SUBMITTED TO: MA’AM SADIA TABASSUM
SUBMITTED BY: MAHWISH TABASSUM
REG. NO: --------------
Submission date: 17 April 2013
INTERNATIONAL ISLAMIC UNIVERSITY, ISLAMABAD
Geneva Conventions On Torture6
Definition of Torture under Article 1 CAT7
Ticking Bomb Scenario (TBS)8
How Does US Law Require That Terrorist Suspect Be Treated11 What Laws Prohibit Torture?14
Regional And International Law On The Prohibition Of Torture16 Can a Person be Compelled to Provide Torture?19
Torture of Suspects Held In The US Or Abroad22
Is Torture Acceptable to People Suspectedof Terrorism in Some Cases?24 In Order to Combat International Terrorism, Using Torture to Extract Information From Suspected Terrorist? Accepatable?24
Torture Is Always a Response to an Urgent Threat25
The Use of Torture Against Suspected Terrorist to Obtain Information About Terrorism Activities? And Also if They Know About Future Terrorist Attack Against the US?27 Situations in Which Torture Is Permitted?28
Do US Lose Valueable Information if Torture is Prohibited?28 Remedies Against Torture30
Access to a Medical Examination31
Is Indefinite Detention of Terrorist Suspects Really Constitutional?32
i. Defining torture
ii. Geneva conventions on torture
iii. Ticking Bomb Scenario (TBS)
iv. How does us law require that terrorist suspect be treated what laws prohibit torture? v. Can a person be compelled to provide torture?
vi. Is torture acceptable to people suspected of terrorism in some cases? vii. In order to combat international terrorism, using torture to extract information from suspected terrorist? Accept able? viii. The use of torture against suspected terrorist to obtain information about terrorism activities? And also if they know about future terrorist attack against the US? ix. Situations in which torture is permitted?
x. Do US lose valuable info if torture is prohibited?
xi. Remedies against torture.
xii. Is indefinite detention of terrorist suspects really constitutional?
Torture has also been a major concern in the global “war on terror”, where a number of European countries have been implicated, in particular in the form of complicity in renditions that have often resulted in torture. At present, torture is alive and well, and by no means only at Abu Ghraib prison, where photographs of U.S. soldiers torturing detainees brought the question of torture to center stage in 2004. In that same year, Amnesty International “recorded allegations of torture and ill-treatment in 132 states—two-thirds of the member states of the United Nations,” and in 2005 reported “documented cases” of torture in more than half the nations that sit on the United Nations Commission on Human Rights.
Torture is today prohibited under international law and the domestic laws of most states. The war crimes and crimes against humanity committed during World War II to a sweeping international rejection of most, if not all, aspects of torture, and a number of international treaties have since been adopted to prevent its use.
Torture does not have a clear legal meaning, in part because there have been no general and systematic attempts to map the border between “torture” and “not torture” Why not? One reason may be that, in international human rights instruments, torture is generally twinned with “cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” And both have generally been subject to an absolute prohibition. As a result, while some court judgments have distinguished torture from cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment, the legal result would have been the same in either case. Both run afoul of the law. The distinction between the two might have gotten more precise attention if this distinction corresponded to the line between legality and illegality, but...