Comments for PLRC Blog http://www.plrc.org/blog Information supplementing my book "America in Peril" Tue, 06 Jan 2009 12:03:36 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.1 Comment on Mukasey and Human Rights by kent http://www.plrc.org/blog/2008/02/08/mukasey-and-human-rights/#comment-6 kent Thu, 21 Feb 2008 07:53:41 +0000 http://www.plrc.org/blog/2008/02/08/mukasey-and-human-rights/#comment-6 Bob’s piece on “Mukasey and Human Rights” is right on target, except for the title. We need to pay more attention to the role of the global human rights system. The US press has pretty much ignored the international agreement, the Convention Against Torture, which it ratified in 1994. The CAT is available at: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/cat.htm The US issued reservations when it ratified CAT, available at: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/ratification/9.htm#reservations The official globally accepted definition of torture is in article 1 of CAT: “1. For the purposes of this Convention, the term "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.” According to CAT, torture is not permissible ever. No excuses. As stated by the former Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights, B. G. Ramcharan, “No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture (Claude and Weston, Human Rights in the World Community, 3rd edition, p. 67). This prohibition is not ambiguous. When it comes to defining torture, why do the US media focus on the debate within the US, and make no reference to international authorities on this issue? One does not normally consult the alleged perpetrators of crimes for legal definitions. You don’t ask the Mafia lawyer how murder should be defined. Aloha, George Bob’s piece on “Mukasey and Human Rights” is right on target, except for the title. We need to pay more attention to the role of the global human rights system.

The US press has pretty much ignored the international agreement, the Convention Against Torture, which it ratified in 1994. The CAT is available at:

http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/cat.htm

The US issued reservations when it ratified CAT, available at:

http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/ratification/9.htm#reservations

The official globally accepted definition of torture is in article 1 of CAT:

“1. For the purposes of this Convention, the term “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.”

According to CAT, torture is not permissible ever. No excuses. As stated by the former Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights, B. G. Ramcharan, “No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture (Claude and Weston, Human Rights in the World Community, 3rd edition, p. 67). This prohibition is not ambiguous.

When it comes to defining torture, why do the US media focus on the debate within the US, and make no reference to international authorities on this issue? One does not normally consult the alleged perpetrators of crimes for legal definitions. You don’t ask the Mafia lawyer how murder should be defined.

Aloha, George

]]>