的乔治?布什(George w . Bush)政府提供更少的保护,在GCIII,在押人员的“反恐战争“编纂”的法律地位非法战斗”。如果有一个问题,一个人是否是一个合法的战斗,他(或她)必须被视为一个战俘,直到他们的身份已经由一个主管法庭”(GCIII文章5)。如果法庭决定,他是一名非法战斗人员,GCIII下他不被认为是一个保护的人。然而,如果他是一个受保护的人在GCIV他仍有一些保护GCIV,而且必须“对待人类,在审判的情况下,不应被剥夺的权利公约”规定的公平和定期试验(GCIV文章5)。[注3] 日内瓦公约的附加议定书
有两个附加议定书日内瓦公约:协议我(1977),有关保护国际武装冲突的受害者协议二世(1977),关于保护国际性武装冲突的受害者。这些澄清和扩展定义在某些领域,但迄今为止许多国家,包括美国在内,要么没有签署或没有批准。
协议我没有提到折磨但它确实影响战俘的待遇和保护的人。在第五条,协议明确涉及“任命权力和保护他们的替代品”监控,冲突双方约定执行。[72年]协议也扩大合法的战斗在战争的定义“外星人占领,殖民统治和种族主义政权”包括那些公开携带武器,但不穿制服,所以他们现在合法的战士和保护的日内瓦Conventions-although只有在佔领权批准协议。根据最初的约定战士没有一个公认的标志可以被视为罪犯,并可能被执行。它还提到间谍,定义一个雇佣兵。雇佣兵和间谍被认为是非法的战士,而不是保护相同的约定。
协议二世“开发和补充第三条关于保护国际性武装冲突的受害者)1949年8月12日日内瓦公约常见无需修改应用程序的现有条件”(第1条)。不参加或者停止参加敌对行动有权人道对待。行为中禁止对这些人”,暴力的生活,健康和身体或精神健康的人,特别是谋杀以及残忍的酷刑等治疗,切除或任何形式的体罚”(4.条),“暴行在个人尊严,特别是羞辱和有辱人格的待遇、强奸、强迫卖淫和任何形式的强暴猥亵罪”(第4.条e),和“威胁提交任何上述行为”(第4.条h)。[73年]条款在其他文章恳求人道对待敌人人员内部冲突。这些在酷刑,但没有其他条款明确提及酷刑。 其他约定
按照可选的联合国标准的最小规则治疗的囚犯(1955), \体罚,惩罚,放置在一个黑暗的细胞,和所有的残忍、不人道或有辱人格的惩罚应完全禁止作为纪律惩罚犯罪。”[74年]的公民权利和政治权利国际公约》(1966年12月16日),明确禁止酷刑和“残忍、不人道或有辱人格的待遇或处罚”签署。[75年] 欧洲协议
第四条的欧盟基本权利宪章》禁止酷刑。
在1950年的冷战,参与的成员国欧洲委员会签署了欧洲人权公约。该条约的基础上UDHR。它包括提供法院解释条约,和第三条“禁止酷刑”表示;“没有人不受酷刑或不人道或有辱人格的待遇或惩罚。”[76年]
在1978年,欧洲人权法庭裁定五个技术的“感官剥夺“没有酷刑在欧洲人权公约》第三条,不过是“不人道或有辱人格的待遇”[77年](见由英国使用酷刑的指控详情)。这种情况下发生9年前联合国禁止酷刑公约生效,并影响思考什么是酷刑。[78年]
1987年11月26日的成员国欧洲委员会,会议斯特拉斯堡通过了欧洲防止酷刑公约和不人道或有辱人格的待遇或处罚(ECPT)。两个附加议定书修订公约,2002年3月1日生效。该公约建立的委员会预防酷刑监督遵守其规定。 泛美公约
的美洲预防和惩治酷刑公约目前,17个国家批准的美洲自1987年2月28日生效,定义了酷刑比联合国禁止酷刑公约滔滔不绝。
为本公约的目的,应当理解为酷刑行为故意表现,身体或精神痛苦或苦难是对一个人的刑事调查的目的,作为恐吓的手段,个人应得的惩罚,作为预防措施,处罚,或用于任何其他目的。折磨,还应理解为方法的使用在一个人打算消灭个性的受害者或减少他的身体或精神能力,即使他们并不会导致身体疼痛或精神痛苦。
刑讯逼供的概念不包括身体或精神上的痛苦或痛苦的固有的或完全合法的措施的结果,只要他们不包括行为的性能或使用的方法在本文中引用。[79年] 反酷刑条约的监督[编辑]
的伊斯坦布尔的协议一个联合国的官方文档,第一组国际指南文档的酷刑和它的后果。它在1999年成为联合国官方文件。
本法规定的OPCAT,2006年6月22日生效独立国际和国家机构经常访问的地方人们剥夺自由,防止酷刑和其他残忍、不人道或有辱人格的待遇或处罚。每个州批准了OPCAT,根据第17条,至少负责创建或维护一个独立的国家预防酷刑国内一级预防的机制。
欧洲委员会预防酷刑,理由1条欧洲防止酷刑公约,州”,通过访问,检查治疗的人剥夺自由,以加强,如果有必要,保护这样的人从酷刑和不人道或有辱人格的待遇或惩罚”。[80年]
在日内瓦公约的缔约国之间的武装冲突和另一方的代表国际红十字会(ICRC)监控遵守日内瓦公约的签署国,其中包括监控使用酷刑。人权组织,例如国际特赦组织,世界组织反对酷刑,预防协会酷刑工作积极全世界停止使用酷刑和发布报告任何他们认为是酷刑活动。[81年] 市政法律[编辑]
州批准了联合国禁止酷刑公约有一个条约义务包括规定成吗市政法律。许多州因此正式禁止酷刑的法律。然而,这样的法理法律规定绝不是一个证明,事实上的,签署国家不使用酷刑。 为了防止酷刑,许多法律制度对反对自证其罪在处理犯罪嫌疑人或明确禁止过度的力量。 英格兰在约1640(除???废除了刑讯逼供刑罚的强项等由于显示本身苏格兰,英格兰只有1772年废除),1708年,普鲁士1740年,丹麦大约在1770年,俄罗斯在1774年,奥地利和波兰立陶宛联邦1776年1776年1776年,意大利,法国,巴登1831年,日本在1873年。[82年][83年][84年]
最后一个欧洲地区废除法律酷刑是葡萄牙(1828)和广州格拉鲁斯在瑞士(1851)。
