by Jim Beauregard
In a previous blog,
I mentioned bringing to bear of a new resource in the argument against torture:
the resource of neuroscience and understanding of what torture does of the
brain and how it acts in a manner opposite two what proponents of torture claim
is their goal – to obtain information from detainees to prevent future attacks.
I noted two recent books that touched on this subject, one by James Mitchell,
an American psychologist who helped to design the Bush administration
interrogation program, and one by the Irish neuroscientist Shane O’Mara. I want to say a bit about both of these books
in this blog as I think they deserve attention from personalist thinkers as
part of a wider argument against the use of torture. I also want to suggest that thinkers of a
personalist bent we put some of their time to good use in arguing against any
future use of torture.
There is, of course, a context and history. Torture has been used as
a method of interrogation and as a method of punishment for thousands of
years. the 20th century, one of the most
barbarous, if not the most barbarous in human history, prompted many nations to
come together in the United Nations enter work for a more just and peaceful
world. As part of that process, they articulated documents that touched on human
rights and on the conduct of warfare.
These documents touch on fundamental issues that personal is have dealt
with from the interwar period of the 20th century two today, issues that touch
on the nature of the human person, of ethics, of human rights and of human
dignity, of politics, and of work toward a just society.
Much of this thinking was prompted by the horrors that were
witnessed during and after the second world war, horrors that remain a part of
our consciousness – acts of genocide, acts of barbarism, ask that grounded it
is vision that reduced the humanity of others. In the wake of the second world
war, the United Nations was founded, and it is known that personal is thought,
in the work of Jacques Maritain found its way into the United Nations Universal
Declaration of Human Rights.
Those international documents serve as a context for the issue of
torture. In the wake of the Second World
War United Nations was founded, and several international accords were created
and signed preventing the use of torture.
The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) was
consciously created in response to violations of human dignity during the two
world wars, especially the second, and as the document states in its preamble, “disregard
and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged
the conscience of mankind” (Preamble). Article 5 of the declaration states that
“No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading
treatment or punishment.” It is an absolute prohibition and there are no exceptions
named in the document.
The United Nations Declaration
was closely followed by The Geneva
Conventions of 1949, which are explicit regarding how prisoners of war are
to be treated. Article 13 of the Third Convention states that, “Prisoners of
war must at all times be humanely treated. Any unlawful act or omission by the
Detaining Power causing death or seriously endangering the health of a prisoner
of war in its custody is prohibited, and will be regarded as a serious breach
of the present Convention.” (Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment
of Prisoners of War of 12 August 1949, Part II, General Protection
of Prisoners of War, Article 13, “Humane Treatment of Prisoners.” Geneva,
Switzerland: International Committee of
the Red Cross).
The use of torture, then is prohibited in documents to which most of
the nations on the planet of signatories. That incidents of torture did not
enter no doubt part of the reason that in
mid-1980s, the United Nations published a subsequent document the United Nations Convention against Torture
and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment of 10
December 1984 defines torture this way:
‘torture’ means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether
physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as
obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him
for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having
committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason
based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted
by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public
official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising
only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions (Part 1, Article 1).
Spool forward to
the early 2000’s, enter the administration of the second George Bush, where the
last sentence just quoted was, in a sense, the Bush administration escape
clause, since if they could rename torture, applying a euphemism, and bring it
under the umbrella of federal law, they could argue that such procedures were
not prohibited.
In the next blog in the series, I will take a look at the so-called
US torture memos, and how the documents created in the wake of the second world
war for the protection and enhancement of human dignity were subverted.