Iraq: Fine line between abuse and
torture By Andrew Tully
WASHINGTON - In response to the reported abuse
of Iraqi prisoners by United States and British guards,
Ghazi Ajil al-Yawir, a member of the US-appointed Iraqi
Governing Council, spoke out on May 1 in Baghdad: "Those
prisoners are not criminals," he said. "They are more
like political prisoners. This incident, this horrible
practice, should not pass just like that. We demand an
official apology from the United States of America to
the Iraqi people and to these prisoners who have been
violated."
Al-Yawir was reacting to photographs
- first shown on US television last week and then
broadcast around the world - that show naked Iraqi
detainees being subjected to sexual humiliation and
other ill treatment in the presence of laughing US
guards at Baghdad's Abu Ghurayb prison.
US
President George W Bush has asked the Pentagon to make
sure that appropriate action is taken against those
responsible for what he called "appalling acts". So far,
severe reprimands have been issued to six officers and
non-commissioned officers who served in supervisory
positions at the prison. A milder "letter of
admonishment" was issued to a seventh officer.
The behavior has been condemned by the Muslim
world and beyond as abuse, an atrocity, a breach of
international conventions, or even torture.
So
are the acts depicted in the photographs torture - or
merely abusive behavior? That is a difficult question to
answer, according to James Ross, the senior legal
adviser to Human Rights Watch in New York. "No one has
been able to put together a clear-cut definition of
where mistreatment ends and torture begins," he told
RFE/RL. "A certain kind of ill treatment, for example,
done once or something done for a short period of time,
may not be torture. But if it is done over an extended
period of time, it could very well be torture."
Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions prohibits
cruel treatment and torture of prisoners, including
"humiliating and degrading treatment". Article 1 of the
United Nation's 1985 Convention Against Torture sets
four conditions for designating an act as torture.
Torture is defined as any act that is intentional; that
causes severe pain or suffering; that is used to obtain
information, punish, intimidate, or coerce; and that has
been authorized by someone acting in an official
capacity.
Ross said the sexual nature of the
poses could be viewed as torture if the subjects suffer
severe psychological damage or if they are from
societies or religions where public sexual - especially
homosexual - activity is forbidden, such as the Muslim
world. "What is simply mistreatment in one place could
amount to torture somewhere else," Ross said. "The
question is, what is the impact on the person who the
harm is being done to?"
Ross also cited the
photograph of an Iraqi prisoner who is standing on a
small box, his head covered by a hood and his hands
attached to wires. The man reportedly was told - falsely
- that if he fell off the box, he would be electrocuted.
If this account is true, Ross said, then the man's
captors probably are guilty of torture because the
victim's fear is just as great even if he falsely
believes that he will be electrocuted.
Amnesty
International has less trouble seeing a distinction
between abuse and torture. In a statement issued on
April 30, it referred to what it called "torture and
ill-treatment" at Abu Ghurayb. Amnesty's Washington
spokesman, Alistair Hodgett, told RFE/RL that the
organization was merely following the lead of the US
government in using the word "torture".
"The US
government itself, in the annual Department of State
reports on human rights practices, describes the type of
abuse that occurred at Abu Ghurayb as torture when it
was perpetrated by other countries. So we only need to
look as far as the US government to see that they
condemned these very same practices as torture," Hodgett
said.
Hodgett said that in the State
Department's most recent report on how governments
honored - or dishonored - human rights in 2003,
countries like Pakistan and Jordan are accused of
similar humiliating behavior, which the report defines
as torture.
But Hodgett said Amnesty does not
use the term "torture" lightly. He said his group always
makes it clear that such behavior might be abuse, but at
times fall short of torture. "We tend to use the
co-joined terms 'ill treatment or torture' or 'ill
treatment that may be tantamount to torture'. The
context matters enormously," he said. "That's why the
definitions reflect that ambiguity. But I think there
are cases that are beyond any dispute as being
tantamount to torture. Not everything that went on at
Abu Ghurayb may have been torture, but at the end of the
day, they're all prohibited."
Both Amnesty
International and Human Rights Watch have joined other
critics in calling for a thorough and independent
investigation of the reports. Some, like al-Yawir of the
Iraqi Governing Council, want the United Nations and the
Red Cross to be involved.
Hodgett, however, said
it is Washington's responsibility to get to the bottom
of the scandal. But Hodgett said the US Defense
Department should not be in charge of the investigation,
noting that the US military has yet to issue a report it
promised on accusations of similar abuse of prisoners in
Afghanistan.
Instead, Hodgett said, the probe
should be handled by a specially created commission like
the one inquiring into the government's preparedness
before the attacks of September 11, 2001. He said only a
commission with such independence will be able to find
out whether the reported abuse was an aberration by a
few military police, or a failure of policy by
overzealous superior officers.
In addition to
the seven officers who have been reprimanded, six
members of a US Army Reserve unit assigned to Abu
Ghurayb prison face court-martial on charges of assault,
cruelty, indecent acts and maltreatment of detainees.
Two civilian contractors were also reportedly involved
in the abuse at the prison.
Bush, meanwhile, is
giving interviews to two Arab networks - al-Arabiya and
the US-sponsored al-Hurra television network - in an
effort to calm the storm swirling around the growing
controversy. When asked by reporters why Bush would not
meet with the Arab network alJazeera, White House
spokesman Scott McClellan would only say the other two
networks "reach a wide range of people in the Middle
East".
Copyright (c) 2004, RFE/RL Inc.
Reprinted with the permission of Radio Free
Europe/Radio Liberty, 1201 Connecticut Ave
NW, Washington DC 20036