1789年法国宣言的人与公民的权利的宪法价值,禁止提交怀疑任何困难没有必要获得他或她的人。成文法明确使酷刑犯罪。此外,成文法禁止警察或者法官审问嫌疑犯宣誓。
随着美国宪法认识到国际习惯法,或者是法律的国家,美国外国人侵权索赔法还提供了法律补救措施在美国酷刑的受害者。特别地,行刑者的法律地位的美国,1980年由一位著名的法律决定,Filartiga诉Pena-Irala,630 F。2 d 876(1980),是,“行刑者,喜欢海盗和奴隶贩子在他之前,humani generis,全人类的敌人。”[85年] 排除在严刑拷打下获得的证据[编辑]
最近的问题在严刑拷打下获得的证据的使用出现了与所谓的起诉反恐战争在英国和美国。 联合王国[编辑]
2011年9月,英国在海外参与酷刑是绝密文件的挖掘人权观察在利比亚。的首席执行官免于酷刑基思最好表示:“如果证实,他们显示了军情六处从事反恐主管与卡扎菲的前情报局长摇尾乞怜的对话,穆萨库萨,“高兴”的英国是如何帮助实现他的手利比亚异见人士Abdel Hakim贝勒哈吉”免于酷刑的网站。在一次下议院讨论2009年7月7日,议员大卫·戴维斯指责英国政府外包酷刑,通过允许Rangzieb Ahmed离开这个国家(尽管他们的证据面前,他后来被判为恐怖主义)到巴基斯坦,说情报局英国情报机构获得批准的折磨艾哈迈德。戴维斯进一步指责政府试图呕吐Ahmed,阻止他来推进他的指控,他被囚禁后回到英国。他说,“所谓的要求,降低他的酷刑的指控:如果他这么做了,他们让他的句子,可能给他一些钱。如果这个请求放弃酷刑
情况是真的,它实在是巨大的。至少是一个犯罪的滥用权力和资金按照政府的竞争战略,并在最坏的情况下串谋妨碍司法公正”。[86年]
2003年,英国驻美大使乌兹别克斯坦,克雷格?默里表示,这是“错误使用酷刑”上收集到的信息。[87年]一致上议院判断2005年12月8日证实了这一立场。他们统治,在英国法律传统,“酷刑和水果”不能在法庭上使用。[88年]但因此获得的信息可以用于英国警察和安全服务”,那将是荒谬的让他们无视信息定时炸弹,如果它被酷刑采购。”[89年]上议院法官因此驳回担心折磨所获取的信息的有效性,这表达了各种安全人员和人权活动人士。
穆雷的指控并没有导致任何调查他的雇主,英国外交部,他辞职是给予纪律处分在2004年反对他。外交和联邦事务部本身正在调查国家审计署因为遭人受害,欺负和恐吓自己的员工。[90年]
穆雷后来说,他觉得他无意中偶然发现了什么被称为代理“酷刑”。[91年]他认为西方国家人们搬到政权和国家在那里知道,酷刑,将提取的信息,提供给他们。[需要引证]
穆雷,他知道从2002年8月,美国中央情报局在押人员塔什干从阿富汗巴格拉姆机场,移交乌兹别克斯坦安全服务(SNB)。我认为,这些都是乌兹别克人——可能是一个错误的假设。我知道美国中央情报局被瑞士央行从后续的审讯获得情报。”他接着说,他当时不知道,任何non-Uzbek公民被空运到乌兹别克斯坦和虽然他研究报告由几个记者和发现他们的报告可信的在这个问题上他不是第一手的权威。[92年] 美国[编辑]
在英国,美国法律禁止使用非法获得的证据或被迫在美国法庭。美国包括保护反对自证其罪第五修正案对其美国联邦宪法,进而作为的基础米兰达警告执法人员问题,个人被逮捕。此外,美国宪法的第八修正案禁止使用“残酷和不寻常的惩罚,”被广泛解读为禁止酷刑。最后,18事项§2340[93年]>。定义和禁止酷刑美国以外的国家。
2008年5月,苏珊?克劳福德官方监督起诉之前在关塔那摩湾的军事法庭,拒绝审判的案例参考卡赫塔因为她说,“我们折磨[他]”。[94年][95年]克劳福德说,技术的组合与明确的医疗后果相当于酷刑的法律定义,,酷刑“污染的一切。”[94年] 在2010年纽约的审判艾哈迈德·凡盖谁是共谋的指控轰炸美国驻坦桑尼亚和肯尼亚大使馆,Lewis Kaplan法官判决证据胁迫下了不可接受的。[96年]执政党排除一个重要证人,他的名字已经从被告在胁迫下提取。[97年]陪审团宣告他280指控和定罪的唯一的阴谋。[96年][97年]
Aspects of torture[edit]
Ethical arguments regarding torture[edit]
Main article: Ethical arguments regarding torture
Torture has been criticized on humanitarian and moral grounds, on the grounds that evidence extracted by torture is unreliable, and because torture corrupts institutions that tolerate it.[99] Besides degrading the victim, torture debases the torturer: American advisors alarmed at torture by their South Vietnamese allies early in the Vietnam War concluded that \his officers and men to fall in to these vices [they] would pursue them for their own sake, for the perverse pleasure they drew from them.\The consequent degeneracy destroyed discipline and morale: \it.\
