Under US Law Torture is Always Illegal根據美國法律，酷刑，始終是非法的
By通過 Marjorie Cohn馬喬裡科恩 | What does torture have in common with genocide, slavery, and wars of aggression? | 什麼酷刑有一點是共同與種族滅絕，奴隸制，和侵略戰爭？ They are all jus cogens. Jus cogens is Latin for “higher law” or “compelling law.” This means that no country can ever pass a law that allows torture. 他們都是強制法。強制法是拉丁美洲為“更高的法”或“令人信服的法律” 。這意味著，沒有哪個國家能在任何時候都通過一項法律，允許酷刑。 There can be no immunity from criminal liability for violation of a jus cogens prohibition. 不能有任何免於刑事法律責任，因違反強制法禁止。
The United States has always prohibited the use of torture in our Constitution, laws executive statements and judicial decisions. 美國一直禁止使用酷刑在我們的憲法，法律執行報表和司法決定。 We have ratified three treaties that all outlaw torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. 我們已經批准了三個條約，所有取締酷刑和其他殘忍，不人道或有辱人格的待遇或處罰。 When the United States ratifies a treaty, it becomes part of the Supreme Law of the Land under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. 當美國批准一項條約，它就成為部分的最高法律，土地下至上條憲法。
The Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, says, “No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification for torture.” 該公約禁止酷刑和其他殘忍，不人道或有辱人格的待遇或處罰，說： “任何特殊情況，一個國家是否對戰爭或戰爭威脅，國內政局動盪或任何其他公共緊急狀態，均不得援引為理由酷刑“ 。
Whether someone is a POW or not, he must always be treated humanely; there are no gaps in the Geneva Conventions. 是否有人是一個戰俘或沒有，他必須始終應予以人道待遇;有沒有差距，在日內瓦公約。 He must be protected against torture, mutilation, cruel treatment, and outrages upon personal dignity, particularly humiliating and degrading treatment under, Common Article 3. 他必須受到保護，禁止酷刑，殘害，殘忍的待遇，和侮辱個人尊嚴，特別是侮辱性和有辱人格的待遇下，共同第3條。
In Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, the Supreme Court rejected the Bush administration’s argument that Common Article 3 doesn’t cover the prisoners at Guantánamo. 在哈姆丹訴拉姆斯菲爾德，最高法院拒絕了布什政府的論點，即共同第3條並不包括囚犯在關塔那摩。 Justice Kennedy wrote that 司法堅尼地寫道： 
violations of Common Article 3 are war crimes. 違反共同第3條是戰爭罪行。
We have federal laws that criminalize torture. 我們有聯邦的法律，刑事罪論處酷刑。
The War Crimes Act punishes any grave breach of the Geneva Conventions, as well as any violation of Common Article 3. 戰爭罪行的行為，懲罰的任何嚴重違反了日內瓦公約，以及任何違反共同第3條。 That includes torture, willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, and inhuman, humiliating or degrading treatment. 包括酷刑，隨意造成重大痛苦或嚴重傷害其身體或健康，和不人道的，侮辱性的或有辱人格的待遇。
The Torture Statute provides for life in prison, or even the death penalty if the victim dies, for anyone who commits, attempts, or conspires to commit torture outside the United States. 酷刑規約的規定，剝奪政治權利終身，或什至死刑，如果受害人死亡，任何人誰承諾，企圖或串謀犯下酷刑美國以外的國家。
The US Army Field Manual’s provisions governing intelligence interrogations prohibit the “use of force, mental torture, threats, insults, or exposure to unpleasant and inhumane treatment of any kind.” Brainwashing, mental torture, or any other form of mental coercion, including the use of drugs, are also prohibited. 美國陸軍實地手冊的規定，情報盤問，禁止“使用武力，精神折磨，威脅，侮辱，或接觸到不愉快的和不人道待遇，任何形式的”洗腦，精神折磨，或任何其他形式的精神脅迫，包括使用藥物，亦不可。 Military personnel who mistreat prisoners can be prosecuted by court-martial under provisions of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. 軍事人才，誰虐待囚犯可被檢控，由軍事法庭的審判下的規定，統一代碼的軍事司法。 These include conspiracy, cruelty and maltreatment, murder, manslaughter, maiming, sodomy, and assault. 這些措施包括陰謀，殘酷和虐待，謀殺，誤殺，致殘，雞姦，及毆打。
