Does the treatment of Bradley Manning, currently in solitary confinement at the Marine Corps Base in Quantico, constitute torture? On the one hand, you have the Quantico brig suggesting that the steps taken are for his own safety and Barack Obama feebly ‘assuring’ us they meet basic standards. On the other hand, you have the brig psychologists maintaining that Manning does not constitute a mental health risk and members of the Government calling his treatment ‘counterproductive and stupid’. The answer to this is so important because, as the aphorism goes, ‘hypocrisy breeds hatred’. In other words, the answer to this is so important because it undermines the US mission to want to spread democracy and human rights throughout the world.
The media has reported that: Manning is in solitary confinement; each night he is forced to remove all of this clothing and sleep naked in his cell; in the morning, he has to stand at the morning roll call completely naked whilst his captors check up on him; he remains in his cell for 23 hours per day where, every five minutes, he has to communicate to them that he is fine; and, if he falls asleep facing in a direction opposite to the door, he is forcibly awoken.
If this was happening in Europe, would the European Court of Human Rights consider it torture? There has been quite a lot of jurisprudence on Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (‘ECHR’) which states that, ‘No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.’ The case law suggests a hierarchy from torture, the most serious form of abuse, to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, constituting less serious abuse.
For both torture and inhuman treatment, however, the court has usually required some form of physical force to overcome the high threshold. Variously, for inhuman treatment it has required ‘if not actual bodily injury, at least intense physical and mental suffering’ and ‘physical force which has not been made strictly necessary by his own conduct’. The problem is that Manning has been exposed to conduct that diminishes his psychological and mental well-being, rather than conduct which harms the integrity of his physical well-being. It is for this reason, some have characterised his treatment as ‘no-touch torture’. If he cannot even claim inhuman treatment, it appears that torture is a long way off the mark.
That is not to say, however, that there is no school of thought which considers Manning’s treatment torture. For example, in the seminal case of Ireland v UK, Evrigenis J disagreed with the Court in maintaining that,
Torture no longer presupposes violence…Torture can be practised…by using subtle techniques developed in multidisciplinary laboratories which claim to be scientific…[aimed at] the disintegration of an individual’s personality, the shattering of his mental and psychological equilibrium and the crushing of his will.
In that same case, Matscher J stated that torture was characterised by ‘systematic, calculated…and prolonged application of treatment causing physical or psychological suffering’. The problem is that these are the exceptions rather than the rule.
Such divergence highlights the major problem with the torture debate: whilst everyone agrees that torture is prohibited, those in power can often confine and distort what counts as torture. For example, George Bush has infamously suggested in his book that he did, and does, not consider waterboarding, aka simulated drowning, torture. Instead, techniques widely believed to be torture have become redefined as ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’. Unfortunately, avoiding the word ‘torture’ does not mean that torture is being avoided.
So whilst Manning’s treatment is unlikely to be considered torture as part of the ECHR at the moment, there is some suggestion that it could evolve to be more inclusive in the future.
Having said that, it is likely that this no-touch torture would currently be classified as ‘degrading treatment or punishment’ under Article 3 ECHR. The European Court has previously defined this as acts which,
arouse in their victims feelings of fear, anguish and inferiority capable of humiliating and debasing them and possibly breaking their physical or moral resistance.
Manning’s treatment seems to be the archetypal example of this. The fact that Manning is apparently at no risk to himself or anyone else highlights this point, as does the suggestion that his captors are doing this in an attempt to obtain Julian Assange-related confessions. Indeed, even if his captors claimed that they had no intention to humiliate him in this way it would be irrelevant.
Fortunately, the UN has recently announced that it is investigating Manning’s situation. Whilst it is likely that they will not consider his treatment as torture they would most likely find these Cold War methods distressing, demeaning and degrading. For the sheer lack of any reasonable aim or proportion, the US would surely be in breach of Article 3 ECHR.
Really interesting article, great question. I know it’s a slightly separate area of case law, but ‘no touch’ violations of Article 3 have been found by ECtHR due to neglect or poor conditions. In Price v United Kingdom (2002) 34 EHRR 53, a tetraplegic woman was jailed for contempt of court. The police and prison failed to support her properly, risking bedsores, and in the end she needed catheterisation. ECtHR (but not domestic courts) found violation of Article 3. Likewise for the UN, the Committee for the Prevention of Torture has in the past found conditions in some care facilities amount to inhuman and degrading treatment (e.g. Pastra care facility, relating to current case of Stanev v Bulgaria). ECtHR is also often quite tough on states providing evidence of why particular treatments are ‘necessary’. It’s possible, then, they might see Manning’s treatment as Article 3 violation, but there’s also been fairly shocking cases which they’ve found don’t meet the threshold (e.g. forcing woman to undergo gynecological exams “so they don’t make false rape allegations” was not deemed severe enough to cross threshold, Juhnke v Turkey).
[...] at Quantico in the state of Virginia, with fears that the Pentagon's 'Cold War methods' may constitute torture. The United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture has been investigating the [...]
Yes, it is torture. He is fed anti-depressants against his will every day. It is a grave violation of human rights and especially the rights of prisoners. In fact, it is Nazistic. They also do not allow him to sleep properly by disturbing him every five minutes-it is a torture by sleep deprivation. Shackling someone and not allowing him movement is cruel punishment. Asking him to strip and take his clothes off is degrading and perverted and should not be used as punishment. Forcing someone to confess under pressure is a violation of human rights and is duress. Such confession should not be valid. Not allowing someone to sleep during the day is unacceptable. Brian Manning is not a traitor or terrorist. He had no intention to kill or cause harm. He is innocent. He is not a terrorist. He is also very young and should be forgiven if his behaviour was not up to the military standards. Otherwise with such treatment no American soldier will take the risk to sign up for the Army and go to war. Those young people should be disciplined and not tortured.