Organizations like Amnesty International argue that the universal legal prohibition is based on a
universal philosophical consensus that torture and ill-treatment are repugnant, abhorrent, and immoral.[101] But since shortly after the September 11, 2001 attacks there has been a debate in the United States about whether torture is justified in some circumstances. Some people, such as Alan M. Dershowitz and Mirko Bagaric, have argued the need for information outweighs the moral and ethical arguments against torture.[102][103] However, after coercive practices were banned, interrogators in Iraq saw an increase of 50 percent more high-value intelligence. Maj. Gen. Geoffrey D. Miller, the American commander in charge of detentions and interrogations, stated \rapport-based interrogation that recognizes respect and dignity, and having very well-trained interrogators, is the basis by which you develop intelligence rapidly and increase the validity of that intelligence.\Others including Robert Mueller, FBI Director since 5 July 2001, have pointed out that despite former Bush Administration claims thatwaterboarding has \a number of attacks, maybe dozens of attacks\government through what supporters of the techniques call \a single attack and no one has come up with a documented example of lives saved thanks to these techniques.[105][106] On 19 June 2009, the US government announced that it was delaying the scheduled release of declassified portions of a report by the CIA Inspector General that reportedly cast doubt on the effectiveness of the \interrogation\techniques employed by CIA interrogators, according to references to the report contained in several Bush-era Justice Department memos declassified in the Spring of 2009 by the US Justice Department.[107][108][109]
The ticking time bomb scenario, a thought experiment, asks what to do to a captured terrorist who has placed a nuclear time bomb in a populated area. If the terrorist is tortured, he may explain how to defuse the bomb. The scenario asks if it is ethical to torture the terrorist. A 2006 BBC poll held in 25 nations gauged support for each of the following positions:[110]
Terrorists pose such an extreme threat that governments should be allowed to use some degree of torture if it may gain information that saves innocent lives.
