{"id":65974,"date":"2004-05-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2004-05-18T00:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2004\/05\/18\/manoeuvres-dilatoires-et-semantiques-autour-du-mot-torture\/"},"modified":"2004-05-18T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2004-05-18T00:00:00","slug":"manoeuvres-dilatoires-et-semantiques-autour-du-mot-torture","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2004\/05\/18\/manoeuvres-dilatoires-et-semantiques-autour-du-mot-torture\/","title":{"rendered":"Manoeuvres dilatoires et s\u00e9mantiques autour du mot \u201ctorture\u201d<\/em><\/strong>"},"content":{"rendered":"

Manoeuvres dilatoires et s\u00e9mantiques autour du mot torture<\/h2>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\t18 mai 2004 Le texte ci-dessous<\/a> du groupe FAIR (Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting Media analysis, critiques and activism) donne une id\u00e9e de l’intensit\u00e9 et de la complexit\u00e9 du travail s\u00e9mantique et juridique qui va avoir lieu autour de la question de la d\u00e9finition de mots et d’actes dans le scandale des tortures (d’ailleurs, cette expression est-elle autoris\u00e9e ? Quelle autre employer ?). Tous ces mots doivent \u00eatre envisag\u00e9s dans un contexte fortement marqu\u00e9 par les pressions propagandistes, essentiellement venues de sources gouvernementales, et, d’une fa\u00e7on plus g\u00e9n\u00e9rale, par la pol\u00e9mique consid\u00e9rable qui entoure cette affaire.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tL’approche critique de FAIR est \u00e9videmment int\u00e9ressante. Elle soul\u00e8ve pourtant la question de savoir quelle efficacit\u00e9 r\u00e9elle les autorit\u00e9s et l’establishment<\/em> en g\u00e9n\u00e9ral (dont fait \u00e9videmment partie le New York Times<\/em>) peuvent attendre de ces manoeuvres dilatoires effectu\u00e9es dans le champ s\u00e9mantique, alors qu’existe d’ores et d\u00e9j\u00e0 une image massive d’utilisation syst\u00e9matique de m\u00e9thodes inhumaines et ill\u00e9gales (au regard des lois internationales), et inhumaines parce qu’ill\u00e9gales. Il y a l\u00e0 l’exemple d’une pr\u00e9occupation excessive pour un aspect s\u00e9mantique d’un scandale qui a d’ores et d\u00e9j\u00e0 largement d\u00e9pass\u00e9 ce stade et se trouve dans le domaine de la d\u00e9structuration acc\u00e9l\u00e9r\u00e9e du syst\u00e8me. On retrouve, dans ces pr\u00e9occupations pour ce que les Am\u00e9ricains nomment eux-m\u00eames le micromanagement<\/em> (portant sur des mati\u00e8res annexes et d\u00e9j\u00e0 d\u00e9pass\u00e9es), un r\u00e9flexe habituel des syst\u00e8mes bureaucratiques pour suivre aveugl\u00e9ment des consignes d\u00e9j\u00e0 largement rendues inutiles par la marche des \u00e9v\u00e9nements.<\/p>\n

Harsh Methods Aren’t Torture, Says the NY Times <\/h2>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\tBy FAIR, May 14, 2004<\/strong> <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tThe New York Times, revealing the interrogation techniques the CIA is using against Al-Qaeda suspects, seemed unable to find a source who would call torture by its proper name.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tThe May 13 article, headlined \u00a0\u00bbHarsh CIA Methods Cited in Top Qaeda Interrogation,\u00a0\u00bb described \u00a0\u00bbcoercive interrogation methods\u00a0\u00bb endorsed by the CIA and the Justice Department, including hooding, food and light deprivation, withholding medications, and \u00a0\u00bba technique known as ‘water boarding,’ in which a prisoner is strapped down, forcibly pushed under<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\twater and made to believe he might drown.\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tThe article took pains to explain why, according to U.S. officials, such techniques do not constitute torture: \u00a0\u00bbDefenders of the operation said the methods stopped short of torture, did not violate American anti-torture statutes, and were necessary to fight a war against a nebulous enemy whose strength and intentions could only be gleaned by extracting information from often uncooperative detainees.\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tThe article seemed to accept that the techniques described are something other than torture: \u00a0\u00bbThe tactics simulate torture, but officials say they are supposed to stop short of serious injury.\u00a0\u00bb The implication is that only interrogation methods that cause serious physical harm would be real and not simulated torture.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tThe article quoted no one who said that the CIA methods described were, in fact, torture. Yet it would have been easy to find human rights experts who would describe them as such. The website of Human Rights Watch (http:\/\/www.hrw.org<\/a>) reports that \u00a0\u00bbthe prohibition against torture under international law applies to many measures,\u00a0\u00bb including \u00a0\u00bbnear drowning through submersion in water.