FAQs: Does the U.S. Torture People

Aapa

Mirajmom
Salaam,

Came across this informative article.:

In the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, which the United States ratified in 1994, torture is defined as "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person” by or at the instigation of a public official in order to obtain information or a confession or to punish the person “for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or [for] intimidating or coercing him or a third person for any reason based on discrimination of any kind.”

Under Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, acts of “violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment, …outrages upon personal dignity, [and] in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment” are prohibited. Furthermore, the U.S. Army Field Manual section 34-52 on interrogations states that the parameters described in the Convention are the “definite limits on measures which can be taken to induce an Enemy Prisoner of War to cooperate.

What techniques amount to serious torture?

There is no formal list of actions that amount to serious torture. The drafters intentionally left Article 3 vague in order to ensure that no exceptions were found for abusive behavior. Nevertheless, over time, various institutions such as the U.N. Commission for Human Rights, the International Committee of the Red Cross, national courts, and the International Criminal Tribunals have determined that certain actions amount to torture. Additionally, as the European Court of Human Rights determined in Ireland v. United Kingdom, techniques that may not amount to torture by themselves may amount to torture when combined, which is often the case.

How does torture affect people?

According to Physicians for Human Rights, “Survivors of torture often suffer from a combination of physical and psychological effects. Physical effects may include scars, broken bones, muscle swelling, stiffness or atrophy, chronic pain, headaches, deafness, blindness and loss of teeth. Victims often suffer from psychological symptoms such as lack of sleep, nightmares, problems with concentration, anxiety, depression, irritability, adjustment disorders, impotence, and feelings of powerlessness, shame and guilt.”

Does Torture work?

No! People often justify the use of torture, despite the legal and moral implications, by claiming that it is the most efficient method of collecting information. The 1992 U.S. Army Interrogation Field Manual 34-52 states: “Experience indicates that the use of prohibited techniques is not necessary to gain the cooperation of interrogation sources. Use of torture and other illegal methods is a poor technique that yields unreliable results, may damage subsequent collection efforts, and can induce the source to say whatever he thinks the interrogator wants to hear.”

Most expert interrogators, including the FBI, agree with this conclusion for several reasons. First, torture is not necessary. If someone has information, they are just as likely, if not more so, to disclose the information after non-abusive interrogation tactics. Second, many who are interrogated do not have information to give. Third, whether or not a person has information, he or she will likely confess to anything to stop torture; thus the information obtained is never reliable.

What techniques have been used in the war on terror?

Since January 2002, the Bush Administration has justified the maltreatment of prisoners of the “war on terror” because the detainees are unlawful enemy combatants not guaranteed the rights dictated in the Geneva Conventions or U.S. law. In response to the CIA’s and FBI’s concerns about its interrogation techniques, the Attorney General’s Office of Legal Counsel, in the infamous Yoo/Bybee memo, concluded that physical pain constituting torture "must be equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death." Anything below this threshold merely constitutes “cruel, inhuman or degrading kind of treatment,” which, although prohibited under the Convention as well, does not constitute a punishable offense according to the memo. Soon thereafter, military personnel began to seek approval for harsher interrogation techniques.

Reports by the United Nations Special Rapporteurs on Guantánamo Bay, the International Committee of the Red Cross, and U.S. military investigators found the following torture techniques have been used:

Abuses at Guantánamo Bay:

• solitary confinement for periods exceeding a year
• sleep deprivation for days, weeks or months
• exposure to prolonged temperature extremes
• beatings
• threats of transfer to a foreign country, for torture
• torture in foreign countries or at U.S. military bases
abroad before transfer to Guantánamo
• sexual harassment and rape or threats of rape
• deprivation of medical treatment for serious condi-
tions, or treatment granted only for “cooperating”
• “short-shackling,” where wrists and ankles are
bound together and to the floor for hours or days

Abuses at Bagram airbase & other facilities in Afghanistan:

• sleep deprivation for weeks
• shackling detainees while standing
• forced nudity
• sexual taunting by women soldiers
• forcing detainees to lie on frozen ground
• beatings.

Abuses at Abu Ghraib:

• acts of sexual assault and degradation, such as
forced nudity and forced sexual acts
• the use of dogs to frighten detainees, sometimes to
a point where detainees urinated or defecated
• breaking chemical lights and pouring the phos-
phoric liquid on detainees
• pouring cold water on naked detainees
• beating detainees with a broom handle and a chair
• head blows, significant enough to render detainees
unconscious.