In Filartiga v. Peña-Irala , the Second Circuit declared the prohibition against torture is universal, obligatory, specific and definable. 在菲拉爾蒂加五peña -伊臘拉 ，第二個電路宣布禁止酷刑是普遍的，強制性的，具體的和明確的。 Since then, every US circuit court has reaffirmed that torture violates universal and customary international law. 自那時以來，每一個美國巡迴法院已重申，酷刑違反了普遍和國際習慣法。 In the Paquete Habana , the Supreme Court held that customary international law is part of US law. 在paquete哈瓦那 ，最高法院認為，國際習慣法的一部分，美國法律。
The Constitution gives Congress the power to make the laws and the President the duty to carry them out. 憲法賦予國會的權力，使法律和總統的職責，以貫徹落實。 Yet on February 7, 2002, President Bush, relying on memos by lawyers including John Yoo, announced that the Geneva Conventions did not apply to alleged Taliban and Al Qaeda members. 然而， 2002年2月7日，美國總統布什，依靠備忘錄，由律師，包括約翰柳宣布，日內瓦公約並不適用於被指控塔利班和基地組織成員。 Bush said, however, 布什說，不過，
“As a matter of policy, the United States Armed Forces shall continue to treat detainees humanely and, to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity, in a manner consistent with the principles of Geneva.” “作為一個政策問題，美國武裝部隊將繼續以人道對待被拘留者，並以適當的範圍內並與軍事必要性，在一致的方式與原則的日內瓦” 。
But torture is never allowed under our laws. 但酷刑，是決不允許下，我們的法律。
Lawyers in the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel wrote memos at the request of high-ranking government officials in order to insulate them from future prosecution for subjecting detainees to torture. 律師在律政司的法律顧問辦公室的備忘錄寫道，在要求政府高級官員在為了隔離他們的未來被檢控，被拘留者受到酷刑。 In memos dated August 1, 2002 and March 18, 2003, former Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Yoo (Jay Bybee, now a federal judge, signed the 2002 memo), advised the Bush administration that the Department of Justice would not enforce the US criminal laws against torture, assault, maiming and stalking, in the detention and interrogation of enemy combatants. 在備忘錄日期為2002年8月1日和2003年3月18日，前副助理總檢察長約翰柳（傑伊bybee ，現在一名聯邦法官， 2002年簽署了備忘錄） ，建議布什政府表示，該署司法部將不會執行美國刑事法律禁止酷刑，毆打，致殘和纏擾，在拘留和審訊的敵方戰鬥人員。
The federal maiming statute makes it a crime for someone “with the intent to torture, maim, or disfigure” to “cut, bite, or slit the nose, ear or lip, or cut out or disable the tongue, or put out or destroy an eye, or cut off or disable a limb or any member of another person.” It further prohibits individuals from “throwing or pouring upon another person any scalding water, corrosive acid, or caustic substance” with like intent. 聯邦致殘規約使它成為犯罪有人“意圖酷刑，致殘，或disfigure ”到“削減，咬，或縫鼻子，耳朵或唇，或剪下或停用舌頭，或提出或銷毀一隻眼睛，或切斷或禁用肢體或任何會員另一人“還禁止個人從 ” 投擲或潑後，另一人的任何燙水，腐蝕性酸，鹼或物質“與喜歡的意圖。
