bitten Nazi 8 9 (Miller (2005). and arming the nuclear device and. namely. transporting and arming the nuclear device. told him so. entirely depended upon German intelligence (the Abwehr) believing that the real attack was going to take place at the Pas de Calais instead. Secondly. still in the process of attempting to complete his (joint) action of murdering thousands of Londoners. who he did not know had been turned.

And another 100. because the suspected terrorist may not have the information. Alanbrooke and Marshall Won the War in the West. two requisite elements of necessity are lacking. under international criminal law. the author maintains that the defense of necessity is not available in the case of acts of interrogational torture because. To date. none of the detainees he at ld Guantanamo Bay have been formally charged with any crime and it is still uncertain if and when Fretting over waterboarding. Bush to step down.11 5. the defense seems to be available even with regard to charges of torture. 'war criminals'. To solve this apparent conflict between the stand taken by the relevant human -rights monitoring bodies and international criminal law. Plus. While the Israeli Supreme Court held that such defense is admissible under these circumstances. the prohibited act performed (torture) does not necessarily and ineluctably avert the imminent danger to life and limb. The result? Many thousands of Allied servicemen s lives were saved because the German 15th Army stayed well away from beaches such as Omaha. and more importantly. or may remain silent. Maryland University. 12 13 11 Barbara Olshansky. read Michael Korda's review of Roberts' book Masters and Commanders: How Churchill. is not supposed to be) innocent and. The detainees have been called "enemy combatants". but it is unclear whether this means they are detained as quasi 'prisoners of war'. under administrative detention. Human rights violations There is uncertainty with regard to the legal basis of detention and the exact legal status of individual prisoners. biscuits. or may not have the right information.spies to fall in with Operation Fortitude by merely offering them tea. 'terrorists'. Necessity as a ground of justification for torture The plea of necessity to escape criminal responsibility for the use of torture against suspected terrorists who may have planted a bomb likely to kill dozens of innocent civilians may be admissible in a court of law12. in the circumstances under discussion (also called 'the ticking-bomb situation'). Roosevelt. the per son subjected to torture is not (or. using advanced interrogation techniques that reportedly started with sleep deprivation but went on to gross mental and physical abuse. However. 1941-45. 2003 HGF (9) United Nations Convention against Torture 10 . and lectures in democracy. secondly. GUANTANAMO BAY I. An SIS secret house located in Ham Common near Richmond on the outskirts of London was the location where the will of those agents was broken. obscures the fact that "enhanced interrogation techniques" have saved thousands of lives in every war. 6. First. at least. Utah. they re being profoundly naïve. writes British historian Andrew Roberts. or something else. some human-rights monitoring bodies13 went so far as to require states expressly to rule out necessity as an available defense to charges of torture. and Sword.000 others were stationed in Norway for another attack that never came.

Article 14 (right to a fair trial) and Article 26 (eq uality before the law) 15 14 (March 2003) 11 . These violations are almost always justified by the USA. maybe. under US Constitutional law the detainees do not have access to any US court or tribunal to review the lawfulness of their detention. The remedy which permits a detained individual to take proceedings before a court to determine the lawfulness or otherwise of detention. In Ex Parte Attorney General: in re Corporal such as. however. The status of Guantanamo Bay in international law is unusual although by no means unique . denied the remedy of habeas corpus to the Guantanamo Bay detainees. beaten and held during their detention in "two-metre by two-metre cages". In March 2003. Article 7 (prohibition against torture). Article 9 (right to liberty). The US courts have so far. that is. 7. This is also the legal vehicle by which alleged breaches of international human rights law can be aired and tested. There are also concerns over potential violations of international human rights norms and articles of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) 14. unless there is a successful appeal to the US Supreme Court. Right to habeas corpus and the US Courts In the circumstances the protection of Article 9(4) of the ICCPR is crucial. In rejecting the claims the Court upheld a 1950 US Supreme Court ruling that the US courts do not have jurisdiction to issue writs of habeas corpus for alien nationals detained outside the "sovereign territory" of the US. and to order release if detention is not lawful. Article 10 (right to humane treatment). The ICRC has been given access. A handful of cases have come before the US District Courts on this issue. The released detainees allege that they were sometimes hooded. any other nation might have done the same if placed in the same situation. The Lease provides that Cuba keeps "sovereignty" over the territory. the writ of habeas corpus or amparo. The leading case is that of the US Court of Appeal (District of Columbia) in the case of Odah15.in that it was leased from Cuba by the US in 1903. The prohibition of torture Torture of any person is totally unacceptable as an investigative technique or procedure in the Namibian Police or any other organ of the state. but. and per se. This seems to be so in all the other countries that signed or acceded to the Convention against Torture. The US Courts have interpreted this to mean that they have no jurisdiction over aliens held at Guantanamo Bay because whilst the US authorities have "jurisdiction and control" under international law the territory belongs to Cuba. in addition to three prisoners released in October 2002. b that the US has "complete ut jurisdiction and control".the US authorities intend to do so and on what legal basis. but as usual their findings are confidential. II. A technical point. In the Odah case the relatives of a number of detainees brought claims relating to the lawfulness of detention. 18 detainees were released and returned to Afghanistan. handcuffed.

