The Line Between Torture and Cruelty - New York Times

The Line Between Torture and Cruelty - New York Times:
"The Line Between Torture and Cruelty

Article Tools Sponsored By
By NICHOLAS BAKALAR
Published: March 6, 2007

The United Nations and the United States government make a distinction between torture on the one hand and “cruel, degrading and inhumane treatment” on the other. But a study published yesterday uses data obtained from survivors to suggest that the distinction does not exist in practice, and may inadvertently provide justification for torture.

The conclusions appear to contradict a Justice Department memorandum of Dec. 30, 2004. Citing the United Nations Convention Against Torture, the memorandum argued that a broad range of interrogation techniques, among them forced standing, hooding, subjection to loud noises and deprivation of sleep, food and drink, might be inhumane but did not constitute torture unless they resulted in “prolonged mental harm.”

“Until now, both sides of the debate have expressed opinions based on personal impressions,” said Dr. Metin BasogluThe United Nations and the United States government make a distinction between torture on the one hand and “cruel, degrading and inhumane treatment” on the other. But a study published yesterday uses data obtained from survivors to suggest that the distinction does not exist in practice, and may inadvertently provide justification for torture.

The United Nations and the United States government make a distinction between torture on the one hand and “cruel, degrading and inhumane treatment” on the other. But a study published yesterday uses data obtained from survivors to suggest that the distinction does not exist in practice, and may inadvertently provide justification for torture.

The conclusions appear to contradict a Justice Department memorandum of Dec. 30, 2004. Citing the United Nations Convention Against Torture, the memorandum argued that a broad range of interrogation techniques, among them forced standing, hooding, subjection to loud noises and deprivation of sleep, food and drink, might be inhumane but did not constitute torture unless they resulted in “prolonged mental harm.”

“Until now, both sides of the debate have expressed opinions based on personal impressions,” said Dr. Metin Basoglu, the lead author of the study. “But these data clearly suggest that you cannot make a distinction between physical forms of torture and something else called ‘cruel and degrading treatment.’ ”

Dr. Basoglu is a psychiatrist and a specialist in trauma studies at King’s College London.

Using structured interviews and diagnostic questionnaires, including an established scale that seeks to draw out information on 46 forms of torture, the researchers examined 279 survivors from the former Yugoslavia. Most had experienced physical and psychological torture.

The interviews were conducted from March 2000 to July 2002, an average of eight years after the subjects had last been tortured.

The study, published in The Archives of General Psychiatry, found that most participants with little or no experience of physical torture nevertheless developed post-traumatic stress disorder at some point, and that some people survived even severe physical torture without suffering the disorder.

The presence of post-traumatic stress disorder or other long-term psychological suffering would therefore not constitute a usable definition for torture, because it would exclude many people who actually were severely physically tortured.

Dr. Israel Liberzon, a professor of psychiatry at the University of Michigan, said the lack of a control group made the findings less compelling.

Dr. Gregg Bloche, a psychiatrist and a professor of law at Georgetown University, said what the researchers did was “artful, even brilliant,” considering the circumstances.

“You can’t design alternative torture regimens,” Dr. Bloche said, “which is what you would have to do to meet the scientific criteria for a controlled clinical trial. You have to work with real survivors.”

The participants in the study were asked to rate types of stress on two 5-point scales — fairly to extremely distressing and slightly controllable to not controllable at all.

The physical torture categories included beating, burning and electric shocks. The other categories included rope bondage, cold showers, excrement in food and deprivation of basic needs like sleep or toilets.

On a scale of 0 to 4, the mean distress rating for physical torture was 3.2 to 3.8. The mean distress ratings for 16 of the 33 nonphysical stressors were in the same range.

For example, sham executions, the fondling of genitals and threats of rape were rated 3.6 to 3.7. On the scale measuring loss of control, there was no difference between physical torture and psychological manipulation.

A spokesman for the Justice Department, Erik Amblin, declined to specify what treatments would be cruel and degrading but would not qualify as torture.

Mr. Amblin did say, however, that “acting with the specific intent of causing prolonged mental harm” would be illegal under United States and international law.

Even though the United Nations Convention prohibits cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment as well as torture, Dr. Basoglu said, “the distinction makes people able to argue that torture is O.K.

“They distinguish low levels of physical pain and high levels, as if that’s what makes the experience traumatic. But it’s not dependent on the amount of pain. It’s the issue of control and the extent of distress one experiences.”