Opinion: U.N. panel discusses issue of U.S. torture

A delegation representing the U.S. appeared before the United Nations Committee Against Torture on Nov. 12 and 13 in Geneva, Switzerland, to reaffirm the United States’ commitment to ban torture.

An occasion such as this demonstrates the U.N.’s moral influence. The public appearance before the U.N. committee compels President Barack Obama’s administration to formally declare its position against torture.

In 2009, Obama gave an executive order prohibiting cruel interrogations and torture.

Advertisement

Yet, ahead of the talks, rumors abounded that the administration was considering reviving the lax Bush-era interpretation of torture, where practices such as waterboarding were considered permissible on terrorists.

However, the Obama administration has assured the committee there are no gaps in their commitment.

Torture is illegal on U.S. soil and anywhere the government has authority, such as U.S. ships, aircrafts and the detention center in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Mary McLeod, the State Department legal adviser, admitted to the panel, “in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, we regrettably did not always live up to our values.”

The U.S. delegation insisted this was in the past.

“We believe that torture, and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment and punishment are forbidden in all places, at all times, with no exceptions,” Tom Malinowski, assistant secretary of state for human rights, told the panel.

However, the U.N. panel cited reservations to U.S. commitment.

Advertisement*

It argued that force-feeding detainees at Guantanamo Bay fell under the statute of cruel treatment.

It also voiced concerns that the U.S. ban does not cover “black site” prisons—places in other countries the government can send terrorism suspects to be “legally” tortured—since U.S. officials are not in authority there.

In addition, U.S. prisoners are not always registered in a timely manner. In this lapse of time, they could be at risk of harm since they are not officially in U.S. custody yet.

At times, this issue may seem of lesser importance to the American public since it generally only affects non-citizens.

Law professor Cindy Buys, director of international law programs, argues human beings should care about how other people are treated.

When the U.S. as a world superpower engages in immoral behavior, it is modeling these actions for the rest of the world. So if it engages in torture, others will follow.

Additionally, the U.N. panel shed light on issues of domestic cruelty in the U.S. referring to police brutality, the use of solitary confinement in prisons and the sentencing of convicts to life without parole.

The committee expressed discontent that solitary confinement and life without parole are even options in the U.S. In Europe, most countries have banned them both.

The committee also expressed concern over the recent protests in Ferguson, Mo. A Moroccan committee member went further to assert, “black people don’t enjoy the same treatment” as others in the U.S.

While those critical of the U.N. argue it is unable to bring change, it is of significant value that a U.N. committee has criticized the U.S. on these issues.

Buys noted that while the impact of U.N. declarations are not immediate, they do influence attitudes about how we treat certain segments of the population.

When the U.S. Supreme Court decides on cases such as these, they refer to national and international public opinion.

So even though the meetings in Geneva were short, there can be optimism that change will occur in regard to the legality of torture and other questionable domestic laws.

Rebekah Nash is a guest columnist pursuing master’s degrees in Teaching English to Speakers of other Languages and Applied Linguistics. She received her undergraduate degree in political science from Concordia University in Montreal, and also studied at the Sciences Politique in Aix-en-Provence, France. 

Advertisement