Clear rules against torture should be maintained because any use of torture is immoral and will weaken international human rights.
An average of 59% of people worldwide rejected torture. However there was a clear divide between those countries with strong rejection of torture (such as Italy, where only 14% supported torture) and nations where rejection was less strong. Often this lessened rejection is found in countries severely and frequently threatened by terrorist attacks. E.g., Israel, despite its Supreme Court outlawing torture in 1999, showed 43% supporting torture, but 48% opposing, India showed 37% supporting torture and only 23% opposing.[111]
Within nations there is a clear divide between the positions of members of different ethnic groups, religions, and political affiliations, sometimes reflecting distinctions between groups considering themselves threatened or victimized by terror acts and those from the alleged perpetrator groups. For example, the study found that among Jews in Israel 53% favored some degree of torture and only 39% wanted strong rules against torture while Muslims in Israel were overwhelmingly against any use of torture, unlike Muslims polled elsewhere. Differences in general political views also can matter. In one 2006 survey by the Scripps Center at Ohio University, 66% of Americans who identified themselves as strongly Republican supported torture, whereas 24% of those who identified themselves as strongly Democratic.[112] In a 2005 U.S. survey 72% of American Catholics supported the use of torture in some circumstances compared to 51% of American
secularists.[113] A Pew survey in 2009 similarly found that the religiously unaffiliated are the least likely (40 percent) to support torture, and that the more a person claims to attend church, the more likely he or she is to condone torture; among racial/religious groups, white evangelical Protestants were far and away the most likely (62 percent) to support inflicting pain as a tool of interrogation.[114]
Demonstration of waterboarding at a street protest during a visit byCondoleezza Rice to Iceland, May 2008
A Today/Gallup poll \that sizable majorities of Americans disagree with tactics ranging from leaving prisoners naked and chained in uncomfortable positions for hours, to trying to make a prisoner think he was being drowned\
There are also different attitudes as to what constitutes torture, as revealed in an ABC News/Washington Post poll, where more than half of the Americans polled thought that techniques such as sleep deprivation were not torture.[116]
In practice, so-called \that did not involve the \and public debate. In April 2009 a former senior U.S. intelligence official and a former Army psychiatrist stated that the Bush administration applied pressure on interrogators to use the \interrogation\techniques on detainees to find evidence of cooperation between al Qaida and the late Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein's regime.[117] The purported link between al Qaida and Hussein's regime, which has been disproven,[118] was a key political justification for the Iraq War. On 13 May 2009, former NBC News investigative producer Robert Windrem reported, as confirmed by former Iraq Survey Group leader Charles Duelfer, that the Vice President's Office suggested that an interrogation team led by Duelfer waterboard an Iraqi prisoner suspected of knowing about a relationship between al Qaeda and Saddam.[119][120]
On 14 February 2010, in an appearance on ABC's This Week, Vice-President Dick Cheney reiterated his support of waterboarding and \interrogation\techniques for captured terrorist suspects, saying, \was and remain a strong proponent of our enhanced interrogation program.\
Pressed by the BBC in 2010 on his personal view of waterboarding, Presidential Advisor Karl Rove said: \They’re appropriate, they're in conformity with our international requirements and with US law.\
A 15-month investigation by the Guardian and BBC Arabic, published on March 2013, disclosed that the US sent a veteran of the dirty wars in Central America to oversee Iraqi commando units involved in acts of torture during the American-led occupation. These American citizens could theoretically be tried by the International Criminal Court even though the US is not a signatory. But it would have to be referred by the UN security council and, given that the US has a veto on the council, this hypothesis is very improbable.\Reprieve Legal Director Kat Craig said: \latest exposé of human rights abuses shows that torture is endemic to US foreign policy; these are considered and deliberate acts, not only sanctioned but developed by the highest echelons of US security service.\
Utilitarian arguments against torture[edit]