or jus cogens. torture in any form. 1969.throughout the world came into effect on June 26. inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. on October 21. Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment statements preceding articles. International Law. The creation of a universal mandate of punishment indicates the level of contempt the international community harbours for such heinous crimes.21 This legislation was not in effect during the French-Algerian War. international law.16 the judge stated that no derogation from the rights entrenched in the bill of rights are permitted and that the state s obligation was absolute and unq ualified. it is obliged to punish perpetrators. According to the Preamble. torture has been condemned in customary international law. The 1949 Geneva Conventions banned violence to the life. Articles 7 and 10 of the document respectively prohibit torture or cruel.. it was adopted by a General Assembly vote of 48 to none. According to Article 1991 (3) SA 76 (MNS) As defined by Article 53 of the Convention on the Law of Treaties. International and domestic legislation have condemned torture as unacceptable behaviour on the part of any state. the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights entered into force on March 26. particularly: murder. 1997). 1992. 17 16 12 . whether mental or physical.17 Where jus cogens norms exist regarding a particular crime. Shaw. adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on December 10. Instead. Moving beyond codified treaty law. mutilations as well as outrages upon personal dignity. health and physical or mental well-being. 2002). It sets a standard for the type of state behaviour that would indicate respect for human rights. 21 Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel. Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment desiring to make more effective the struggle against torture. corporal punishment. 1994. France signed the document on February 4. see Malcolm N. it has attained the status of a peremptory norm of general international law. 18 René Provost. there were no signatories. in particular humiliating and degrading treatment. 1976. 4th Edition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Subsequent to the Geneva Conventions. 1948. 218.18 International Legislation Prohibiting Torture International legislation against torture began notably with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 1987. it is my view that the rest of the world should look on and not evade responsibility to their citizens. 1981 and the United States ratified it on September 8.. even if a state is not a party to any codified international legislation on that point. Considering that Namibia has one of the most advanced constitutions in the world. International Human Rights and Humanitarian Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and insist that All persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person..19 which states: No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel. Legislation against torture is also part of French domestic law. 19 Since this Declaration is not technically a part of binding. with 8 abstentions. For more on customary law and jus cogens norms. but the United States signed the document six years prior to the start of the Global War on Terror. 20 General Assembly Resolution 2200A (XXI). it is designed to uphold the inherent dignity [and] the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family and to prevent barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind. 20 France and the United States ratified the document in 1951 and 1955 respectively. The Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel..Punishment by Organs of State.

but it s at least safe to say that they do not much care. as we are moving towards a global village so intertwined. the abominations! I need not further justify why the use of torture by any state should be justifiable.222-1 of the Code pénal. a collective consensus for the people of our planet. most of the learned people who are pro torture are the very same people who question the authenticy of Human rights. 8. Some these torture victims do are deprived of the principal of innocent until proven guilty . Conclusion It is pretty clear that there are not a lot of authorities in support of torture. We. where people are captured.. Imagine. It sis however suffice to say that the pro torture side does have arguments that stand and hold water. torture will be punished by fifteen years in criminal reclusion. on evidence that will never be admissible in any fair court in the world. France (like the United States) was under the obligation of its penal code. we were only too happy to get frisked at airports. as a people are defined by how we treat our enemies. detained and then tortured. I have a problem with this because. giving them no trails. many with no evidence.22 In 1954. basing Guantanamo bay camp in Cuba so that their constitution and international laws won t really get in their way. the United States calls it Manipulative Self Injurious Behaviour. And so far. calling the prisoners enemy combatants instead of prisoners so they can end run the Geneva Convention and torture them. this is my favourite (am sure it will be yours): . American silence to the issue of torture can only be attributed to consent. when people get scared. when they are jailed in perpetuity.. being able to execute somebody on triple hearsay or in a totally coheres confession. afforded no trail. But when it gets to a point. the first thing they will give up is their civil liberties and freedoms... that is why after 9/11. not legally and most definitely not in any argument! 22 Code pénal Article 222-1.an act of asymmetric war fare waged against the US! like what i previously stated. the world is in agreement that torture should not be used under any circumstance. my god the atrocities. They follow the idea of Human rights are different in different places . we are beginning to share the same vision for what we want for the world. 13 . in addition to its international obligations. not because there is evidence but rather just to see if t here is evidence. no lawyers et cetera! It s laughable! And then when they finally kill themselves. these prisoners are held indefinitely. acquiescence or disinterest (take your pick).they will have little tribunals in Guantanamo that will allow suspect to be jailed for life or even executed. and under the Pentagons new Draft Guidelines.

and Trade -Offs: Philosophy for the White House. Kemp. Heeley publishing M Falkoff. Washington DC F Hare. New York HKL Lung (2002). Butterworth Irene Thompson (2008). Heeley publishing M. Torture. Terror. Justification of Torture (2 nd Ed. (1999). 7. The law of War. Poems from Guantanamo Bay.).9. OP McPhill (2004). 8. Lewis J Waldron (2008). The Way forward after 9/11. Kate. F Miller. Washington DC KJ Greenberg (2005). Los Angeles International Conventions 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) Universal Declaration of human Rights Convent on Civil and Political Rights Convention Against Torture The Geneva Convention Convention on the Rights of Children African Human Rights Chatter 14 . (2nd Ed. AT. The A -Z of Punishment and Torture. 6.). 3. A Dorfman (2007). 4. Reference: Book 1. 2. American Criminal Law and International Crimes. The Torture papers: The Road to Abu Ghraib. JK Peterson (2010). 5.