George W. Bush has admitted to the existence of secret CIA prisons. But in the same speech he says “The US does not torture. I have not authorised it and I will not.”
The fact that Bush admits to the prisons is an important step. But his defence that torture has not been used is strange. Naturally it sounds good but it raises the question whether Bush knows what the definition of torture is.
The Bush administration has been struggling with the definition of the word since, at least, August 2002 (Washington Post).
Lets lend a hand – here is a definition in line with customary international law (ICTY, 10 December 1998, Prosecutor v. Anto Furundzija [1998] ICTY 3, § 160)
The UN Convention against Torture definition provides that torture is â??any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctionsâ??.
But even if we ignore legal definitions. An easily understandable idea is that the presence of secret prisons is not good and borderline torture since secret prisons must cause undue stress to those who are interned.