What new policies has the u.s enacted since 9-11?

In June 2006, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld that all detainees held by the United States in Guantánamo Bay are protected by Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. Under the U.S. War Crimes Act of 1996, violations of Common Article 3 constitute felonies. In order to protect military officials who commit questionable acts, the Bush Administration pushed for the passing of law that would reduce the scope of Article 3.

The Military Commissions Act (MCA), ratified on October 17, 2006, redefines the terms of Common Article 3. The Act adopts the narrow definition for “cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment” used by the Administration in 2002. In doing so, the MCA expands the types of abuses military personnel and agents can use in interrogations and limits the ability to hold those officials accountable. It is difficult to comprehend, then, what President Bush has in mind when he says, as he often does, that “we don’t do torture.”

Attached Files
does the us torture people.pdf
http://ccrjustice.org/learn-more/faqs/faqs:-does-u.s.-torture-people?
 

strive-may-i

Junior Member
ORIGINAL POST:
A better question would be whats noble in US (or any country for that matter), that prevents it from Torturing people. The answer is 'Nothing'.​

Corrected POST:
A better question would be whats noble about US (or any country for that matter), that prevents it from Torturing people. The answer is 'Nothing'.
.​
Its an outcome of battle between sane and insane
 

Aapa

Mirajmom
Assalaam walaikum,

What is noble is that there are Muslims here.

Oh how it breaks my heart to see what is happening to the many good people here. How we are in the process of denial.

It is the denial of reality that is so saddening.
 

strive-may-i

Junior Member
Assalaamu alaikum,

What is noble is that there are Muslims here.

Oh how it breaks my heart to see what is happening to the many good people here. How we are in the process of denial.

It is the denial of reality that is so saddening.

Am sorry I should have phrased it better. Whats noble trait in US or any other country that prevents it from subjecting a human to unjustified torture.

There are provision in law to prevent it. But there also are provisions in law to work around it!

Now , its reaction fueled by unjust intent, is it not?
In past it was Vietnam,
In future to another name...

The seats of powers can go blind....


[P.S: There is nothing against common man here. Its to the vested intrsts and how they Hijack society]
 

Aapa

Mirajmom
Assalaam walaikum,

Welcome to the USA...we tell the world to do one thing and we practice it's opposite. Who has the guts to tell the US what to do..only one country and it aint't Musllim
 

septithol

Banned
Assalaam walaikum,

Welcome to the USA...we tell the world to do one thing and we practice it's opposite. Who has the guts to tell the US what to do..only one country and it aint't Musllim

My question would be this: Are there any Islamic countries that practice torture? If so, why not mention them, if you have a real problem with the idea of torture?
 

icadams

Junior Member
We need to be honest, all countries, or at least most of them, practice torture. Some countries are open and honest about it. What makes it particularly reprehensible in the US is that we continually attack and condemn countries for doing what we are doing. The US government claims to be above such things, it says that its military never does such things, that police and federal agencies are forbidden from torturing people, and yet it still happens.
And remember, most torture is not physical, it is psychological. The most effective forms of torture cause one to question ones self, ones personal beliefs, they force the person to alter their method of perception and believe that their captors are correct. You can torture someone without ever touching them.
 

Aapa

Mirajmom
Assalaam walaikum,

Good to see you back Icadamas.

Septithol, this post is about the US. If I had wanted to mention the other countries of the world I would have written a post. Why don't you write a post about that.
 

MohammedMaksudul

May Allah Forgive us
:salam2:

When other countries do torture these days, be sure its somehow related to Islam. They hardly treat other detainees this way. I am talking about friends of USA.
 

JenGiove

Junior Member
My question would be this: Are there any Islamic countries that practice torture? If so, why not mention them, if you have a real problem with the idea of torture?


That would be logical, now wouldn't it? The fight should be against ALL torture, not just the "evil" that is called the United States....

Excuse me brothers and sisters but Septithol has a wonderful point...why is it that only non-Muslim countries are being focused on? Does it have to do with the ruling of "hiding the sins of your brother"? Or is it because of the hatred against the evil empire?

Torture itself should be the enemy that we fight..but instead, all the threads about torture/injustice are about non-Islamic countries..