\u00a0\u00bb Amnesty International U.S.A. (http:\/\/www.amnestyusa.org<\/a>) names \u00a0\u00bbsubmersion into water almost to the point of suffocation\u00a0\u00bb as a form of torture, and emphasizes that torture \u00a0\u00bbcan be psychological, including threats, deceit, humiliation, insults, sleep deprivation, blindfolding, isolation, mock executions…and the withholding of medication or personal items.\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tThe article did quote the Geneva Conventions’ prohibition against \u00a0\u00bbviolence to life and person, in particular…cruel treatment and torture\u00a0\u00bb and \u00a0\u00bboutrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment.\u00a0\u00bb But it did not quote the definition of \u00a0\u00bbtorture\u00a0\u00bb under international law, contained in the 1984 Convention Against Torture,<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\twhich makes it clear that psychological as well as physical methods of coercion are prohibited. According to the Convention, \u00a0\u00bbtorture\u00a0\u00bb is: <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00a0\u00bbany 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.\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tNoting the Convention’s reference to \u00a0\u00bbconsent or acquiescence\u00a0\u00bb would have been helpful in evaluating the claims made by officials in the article that the U.S. can skirt prohibitions on torture if detainees are formally in the custody of another country. In fact, the Convention Against Torture, which the U.S. signed in 1994, explicitly prohibits sending a person anywhere \u00a0\u00bbwhere there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tIf the Times had included independent human rights or international law experts in the article, this information could have been available to readers. Even talking to military sources could have produced a more straightforward account of what kind of interrogation is prohibited by<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tinternational law; the Wall Street Journal (5\/13\/04), in an article about Iraq prison tactics published the same day as the Times piece, quoted a former Marine judge who admitted that \u00a0\u00bbthere’s no getting around it, we have ignored provisions of the Geneva Convention in favor of gathering intelligence.\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tIn fact, the Times might have looked back to its own archives on the subject to find critics of U.S. detention policies. Some of the information included in the May 13, 2004 article was first reported on March 9, 2003– except the original story quoted Holly Burkhalter of<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tPhysicians for Human Rights, who decried the lack of a \u00a0\u00bbspecific policy that eschews torture.\u00a0\u00bb It also noted critics’ assertion that \u00a0\u00bbtransferring Qaeda suspects to countries where torture is believed common– like Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia– violates American law and<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tthe 1984 international convention against torture, which bans such transfers.\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tWhile the article did impart important information about the tactics being used by American agents to interrogate terrorist suspects, it’s also critical to know whether these methods violate international or domestic law. By relying solely on administration officials to define what torture is and what the U.S. government’s legal obligations are, the New York Times failed to provide the context necessary for readers to make an informed judgment.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\t[Notre recommandation est que ce texte doit \u00eatre lu avec la mention classique \u00e0 l’esprit, Disclaimer: In accordance with 17 U.S.C. 107, this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only..]<\/em><\/strong> <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Manoeuvres dilatoires et s\u00e9mantiques autour du mot torture 18 mai 2004 Le texte ci-dessous du groupe FAIR (Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting Media analysis, critiques and activism) donne une id\u00e9e de l’intensit\u00e9 et de la complexit\u00e9 du travail s\u00e9mantique et juridique qui va avoir lieu autour de la question de la d\u00e9finition de mots et… <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"neve_meta_sidebar":"","neve_meta_container":"","neve_meta_enable_content_width":"","neve_meta_content_width":0,"neve_meta_title_alignment":"","neve_meta_author_avatar":"","neve_post_elements_order":"","neve_meta_disable_header":"","neve_meta_disable_footer":"","neve_meta_disable_title":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[10],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-65974","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-faits-et-commentaires"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/65974","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=65974"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/65974\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=65974"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=65974"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=65974"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}