oncampuspoll
Loading ...BookTalk
- Mo Yee Lee, College of Social Work
Mo Yee Lee is a professor in the College of Social Work. - Doug Dangler, Center for the Study and Teaching of Writing
Doug Dangler, associate director of the Center for the Study and Teaching of Writing
- Mo Yee Lee, College of Social Work
asktheexpert
Right now on the Board:
Gregory Travalio, Law
Posted on | June 3, 2009 | 1,408 views |
Gregory Travalio is the Lawrence D. Stanley Professor of Law Emeritus at the Moritz College of Law and an expert in military law.
Why is there such a debate over what constitutes torture or enhanced interrogation techniques?
The Geneva Conventions seem pretty straightforward. While there are a variety of international agreements to which the United States is a party that prohibit (1) torture and (2) cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, they either have no definition of these terms or definitions that are sufficiently general to permit considerable latitude in interpretation. The United Nations Convention Against Torture defines “torture” in part as “any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted upon a person…” In the infamous “torture memos” this language was interpreted very restrictively to require, for example, that there be a “specific intent” to cause the severe pain and suffering, and that to be “severe” the pain and suffering must be such that death, organ failure or permanent loss of a significant bodily function will result. While this interpretation seems unreasonably restrictive, it illustrates the difficulty that sometimes attends in determining whether a specific practice constitutes torture. Nowhere in any applicable treaty or other law are specific practices constituting torture elaborated or detailed examples given.
Also, the “Global War on Terrorism” is a conflict that does not fit neatly within the categories of conflict in the Geneva Conventions, which were drafted in the aftermath of WWII and did not contemplate a world conflict between a nation (or nations) and non-state actors. The Bush Administration took the position that the Geneva Conventions are completely irrelevant to Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups, and of limited applicability to the Taliban.
Should democracies engage in torture or in the name of safety? Is there an alternative?
The policy of the United States government should be that torture will not be used. I say this for at least four reasons. First, it is our international obligation - we are a signatory to the UN Convention, and it is our legal responsibility to abstain from torture. Second, acceptance of torture in even limited circumstances inevitably leads to over-reliance upon it and its overuse. Third, I think President Obama is correct - we do more to foster our values by abstaining from such treatment, even when it might yield results, than the benefit gained from it. Finally, the jury is still out as to when, if ever, torture even works. Having said all of that, it is a dangerous world, and there are people out there who have dedicated their lives, and who will adopt any means, to do us ill. There will be difficult choices, and it will not always be easy to determine what is permitted and what is effective; those who say otherwise are either naive or engaging in “ethical grandstanding.”
Comments
2 Responses to “Gregory Travalio, Law”
-
Advertisements
From WOSU Newsroom- OSU Athletics News
September 21st, 2009 @ 8:29 pm
I think the policy of the United States not to use torture in exercising the law is great. Torture is not humane and it will always be a sinful act if you put and use your hands as punishments to a criminal act. Values are still needed during these times of more and more predicaments.
September 22nd, 2009 @ 9:11 pm
While I do not think torture should be used as a general rule what if saving lives depended on it? If you had someone in your custody who could tell you how to prevent a terrorist action from taking place would it be worth it? I say it would!!