Sure, there is a scattering of threads about Saudi and their strong laws in regards to women and a few about India and Kashmir but, when it comes to the really evil deeds, the deeds that even countries that are Islamic do, the focus is the US or Israel....

Are we so naive to think that the torture done in countries that are considered "Islamic" is excusable? Or that it doesn't happen? I don't understand...but maybe I just can't....

To me, torture, no matter WHO does it, is inexcusable.
 

Precious Star

Junior Member
One of my sorrows these days is watching Yemen and Syria turn on its own people. Day after day.

I remember the Maher Arar story. The U.S. turned away this Canadian Citizen because he was on an alleged terror list, which was completely bogus. The U.S. sent him to his birthplace, Syria, instead of his home, Canada. He was tortured for days on end.

There are 1 billion muslims in the world. There is no excuse for us not to say anything and to allow muslims to torture other muslims. We cannot sit blindly by and watch muslims being tortured by non-muslim entities, either, of course, and Obama fell down several notches when he refused to close Gitmo. But we must be the examples.
 

Aapa

Mirajmom
Assalaam walaikum,


Folks...let me tell you something. It is simple. This is a Muslim forum. This is our house. We can be happy Muslims, sad Muslims, mean Muslims, silly Muslims but we are Muslims.

JenGov and Septithol you are not Muslims. Neither one wants to be Muslims. If you do not like the views, TOO BAD.

This is about Muslims for Muslims and for those who wish to be right and revert to Islam.

As for the rest..I do not care what you think or do not think. You are not Muslim. And I am tired of worrying about you. You do not Believe so why should I care...

Back to the post,

I apologize.

Precious Star...if we take a look at history we understand that the bloodbaths are due to resources and the like. It goes back to the needs of the Zionistst. Obama is a puppet helping to rob the people dry and give to his masters.
 

islamirama

www.netmuslims.com
My question would be this: Are there any Islamic countries that practice torture? If so, why not mention them, if you have a real problem with the idea of torture?

There are no Islamic countries in the world. There are only Muslim countries, just as there are christian nations and not Christianized nations. Christians and Muslims both are humans like everyone else and where there is human and shayateen, there is bound to be some evil. People who deviate from God and His path will commit evil, regardless of what country they are in. Btw, most of US tortures are exported to other countries, including Muslim countries. Most Muslims are secular these days and that is why we see them doing evil things, torture itself is not allowed in Islam and even it is said that torture is worst then death. Which is much different than Christian world where whoever could keep a person alive the longest while torturing them was rewarded by the Christian rulers.
 

JenGiove

Junior Member
:salam2:

Aapa, Was my post accusatory in any way? No. I was making a simple point since I couldn't understand why the focus was on the United States instead of torture in general. As for declairing us (Septithol and I) "unbelievers", you don't have that right, I'm sorry. It is for Allah alone to judge me and frankly, you don't fit the bill. How long have I been here? Long enough for you to know how to spell my name correctly. You scream about disrespect yet I clearly see that misspelling as a purposeful malignant towards me.

As for this forum being a "Muslim forum" for Muslims..you would be incorrect. This is a public forum meant to be made available to ALL people so long as they follow the guidelines of the forum rules. I have broken no such rules as far as I know so you can either use the ignore option that is provided or accept my presence with temperance.

As for Gitmo, I found this that the rest of the members might not have seen. Contrary to popular belief, the branch of the government known as the Presidential branch does NOT have unilateral powers...though even *I* have to admit that the office is abused on occasion.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...same-s-trial-a-step-toward-closing-gitmo.html

Obama’s Gitmo Breakthrough

Jul 6, 2011 5:05 PM EDT

The choice to try a Somali terror suspect in a U.S. court is the first step toward ending Bush-era detention policies. Karen Greenberg on Obama’s latest progress.

The Obama administration’s decision to try Ahmed Abdulkadir Warsame, a Somali national accused of terrorism, in federal court is the beginning of a new conversation. In the context of the continued existence of Guantanamo as a detention facility and the congressional ban on moving detainees from Guantanamo to the United States—not to mention the successful pressure to move the trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, out of federal court and back to the military commissions system—Obama’s decision is more than a matter of thrust and parry.