Yoo said in an interview in Esquire that “just because the statute says — that doesn’t mean you have to do it.” In a debate with Notre Dame Professor Doug Cassell, Yoo said there is no treaty that prohibits the President from torturing someone by crushing the testicles of the person’s child. 柳在接受採訪時說，在君子“只是因為規約說-這並不意味著你必須這樣做。 ”在辯論與巴黎聖母院教授道格卡塞爾，柳說，是沒有條約，禁止總統折磨有人由破碎的睾丸該人的兒童。 In Yoo’s view, it depends on the President’s motive, notwithstanding the absolute prohibition against torture in all circumstances. 在柳的看法，這要看總統的動機，儘管絕對禁止酷刑在所有情況下。
The Torture Convention defines torture as the intentional infliction of severe physical or mental pain or suffering. 酷刑公約的定義的酷刑蓄意造成嚴重的身體或精神遭受重大痛苦。 The US attached an “understanding” to its ratification of the Torture Convention, which added the requirement that the torturer “specifically” intend to inflict the severe physical or mental pain or suffering. 美國重視的一個“理解”其批准酷刑公約，其中補充的規定，即施刑者“具體”打算造成嚴重的身體上或精神上的疼痛或痛苦。 This is a distinction without a difference for three reasons. 這是一個區分，沒有差異，原因有三。
First, under well-established principles of criminal law, a person specifically intends to cause a result when he either consciously desires that result or when he knows the result is practically certain to follow. 首先，根據既定的刑法原則，一個人特別有意造成的結果時，他要么自覺的慾望所造成的，或是當他知道結果是幾乎一定會跟進。
Second, unlike a “reservation” to a treaty provision, an “understanding” cannot change an international legal obligation. 第二，不同的“保留”條約規定， “理解” ，改變不了國際法律義務。
Third, under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, an “understanding” that violates the object and purpose of a treaty is void. 第三，根據維也納公約關於條約法的， “理解”違反的目的和宗旨的條約是無效的。 The claim that treatment of prisoners which would amount to torture under the Torture Convention does not constitute torture under the US “understanding” violates the object and purpose of the Convention, which is to ensure that “no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” The US “understanding” that adds the specific intent requirement is embodied in the US Torture Statute. 聲稱囚犯待遇，其中金額將酷刑下，酷刑公約，並不構成酷刑下，美國的“理解”違反的目的和宗旨的公約，這是確保“任何人不得加以酷刑，或施以殘忍，不人道或有辱人格的待遇或處罰公約“ ，美的”理解“加入具體意圖的規定是體現在美國的酷刑規約。
Nevertheless, Yoo twisted the law and redefined torture much more narrowly than the definitions in the Convention Against Torture and the Torture Statute. 不過，柳扭曲了法律和重新界定酷刑更狹義的定義，比在禁止酷刑公約和規約的酷刑。 Under Yoo’s definition, the victim must experience intense pain or suffering equivalent to pain associated with serious physical injury so severe that death, organ failure or permanent damage resulting in loss of significant body functions will likely result. 柳下的定義，受害人必須的經驗，激烈的疼痛或痛苦相當於疼痛與身體嚴重受傷，嚴重得使患者死亡，器官功能衰竭或造成永久損害，導致重大損失，身體功能，將可能的結果。
Yoo wrote that self-defense or necessity could be used as a defense to war crimes prosecutions for torture, notwithstanding the Torture Convention’s absolute prohibition against torture in all circumstances. 柳中寫道自衛的必要性，或可做為防禦，以戰爭罪起訴酷刑，儘管酷刑公約的絕對禁止酷刑在所有情況下。 There can be no justification for torture. 沒有任何理由可以為酷刑。
