A Conversation about Torture

I was pleasantly surprised to find that, much to his credit, J.R. Dunn is attentive not just to his readers, but to obnoxious ones like me as well. A recent article of his is titled "The 'Torture' Fraud of the Left." I found disagreement with it and sent a letter to the editor. He responded within minutes. Truthfully, I didn't even think he would have the ability to see it that quickly if he wanted to, but obviously he did and he challenged my letter.

I won't give his response in full unless he agrees to allow me (and I haven't asked as yet since I have no idea if this will continue), but I appreciate him taking the time to respond. So please read his article in full and I will post my letter to him below--grammatical errors and all.

"Sir,

Actually, torture has already been defined by the United Nations as:
"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."


Article3 of the Geneva Conventions prohibits "[v]iolence to life and
person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment
and torture; …outrages upon personal dignity, in particular
humiliating and degrading treatment."


Article 75 prohibits murder, "torture of all kinds, whether physical
or mental," "corporal punishment," and "outrages upon personal
dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment, … and any
form of indecent assault."


The United States is a signatory to all the above. Further, after
WWII, the United States prosecuted Nazis that claimed they only
participated in vershaerfte Vernehmung--what translates, roughly, as
"sharp questioning" or "enhanced Interrogation"--using these
definitions of torture and articles in the Geneva Conventions. Why
not deal with the matter of law and torture as it exists on the books
now? If your argument is that we should withdraw from the Geneva
Conventions, fine, say so. But to say we are not in violation of them
is palpably wrong.


Lastly, if water boarding is not torture, why did the Khmer Rouge find it so useful? If prolonged sleep deprivation is not torture, why was it the preferred method of Stalin? Does it not give you pause to be defending them as well? Does being stripped naked and shackled to a metal bed in a stress position while in a chilled room and having water poured over one's head until shaking violently from hypothermia and then having to be immediately treated by a physician so one doesn't die not qualify as torture? Would you simply dismiss such things as "not commendable" if they happened to US citizens? And as for the "threat of death" being a necessary component of torture in your view, does the death of detainees while in our captivity not prove to you that sometimes the threat of death was, indeed, quite real?"