With the Warsame decision, the Obama administration has taken its first steps to create a post-Guantanamo world. Warsame was not brought to Gitmo; he was not hidden in a prison in Afghanistan. Since the prison at Guantanamo opened in January 2002, Warsame is essentially the first high-value foreign terror suspect to be rounded up abroad and brought into U.S. custody.



This is a welcome and long-overdue step. And, in many ways, it is the first realization of the president’s promise at the outset of his presidency to close Guantanamo. But if this is to be the beginning of the post-Gitmo world, a whole series of questions begins to open up—questions that the Bush administration sidestepped 10 years ago.


1310006628735.jpg


A U.S. military guard moves an "enemy combatant" within the detention center on September 16, 2010 in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba., John Moore / Getty Images

Among the primary concerns:


  • What are the criteria for whom we detain on terrorism charges? Specifically, on what grounds should the United States detain individuals who are foreign nationals but have not specifically threatened the United States? Warsame was not indicted for targeting the U.S.; he was indicted for material support to association with foreign terrorist organizations.
  • Are we now firmly wed to the idea of capturing high-value detainees on whom there is evidence? Do we now trust our ability as a nation to have the proper intelligence and international cooperation to make these decisions wisely?
  • Is the United States moving closer to a policy of de facto detention without counsel and without charge in the case of terrorism suspects who will be tried on U.S. soil? Warsame was captured in the Persian Gulf region in April and only read his Miranda rights two months later. The Obama administration has accepted the need to get as much information out of suspects as possible prior to indictment. This policy of delaying due process has been developing at least since the case of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the 2009 Christmas Day “underwear” bomber who spent nine hours in custody before being read his Miranda rights.
  • Is the United States determined to become the prosecutors for the world after having served as the detention authority for the war on terror since 9/11?
Obama has firmly embraced the American legal system and its courts as a viable tool in its arsenal against captured terrorism suspects.

With the transfer of Warsame nearly 10 years after 9/11, the Obama administration has done what the Bush administration should have done when it opened Guantanamo in January 2002. Instead of side-stepping the law and its procedures and standards, it has firmly embraced the American legal system and its courts as a viable tool in its arsenal against captured terrorism suspects. The Bush administration should have been much more careful about who they brought into custody. The 800 detainees at Guantanamo were largely individuals on whom the detaining authorities had little or no evidence and who came into U.S. custody via happenstance or bounty trading rather than due to reliable intelligence. Had the standards of the U.S. legal system applied, the Bush administration would not have detained these individuals so recklessly—as


Bush’s release of nearly 600 of the detainees made clear.



It is good news that Guantanamo may no longer be open for business. But this is only a first step in creating a sustainable system to replace the U.S. detention policy that has defined the war on terror.



Like The Daily Beast on Facebook and follow us on Twitter for updates all day long.


Karen Greenberg, executive director of the Center on Law and Security at New York University, is author of The Least Worst Place: Guantanamo’s First 100 Days.

For inquiries, please contact The Daily Beast at [email protected]


 

Shak78

Junior Member
:salam2:

I don't care what nations say but I would wager that almost all of them, yes including the US, inflict some type of torture on those they hold in custody. It is a nasty little secret but I doubt there is a nation on earth who does not do it sadly.
 

JenGiove

Junior Member
:salam2:

I don't care what nations say but I would wager that almost all of them, yes including the US, inflict some type of torture on those they hold in custody. It is a nasty little secret but I doubt there is a nation on earth who does not do it sadly.


:salam2:

Oh, I completely agree on that point.... :) As much as I hate to admit it, the evidence that the US DOES engage in torture, physical or psychological, is clear...
 

Aapa

Mirajmom
Assalaam walaikum,

Thank you. Now, that it is evident by your consensus back to topic. Torture exists in the US.
The question becomes what do we do about it. Do we support those who oppress by our silence; do we mobilize and fight or most importantly how do we do this the if we were the Sahaba.

Isn't that really more important than quibbling about who tortures best. Torture is wrong. I only know it is not in our faith.
 

islamirama

www.netmuslims.com
:salam2:

Oh, I completely agree on that point.... :) As much as I hate to admit it, the evidence that the US DOES engage in torture, physical or psychological, is clear...

:wasalam:

they not only export it to other countries to carry it out but also do it at home, calling it "aggressive interrogation" techniques, a torture manual that Bush himself condoned on tv.
 
Top