After the exposure of the atrocities at Abu Ghraib and the publication of the August 1, 2002 memo, the Department of Justice knew the memo could not be legally defended. 暴露後的暴行，在阿布格萊布和出版的2002年8月1日的備忘錄，律政司知道備忘錄，不能在法律上進行辯護。 That memo was withdrawn as of June 1, 2004. 備忘錄指出，被撤回，截至2004年6月1日。 A new opinion, authored by Daniel Levin, Acting Assistant Attorney General Office of Legal Counsel, is dated December 30, 2004. 一個新的見解，作者丹尼爾萊文，署理助理總檢察長辦公室法律顧問，日期是2004年12月30日。 It specifically rejects Yoo’s definition of torture, and admits that a defendant’s motives to protect national security will not shield him from a torture prosecution. 它明確拒絕柳的酷刑的定義，並承認，被告人的動機，以保障國家安全將不會盾牌，他從一個酷刑起訴。 The rescission of the August 2002 memo constitutes an admission by the Justice Department that the legal reasoning in that memo was wrong. 撤銷2002年8月備忘錄構成一入學，由司法部認為，法律推理在該備忘錄是錯誤的。 But for 22 months, it was in effect, which sanctioned and led to the torture of prisoners in US custody. 但22個月，這是在效果，制裁，並導致酷刑的囚犯在美國關押。
John Yoo admitted the coercive interrogation “policies were part of a common, unifying approach to the war on terrorism.” Yoo and other Department of Justice lawyers, including Jay Bybee, David Addington, William Haynes and Alberto Gonzalez, were part of a common plan to violate US and international laws outlawing torture. 約翰柳承認強制審問“政策的一部分，一個共同的，統一的方法來對恐怖主義的戰爭。 ”柳和其他律政司的律師，包括傑伊bybee ，戴維阿丁頓，威廉海恩斯和部長岡薩雷斯，被一個組成部分的共同計劃違反美國法律和國際法律禁止酷刑。 It was reasonably foreseeable that the advice they gave would result in great physical or mental harm or death to many detainees. 這是合理預見的意見，他們給會導致在重大身體或精神上的傷害或死亡的許多被拘留者。 Indeed, more than 100 have died, many from torture. 事實上，超過100人死亡，許多從酷刑。
ABC News reported last month that the National Security Council Principals Committee consisting of Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, George Tenet, and John Ashcroft met in the White House and micromanaged the torture of terrorism suspects by approving specific torture techniques such as waterboarding. ABC新聞報導，上個月，國家安全會議的校長委員會的切尼，賴斯，拉姆斯菲爾德，國務卿鮑威爾 ， 特尼特，約翰阿什克羅夫特在會見了白宮和micromanaged酷刑的恐怖嫌疑人批准的具體技術，如酷刑作為waterboarding 。 Bush admitted, “Yes, I’m aware our national security team met on this issue. 布什承認， “是的，我知道我們的國家安全團隊會面，在這個問題上。 And I approved.” 我和批准“ 。
These top US officials are liable for war crimes under the US War Crimes Act and torture under the Torture Statute. 這些美國高級官員有可能會被戰爭罪行根據美國戰爭罪法和酷刑下，酷刑規約。 They ordered the torture that was carried out by the interrogators. 他們下令酷刑，這是所進行的審問。 Under the doctrine of command responsibility, used at Nuremberg and enshrined in the Army Field Manual, commanders, all the way up the chain of command to the commander in chief, can be liable for war crimes if they knew or should have known their subordinates would commit them, and they did nothing to stop or prevent it. 根據學說的指揮責任，用在紐倫堡和體現在軍隊領域的手冊，指揮員，所有的方式成立的指揮鏈，向指揮官在行政，可以承擔戰爭罪行，如果他們知道或應該知道他們的下屬會承諾他們，他們沒有制止或防止它。 The Bush officials ordered the torture after seeking legal cover from their lawyers. 布什官員下令酷刑後，尋求法律涵蓋從他們的律師。
But Yoo and the other Justice Department lawyers who wrote the enabling memos are also liable for the same offenses. 但柳和其他司法部律師誰寫有利的備忘錄，也可為同一犯罪行為。 They were an integral part of a criminal conspiracy to violate our criminal laws. 他們是一個不可分割的一個組成部分犯罪陰謀違反了我們的刑事法律。 Yoo admitted in an Esquire interview last month that he knew interrogators would take action based on what he advised. 柳承認，在一個君子採訪上個月說，他知道，審訊者會採取行動的基礎上，他建議。
