Reply #14: We have existing federal laws against torture

[Solly Mack]

if Shrub won't follow the laws already on the books, he won't follow any news ones either

and if those very same Americans who call torture "frat pranks" didn't give a damn that Shrub was violating federal law before, they won't care about Shrub violating a new torture law either

the problem isn't the lack of a law, the problem is the lack of enforcing existing law.



in addition to the Geneva Convention - The United States also has the below laws regarding torture

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002441----000-.html

The War Crimes Act of 1996
18 U.S.C. § 2441



The War Crimes Act provides federal jurisdiction over prosecutions for "war crimes," which the law defines as "grave breaches" of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, violations of Common Article 3 to the Geneva Conventions, and certain other offenses. These so-called "grave breaches" can include offenses against noncombatants, or surrendered or injured combatants, involving "willful killing, torture or inhuman treatment . . . willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health."

The Act applies whether the crimes are committed "inside or outside the United States," and whether the "person committing such war crime...is a member of the Armed Forces of the United States or a national of the United States." (It does not apply to non-citizens or nationals of the United States.) The statute also applies if the victim is in one of these categories. War crimes committed in the course of declared or undeclared armed conflicts, or during military occupation, are covered by the Act.

The Torture Act of 2000
18 U.S.C. §§ 2340, 2340A, and 2340B

The Torture Act makes it a federal crime for any U.S. national (or anyone later found present in the United States) to commit torture or conspire or attempt to commit torture outside the United States. Crimes under the Torture Act are punishable by fine and/or imprisonment up to 20 years; or, if the victim dies, by life imprisonment or death.

Although the Torture Act is intended to implement the United States' treaty obligations under the Convention Against Torture (which the United States ratified with certain reservations in 1994), there are some important differences between the definition of "torture" under U.S. law and the concept of torture in the Convention, particularly with regard to "mental pain or suffering," which is more narrowly defined in the Torture Act.

The Torture Act defines "'torture' an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control." The law then limits the scope of "severe mental pain or suffering" to mean "prolonged mental harm" resulting from (i) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction upon the victim or a third person of "severe physical pain or suffering"; (ii) the administration or threatened administration upon the victim or a third person of "mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality"; or (iii) the "threat of imminent death" of the victim or a third person. Unlike the U.S. law, the Torture Convention does not require that mental harm be "prolonged," nor does the Convention limit the types of causes for mental harm.

Most non-U.S. nationals fall outside the jurisdiction of the Torture Act, since it only applies to suspected torturers who are U.S. nationals, or who are later found physically present in the United States. Conduct prosecuted under the Torture Act need not, however, be linked to armed conflict, nor must the accused have any connection to the military. As with MEJA and the War Crimes Act, there have been no completed trials under the Torture Act


The Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act of 2000 (MEJA)
18 U.S.C. §§ 3261 - 3267

MEJA provides for federal jurisdiction over crimes committed abroad by civilians who are "accompanying or employed by" the U.S. military. The statute covers all civilian employees of the military, as well as civilian contractors (and subcontractors), employees of contractors (and subcontractors), and dependents residing with these workers. MEJA covers both citizens and non-citizens, except for those who are nationals of, or ordinarily resident in the host country. MEJA also covers discharged and, in some cases, active duty members of the armed services.

MEJA creates no new substantive offenses, but incorporates a range of existing federal criminal offenses that may be used to prosecute defense contractors and others who commit crimes outside U.S. territory. Federal crimes subject to MEJA prosecution include murder, manslaughter, assault, sexual abuse, and the criminal statute prohibiting "deprivation of rights under color of law." Federal law sanctions not just those directly responsible for committing such acts, but all those who assist, abet, or order such crimes, as well as those who help conceal them. (These laws can be found at 18 U.S.C. ?? 2-4.)

To date, there have been almost no cases in court that rely on MEJA powers. Proposed regulations under the statute were issued for comment in February 2004, but have not yet become final. As of June 2004, one MEJA case had been filed, but not yet gone to trial, in federal court in Los Angeles. That case involves charges of murder against the spouse of an Air Force officer stationed abroad.

One possible problem with application of MEJA to crimes committed in Abu Ghraib and other U.S. detention centers in Iraq or elsewhere is that it does not extend to members of, or contractors to, non-military agencies such as the CIA. Only those working with or accompanying the U.S. military are covered by MEJA.

http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/us_law/detainees/us_torture_laws.htm