Washington Region Religious Campaign Against Torture

The right to be free of torture is one of the most fundamental human rights recognized by the global community today. It is UUSC's firm position that any government-sponsored acts of torture under any circumstances are profoundly immoral, unjustified and illegal. We are committed to bringing such practices to an end.

This list of frequently asked questions can help you get started in learning more about the issues surrounding the use of torture, whether mental or physical, direct or "by proxy." 

According to the U.N. Convention against Torture, "torture" is any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether mental or physical, is intentionally inflicted on a person by any government official or agent. This also includes acts of torture inflicted at the request of, or with the consent of, government officials.

Since the days of the framers of the Constitution. Patrick Henry said that the rack, the thumb screw and the Star Chamber had been left behind in the Old World for good reason, and if permitted here, then "we are lost and undone."

Absolutely. They also ban cruel and degrading punishment.

The torture of any non-POW is specifically prohibited by the Fourth Geneva Convention. Moreover, the Convention against Torture bans the torture of any human being under any circumstances, even during times of war; so does the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights.

U.S. criminal laws define mental torture as:

Thus, the prolonged use of blindfolds, loud noises and sleep deprivation, especially in combination, would be an example of mental torture. Official reports indicate that detainees in Guantánamo have suffered severely from these methods.

Cruel and degrading treatment is equally forbidden. The best test is whether or not we would accept similar treatment of our own service personnel should they be taken captive.

All "stress and duress" positions actually inflict severe pain; that is why they are used. The suffering is especially intense when the tactic is prolonged, or when several methods are used in combination, such as stress positions, cold temperatures and sleep deprivation. These methods have been ruled to constitute torture by the U.N. Committee against Torture, and have often been denounced by the U.S. Department of State in the past.

The Constitution prohibits torture in any form within the United States. The use of torture by U.S. agents or officials outside the United States is a felony, under both the Anti-Torture Statute (18 U.S.C. 2340) and the Federal War Crimes Act.

Of course not. Any person suspected of a crime may be arrested, given a full and fair trial and if convicted, incarcerated. This is true both inside the United States and abroad.

Most intelligence experts agree that statements obtained by torture are highly unreliable. A person being tortured will say anything at all to stop the pain. At best, the result is a scramble of true and false statements. At worst, an innocent person is tortured and falsely admits to a crime, or names another innocent person as a suspect.

Those that work best are the tried and true methods that skilled police and FBI personnel have been using for decades, such as careful questioning and investigations, cross-checking facts, sharing information, following up on contradictions, using "good cop/bad cop" teams and positive incentives, and slowly winning over the suspect and engaging him or her in dialogue. Intriguingly, some Middle Eastern countries report that the use of a local Muslim religious leader with a terrorist suspect has had excellent results.

Yes. In the first place, if we cast aside the Geneva Conventions as "quaint and obsolete" then our own servicemen and women will have no protections if they fall prisoner. For this reason, the torture policies were vehemently opposed by many military leaders, including Colin Powell.

Secondly, the use of such harsh methods will greatly increase hatred against American citizens. We are already seeing this in Iraq, with the sharp rise in bombings and anti-American sentiment. Instead of protecting us, these practices endanger us.

All of the MPs say they were told to carry out these abuses by various local intelligence officials, both military and CIA.

Yes. The torture methods they used did not occur only at Abu Ghraib. They were practiced by CIA agents, Special Ops members and military intelligence officials all over Iraq and Afghanistan and in Guantánamo. The methods were also discussed and authorized by high-level Pentagon, CIA and White House officials. Tellingly, the same torture methods have been used for years in Latin America, Central America and Vietnam - wherever U.S. intelligence networks have operated in the past. The hooded and wired Iraqi in the notorious Abu Ghraib photograph is posed in what specialists call the "Vietnam" position. It is highly improbable that the young MPs came up with these same sophisticated methods on their own by sheer coincidence.

No. Nor were the MPs' defense attorneys able to obtain the names of such agents. Moreover, most such information is classified on national security grounds.

No charges have been brought against these officials.

No. The CIA is a civilian agency and therefore not subject to the Military Justice Code.

They could indeed be prosecuted under U.S. law. The Department of Justice, however, has not pressed charges. The attorney general can make the decision to prosecute or not.

Yes.

These are prisoners who are secretly held and interrogated by the CIA in undisclosed locations. No one knows who they are, why or where they are detained, or what torture methods may have been used on them. They have not been properly reported to the International Red Cross. One such ghost prisoner, for example, was the dead man packed in ice in the notorious Abu Ghraib photograph.

"Extraordinary rendition" is the current U.S. practice of transferring or deporting detainees to another country known for its use of torture. As one U.S. official has stated, "We don't kick the [expletive] out of them here. We send them to other countries so they can kick the [expletive] out of them."* Often, U.S. intelligence officers will accompany a prisoner and even provide a list of questions to be asked during "interrogation." Money pipelines to such nations are said to be well oiled with U.S. funding.

The case of Maher Arar is one example. Arar, a citizen of Canada, was seized in New York's Kennedy airport as he awaited a flight home. He was sent to Syria where he was tortured severely for nearly a year.

No. It is clear violation of the Convention against Torture. It also constitutes a criminal conspiracy.

No. This would be a conspiracy to commit torture. It is much like the man who hires someone to murder his wife. The husband would still be guilty of murder.

Yes. The French used torture in Algeria when the anticolonial bombings began. In the end, this outraged the Algerians and caused them to unite against the French, who lost the war. The experience of the apartheid government in South Africa was similar.

The Israeli experience has been very telling. Although the Landau Commission at first permitted moderate force in the context of an imminent bombing, by 1999 Israeli civil rights workers were able to show that the use of torture on Palestinian detainees was rampant. The Israeli Supreme Court then banned the use of all such physical force. Enforcement remains a difficult issue, but the words of that court offer great wisdom: "A democracy may have to fight with one hand behind its back, but at least it is the upper hand."