[Peace-discuss] Fwd: Torture resolution

[Alfred Kagan]

FYI, some of you may be interested in the 
resolution we are bringing to the American 
Library Association next month.

>  http://www.pitt.edu/~ttwiss/irtf/resolutions.torture2.html
>
>>
>>
>>Whereas ALA is among the preeminent defenders 
>>of intellectual freedom and government openness 
>>in the US.
>>
>>Whereas intellectual freedom, our primary value 
>>as librarians, cannot be more seriously 
>>violated than by forcing speech or enforcing 
>>silence through systematic violence by 
>>government against detained individuals.
>>
>>Whereas the US government has proven its 
>>readiness to use torture (as well as hooding, 
>>shackling, drugging, sleep deprivation, etc.) 
>>in the interrogation of suspected terrorists or 
>>their suspected accomplices in its 
>>anti-terrorist legislation
>>
>>Whereas the use of torture and coercive 
>>interrogative practices is inhumane, illegal 
>>and destructive of the  democratic 
>>sensibilities of a free society, the 
>>cultivation of which we as an Association and 
>>as a profession are committed.
>>
>>Whereas the secrecy which attends the use of 
>>torture violates our commitment to open 
>>government and the necessity of true and 
>>accurate information of our government's actions
>>
>>Whereas the violence of torture violates our 
>>commitment to the rule of law as a protector of 
>>the integrity and dignity of the human person
>>
>>Whereas the barbarity of torture fundamentally 
>>violates our commitment to the preservation of 
>>the human spirit
>>
>>and
>>
>>Whereas the threat of torture of the use of 
>>torture and similar practices of coercing 
>>testimony, confessions, information is, 
>>universally condemned under international law 
>>[e.g the Geneva Convention, Articles 3 and 31 
>>and by the Univeral Declaration of Human 
>>Rights, 1948, Article 5 ] and (a)the Fourth 
>>Amendment's right to be free of unreasonable 
>>search or seizure (which encompasses the right 
>>not be abused by the police) (b)the Fifth 
>>Amendment's right against self-incrimination 
>>(which encompasses the right to remain silent 
>>during interrogations), (c)the Fifth and the 
>>Fourteenth Amendments' guarantees of due 
>>process (ensuring fundamental fairness in 
>>criminal justice system), and (d)the Eighth 
>>Amendment's right to be free of cruel or 
>>unusual punishment],
>>
>>Be it resolved that the SRRT/ALA condemns the 
>>use or threat of torture by the US government 
>>as a barbarous violation of human rights, 
>>intellectual freedom, and the rule of law. 
>>TheALA , decries --along with condemnation of 
>>the practice of torture anywhere-- the 
>>suggestion by the US government that under a 
>>'state of emergency' in this country torture is 
>>an acceptable tool in pursuit of its goals.
>>
>>
>>(see addendum)
>>
>>
>>submitted by Mark C. Rosenzweig ALA Councilor at large
>>second Al Kagan
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION
>>The legal basis for this follows, including some explication of issues
>>raised by these references: ,
>>
>>*Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948, Article 5 states: "No one
>>shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment
>>or punishment."
>>
>>*Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
>>(ICCPR), ratified by 153 countries, including the U.S. in 1992
>>
>>*Convention against Torture or Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment
>>or Punishment (the Convention against Torture), ratified by 136 countries,
>>including the U.S. in 1994.
>>
>>*European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental
>>Freedoms African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights.
>>
>>*American Convention on Human Rights [Signed at the Inter-American
>>Specialized Conference on Human Rights, San JosÈ, Costa Rica, 22 November
>>1969].
>>
>>*The 'Laws of War': the prohibition against torture is also fundamental to
>>international humanitarian law  which governs the conduct of parties during
>>armed conflict.
>>
>>Article 3 to the Geneva Conventions, for example, bans "violence of life
>>and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment
>>and torture" as well as "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular
>>humiliating and degrading treatment."
>>
>>Article 31 of the Fourth Geneva Convention: "No physical or moral coercion
>>shall be exercised against protected persons, in particular to obtain
>>information from them or from third parties."
>>
>>1999 Initial Report of the United States to the U.N. Committee against
>>Torture: in the United States, the use of torture "is categorically
>>denounced as a matter of policy and as a tool of state authority
>>
>>No official of the government, federal, state or local, civilian or
>>military, is authorized to commit or to instruct anyone else to commit
>>torture. Nor may any official condone or tolerate torture in any form
>>
>>Every act of torture [...]" is illegal under the [Convention against
>>Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, G.A.
>>res. 39/46, [annex, 39 U.N. GAOR Supp. (No. 51) at 197, U.N. Doc. A/39/51
>>(1984)], entered into force June 26, 1987]. is illegal under existing
>>federal and state law, and any individual who commits such an act is
>>subject to penal sanctions as specified in criminal statutes."
>>
>>*The US Constitution: Torture violates rights established by the Bill of
>>Rights.
>>
>>The U.S. courts have located constitutional protections against
>>interrogations under torture in
>>
>>a)the Fourth Amendment's right to be free of unreasonable search or
>>seizure (which encompasses the right not be abused by the police)
>>
>>b)the Fifth Amendment's right against self-incrimination (which
>>encompasses the right to remain silent during interrogations),
>>
>>c)the Fifth and the Fourteenth Amendments' guarantees of due process
