"Challenges in Combatting Torture"

I've said it before and I'll claim it again: I absolutely love living in Hyde Park. I know that it probably gets old for me to talk about all of the (free) fantastic educational benefits associated with living in this neighborhood... but it's my blog, so shut up. I'll reap the rewards of someone else's education at the University of Chicago any day.

Last night I attended a lecture at the International House called "Challenges in Combatting Torture." It was a talk given by Juan E. Mendez, who is the current UN Special Rapporteur on Torture. The following is simply a recording of thoughts and feelings and facts from the evening:

By accident, I paid money (donated) for a publication from an organization known as "The Revolutionary Communist Party of the United States," thereby precluding me from ever running for public office. Those four quarters I dug out of my wallet have a bigger impact than I realized. The weird thing is, she didn't LOOK like a communist :)

I walked through a group of people who represent an organization seeking to shut down Tamms Correctional Center. The group is called Tamms Year Ten, and if you are interested please click here for more information. They were holding signs saying "Thank you Juan E. Mendez," "Tamms shocks the conscience," and "I AM a mother." There were various other human rights and torture victim advocacy organizations in the audience as well.

Mr. Mendez is from Argentina, and fits the part with a distinctly European look to his South American business flavor. He seems to carry an understanding of his immensely difficult (most would say impossible) task around with him; even before the speech when he stood with his wife, he appeared burdened. The protesters and advocates in the audience have certainly suffered in some ways, but the worst thing many of the rest of the crowd has experienced (lots of undergraduate students) is the stress created by last term's finals... Mr. Mendez was a striking contrast to this. He was weighted with the look of wisdom that experience provides, and when he started to speak I was struck by the heavy quality of his voice, the education he has in his field, and the depth of personal knowledge and doubt he was willing to share with the audience.

He began by talking about his former work with various torture victim advocacy groups, and then his assignment as "Special Rapporteur to Kofi Annan for the prevention of Genocide." At first thought, this seems like a much more difficult position, filled with the horror of hundreds of thousands and even millions of intentional deaths. Mr. Mendez was quick to say that his current role was the most difficult he had ever faced, for one simply reason: public opinion. "We have to spend time convincing people that torture is evil." He commented that there seems to be a new acceptance of torture (especially in the post-9/11 world community) and that over half the countries in the world practice torture of some kind, though it is banned by international law.

In international law, both acts that constitute torture and those that qualify as "cruel, inhuman, and degrading" are banned. Unfortunately, this international law has little mandate... and typically in a nation, only acts that constitute torture can be prosecuted. In the United States, the so-called "Torture Memos" of the Bush era (Click here for info) declare that "cruel, inhuman, and degrading" treatment is NOT a crime that can be prosecuted. This was somewhat disingenuous, both for cynical reasons of flouting international law, and because the acts described in the memo ARE legally classified as "torture." Additionally, it is apparently not legal (the Supreme Court recently struck down an argument) to charge a corporation or nation with allegations of torture- charges must be filed against the individuals involved. Part of what the Torture Memos did was cover up WHO was actually torturing prisoners, thereby avoiding any prosecution in a legal loophole. It is interesting to me that corporations seem to have unlimited first amendment rights and yet have little culpability for their actions, but no matter. Who ever said the law should make sense?

Mr. Mendez talked about the so-called "exclusionary rule," which is commonly known throughout the United States (thank you, "Law and Order"), and is actually fairly strongly worded in this country. This is the rule that evidence, declarations, or confessions are not legally admissible in court if they were obtained by torture or coercion. This governs police actions throughout the country, but has little impact on federal trials, especially those resulting from the global "War on Terror." In international law, there is a MASSIVE loophole that an elephant could soar through: the language states "Evidence cannot be submitted... KNOWN to be obtained by torture." This places the burden of proof on the victim and the defense, and it is very easy to cover up such actions. Simply by waiting a few days before going to trial, a victim cannot prove that he or she was coerced or tortured into providing a declaration, evidence, or a confession.

The UN Council on Human Rights operates many offices, and while Mr. Mendez's council does have jurisdiction over the 193 countries who participate in the international community (United Nations), their findings and recommendations are non-binding. Additionally, many countries have recognized but not granted authority to the Council on Human Rights... including the United States.

Mr. Mendez ended his portion of the evening by discussing the three ways in which his office addresses torture around the world. Firstly, they deal with individual cases of torture, often resulting from a personal complaint to the office that is then dealt with on a country by country basis. These actions are confidential and, as always, non-binding. Secondly, his office submits semi-annual reports to the General Assembly and the Human Rights Council, typically focusing on a certain theme. The previous two have focused on Commissions of Inquiry regarding torture (which oftentimes circumvent actual justice) and Solitary Confinement. Lastly, the office conducts fact-finding missions to countries around the world. Mr. Mendez stressed that their recommendations are non-binding, but that they do carry some weight when reported on to the General Assembly of the UN.

The evening ended with a question and answer session. A few undergraduates got up and asked questions, feeling what I'm sure was a sense of pride about crafting such deep and thoughtful questions such as "Can you talk more about what you see as challenging?" My tears began to flow when a man from Chile got up to comment on the lecture. He was an older gentleman, maybe in his 60's, who spoke with a heavy accent and fairly broken English. The moment he identified himself as a torture victim of the 1973 Chilean coup d'état, my heart broke in a little way. As I heard his voice struggle and crack into the microphone, challenging Mr. Mendez on his pessimism, tears rolled down my cheeks for the fierce spirit of this revolutionary man. He stood there with the optimism that seems unlikely, given what he had suffered. Mr. Mendez answered the man's charges, alight with flickering hope, by repeating himself: "People never needed convincing before that torture is evil." Extending our definition of what constitutes "warfare" continues to prove problematic, as does the public opinion and culture that surrounds the issue.

What's to be done? Hell if I know.