13
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 30:
Line 30: + + + + + +
no edit summary
== Controversy ==
== Controversy ==
It is a matter of dispute whether it serves any valid purpose to distinguish between degrees or levels of torture. To some opponents, "torture is torture" and should always be prohibited. The US maintains that its [[coercive interrogation]] techniques are not "[[torture]]". While this position has met with considerable resistance from legal experts nationwide<ref>http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/04/06/usdom13130.htm</ref>, President [[George W. Bush]] vetoed the [[McCain Amendment]], which was intended to tighten the definition of torture.
It is a matter of dispute whether it serves any valid purpose to distinguish between degrees or levels of torture. To some opponents, "torture is torture" and should always be prohibited. The US maintains that its [[coercive interrogation]] techniques are not "[[torture]]". While this position has met with considerable resistance from legal experts nationwide<ref>http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/04/06/usdom13130.htm</ref>, President [[George W. Bush]] vetoed the [[McCain Amendment]], which was intended to tighten the definition of torture.
On [21 June] [2004], the Justice Department released a memo defining torture only as treatment that can cause, "organ failure or even death." The release of this definition of torture by the Justice Department spurred President Bush to appear on national television the very same day and clarify by saying, "I have never ordered torture. I will never order torture."
On [19 December] [2005], the United States Congress passed a resolution placing a ban on "cruel, inhuman or degrading" treatment of "detainees." This ban was reinforced by the strongly split Supreme Court on [30 June] [2006].
However, on [8 October] [2007], the Justice Department and the CIA released a new memo which asserted that the methods of interogation they were using on the detainees did not count as torture as defined by the Congressional resolution. This has sparked another ongoing controversy between [liberals] and [conservatives] over the ethics the Bush Administration is using to interogate the detainees.
The signatories to the [[Geneva Convention]] <ref>http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/geneva03.htm</ref> in 1949 defined relative classes of persons who may be considered "prisoners". The Bush administration has classified [[terrorist]]s as [[unlawful combatant]]s not associated with any signatory power and maintain previous international conventions have not addressed this classification.
The signatories to the [[Geneva Convention]] <ref>http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/geneva03.htm</ref> in 1949 defined relative classes of persons who may be considered "prisoners". The Bush administration has classified [[terrorist]]s as [[unlawful combatant]]s not associated with any signatory power and maintain previous international conventions have not addressed this classification.