The President can no more order the commission of torture than he can order the commission of genocide, or establish a system of slavery, or wage a war of aggression. 總統不能更秩序委員會酷刑比他可以下令該委員會的種族滅絕，或設立一個制度的奴役，或發動戰爭的侵略。
A Select Committee of Congress should launch an immediate and thorough investigation of the circumstances under which torture was authorized and rationalized. 一個專責委員會，美國國會應該推出立即和徹底的調查，在何種情況下酷刑，被授權和合理化。 The high officials of our government and their lawyers who advised them should be investigated and prosecuted by a Special Prosecutor, independent of the Justice Department, for their crimes. 高級官員，我們的政府和他們的律師，誰忠告，他們應該調查和起訴是由一名特別檢察官，獨立於司法部，為他們的罪行。
John Yoo, Jay Byee, and David Addington should be subjected to particular scrutiny because of the seriousness of their roles in misusing the rule of law and legal analysis to justify torture and other crimes in flagrant violation of domestic and international law. 約翰柳，傑伊byee ，和大衛阿丁頓都不應受到特別的審議，因為嚴重性，自己的角色在濫用法治和法律的分析，以證明酷刑和其他罪行，公然違反國內法和國際法。
This essay is adapted from Marjorie Cohn’s testimony before the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties 這篇文章是改編自馬喬裡科恩的證詞之前，小組委員會就憲法，公民權利和公民自由
of the House Judiciary Committee . 對眾議院司法委員會 。
Marjorie Cohn is president of the National Lawyers Guild and author of 馬喬裡科恩是主席的全國律師協會和作者 Cowboy Republic 牛仔共和國 . 。
See More: 看到更多的： Torture 酷刑 USA News 美國新聞Have Your Say: Under US Law Torture is Always Illegal 你說：根據美國法律，酷刑，始終是非法的
Please note, only selected comments will be published.請注意，只有選定的評論將出版。
Or discuss this report in our our new forums 或討論這個報告在我們的我們的新論壇
This entry was posted on Thursday, May 8th, 2008 at 11:39 am and is filed under 此項目被張貼在週四， 2008年5月8日在上午11時39分，並提交下 General 一般 . 。 You can follow any responses to this entry through the 您可以按照任何的反應，此項目通過 RSS 2.0 2.0 feed. 餵養。 You can 您可以 leave a response 留下的回應 , or ，或 trackback Trackback跟踪 from your own site. 從你自己的網站。
Free Newsletter 免費通訊 
Related News 相關新聞
- Intelligence chief condemns ‘waterboarding’ as torture情報行政譴責waterboarding '酷刑
- Tasers a form of torture, says UN泰瑟槍一形式的酷刑，說聯合國
- CIA ‘Perfects’ Torture Techniques中情局'完善'酷刑技術
- VIDEO: Ben Griffin Speaks Before Being Gagged視頻：本格里芬說，前gagged
- Bush’s torture ban is full of loopholes布什的酷刑的禁令是充滿漏洞
Email This Page To A Friend 電子郵件此頁給朋友
Latest Headlines 最新的新聞標題
- Peak Food: Blaming the Victims高峰期的食物：指責受害者
- The Challenge Of Modern Slavery挑戰現代奴役
- Ex-MI5 chief warns over detention前軍情五處行政警告以上的拘留
- Abuse Claims Mount Against Pentagon, Contractors虐待索賠山對五角大樓，承建商
- Britain throws away £10bn of food every year英國拋棄100億英鎊的食品，每年
- Does Organic Really Mean Organic?是否有機真正的意思有機？
- The New Whopper: Burger with a Side of Spies新whopper ：漢堡與方間諜
- US/IRAQ: Pressure to Cut Costs, Troops Strains “Surge”我們/伊拉克：壓力，以降低成本，部隊株“風”
- Under US Law Torture is Always Illegal根據美國法律，酷刑，始終是非法的
- Suicide bomber was in Guantánamo, says US自殺炸彈是在關塔納摩說，美國
More更多 Breaking News突發新聞
Archive 存檔