>>(ensuring fundamental fairness in criminal justice system), and
>>
>>d)the Eighth Amendment's right to be free of cruel or unusual punishment.
>>
>>*In numerous cases, the U.S. Supreme Court has condemned the use of force
>>amounting to torture or other forms of ill treatment during interrogations,
>>including such practices as whipping, slapping, depriving a victim of food,
>>water, or sleep, keeping him naked or in a small cell for prolonged
>>periods, holding a gun to his head, or threatening him with mob violence.
>>
>>*"Miranda v Arizona: The U.S. Supreme Court in 1966 also established a
>>rule requiring the police who seek to question detainees to inform them of
>>their "Miranda" rights to remain silent and to have an attorney present
>>during the questioning [Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)].
>>
>>In explaining the need for this rule, the Court noted the continuing
>>police practice of using physical force to extract confessions, citing, as
>>an example, a case in which police beat, kicked and burned with lighted
>>cigarette butts a potential witness under interrogation.
>>
>>*Torture would also violate state constitutions, whose provisions
>>generally parallel the protections set forth in the federal Bill of Rights.
>>Article 4 of the Convention against Torture obligates state parties to
>>ensure that all acts of torture are criminal offenses under domestic
>>legislation.
>>
>>*The principal federal law that would apply to torture against detainees
>>is 18 U.S.C. 242, which makes it a criminal offense for any public official
>>to willfully to deprive a person of any right protected by the Constitution
>>or laws of the United States.
>>
>>*Neither international nor domestic law conditions the right not to be
>>subjected to torture on citizenship or nationality. No detainee held by
>>U.S. authorities - regardless of nationality, regardless of whether held in
>>the U.S. or in another country, and regardless of whether the person is
>>deemed a combatant or civilian - may be tortured. All applicable
>>international law applies to U.S. officials operating abroad, including the
>>Convention against Torture and the Geneva Conventions.
>>
>>Some explication relevant to the particular questions raised by the
>>government's consideration of the use of torture in its "War Against
>>Terrorism"
>>
>>1)The prohibition against torture is universal and covers all countries
>>both regarding U.S. citizens and persons of other nationalities.
>>
>>2)The Convention against Torture provides that any statement that has been
>>made as a result of torture shall not be invoked as evidence in any
>>proceedings, except against a person accused of torture as evidence that
>>the statement was made.
>>
>>3)Under customary international law as well as under international human
>>rights treaties, torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment is
>>prohibited at all times and in all circumstances. It is a non-derogable
>>right, one of those core rights that may never be suspended, even during
>>times of war, when national security is threatened, or during other public
>>emergencies.
>>
>>4)According to the U.S. government, " U.S. law contains no provision
>>permitting otherwise prohibited acts of torture or other cruel, inhuman or
>>degrading treatment or punishment to be employed on grounds of exigent
>>circumstances (for example, during a "state of public emergency") or on
>>orders from a superior officer or public authority."
>>
>>5)The European Court of Human Rights has applied the prohibition against
>>torture contained in European Convention on Human Rights in several cases
>>involving alleged terrorists. As it noted in one case, "The Court is well
>>aware of the immense difficulties faced by States in modern times in
>>protecting their communities from terrorist violence. However, even in
>>these circumstances, the Convention prohibits in absolute terms torture or
>>inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, irrespective of the victim's
>>conduct." (Chahal v. United Kingdom, Nov. 15, 1996)
>>
>>6)The Committee against Torture, reviewing Israel's use of torture as a
>>method of interrogation against suspected Palestinian terrorists, stated,
>>"The Committee acknowledges the terrible dilemma that Israel confronts in
>>dealing with terrorist threats to its security, but as a State party to the
>>Convention Israel is precluded from raising before this Committee
>>exceptional circumstances as justification for [prohibited] acts"  [United
>>Nations Committee against Torture. "Concluding observations of the
>>Committee against Torture" (1997), A/52/44,paras.253-260. (15 Nov. 2001).]
>>
>>Some people argue that the goal of saving innocent lives must override a
>>person's right not to be tortured. Although such an exception might appear
>>to be highly limited, experience shows that the exception readily becomes
>>the standard practice. For example, how imminent must the attack be to
>>trigger the exception and justify torture - an hour, a week, a year? How
>>certain must the government be that the detainee actually has the necessary
>>information?
>>
>>The international community, however, rejected the use of torture even in
>>this type of case. International human rights law - as well as U.S. law -
>>do not contain any exceptions to the prohibition against torture.
>>
>>Respectfully submitted,
>>  Mark Rosenzweig
>>  ALA Councilor at large
>>
>>--
>>
>
>--
>--
>
>Tom Twiss
>Government Information Librarian
>G-22 Hillman Library
>University of Pittsburgh
>Pittsburgh, PA 15260
>
>E-mail: ttwiss at pitt.edu
>Phone: (412) 648-7730
>FAX: (412) 648-7733


-- 


Al Kagan
African Studies Bibliographer and Professor of Library Administration
Africana Unit, Room 328
University of Illinois Library
1408 W. Gregory Drive
Urbana, IL 61801, USA

tel. 217-333-6519
fax. 217-333-2214
e-mail. akagan at uiuc.edu