Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T07:35:10.192Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The policy context of torture: A social-psychoioqical analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 April 2010

Herbert C. Kelman
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Acts of torture are conceptualized as crimes of obedience, which are inevitably linked to crimes at higher levels of the hierarchy, where orders are issued, policy is formulated, and the atmosphere conducive to acts of torture is created. The present analysis suggests several conditions under which torture becomes an instrument of State policy and the authority structure of the State is fully utilized to implement that policy: the perception by State authorities that the security of the State is under severe threat — which, at the macro-level, can justify torture and, at the micro-level, contribute to its authorization; the existence of an elaborate and powerful apparatus charged with protecting the security of the State — which, at the macro-level, may lead to the recruitment and training of professional torturers as part of that apparatus and, at the micro-level, contribute to the routinization of torture; and the existence of disaffected ethnic, religious, political, or other groups within (or under the control) of the State that do not enjoy full citizenship rights — which, at the macro-level, may lead to their designation as enemies of the State and appropriate targets for torture and, at the micro-level, their dehumanization.

Type
Detention
Information
International Review of the Red Cross , Volume 87 , Issue 857: Detention , March 2005 , pp. 123 - 134
Copyright
Copyright © International Committee of the Red Cross 2005

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Hersh, Seymour, “Torture at Abu Ghraib”, The New Yorker, Vol. 80, No. 11, 2004, pp. 42–47Google Scholar; Hersh, Seymour, “Chain of command”, The New Yorker, Vol. 80, No. 12, 2004, p. 38–43Google Scholar.

2 See Hersh, Seymour, My Lai 4: A Report on the Massacre and its Aftermath, Vintage Books, New York, 1970Google Scholar; Hersh, Seymour, Cover-up, Random House, New York, 1972.Google Scholar

3 Kelman, Herbert C. and Lawrence, Lee H. [V. Lee Hamilton], “Assignment of responsibility in the case of Lt. Calley: Preliminary report on a national survey”, Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 28, No. 1, 1972, pp. 177–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kelman, Herbert C. and Hamilton, V. Lee, “Availability for violence: A study of U.S. public reactions to the trial of Lt. Calley” in: Ben-Dak, Joseph D. (ed.), The Future of Collective Violence: Societal and International Perspectives, Studentlitteratur, Lund, Sweden, 1974, pp. 125–142.Google Scholar

4 For relevant documentation, see Danner, Mark, Torture and Truth: America, Abu Ghraib, and the War on Terror, New York Review Books, New York, 2004Google Scholar; and Strasser, Steven, The Abu Ghraib Investigations: The Official Independent Panel and Pentagon Reports on the Shocking Prisoner Abuse in Iraq, PublicAffairs, New York, 2004.Google Scholar

5 The most recent disclosures were in documents obtained and released by the American Civil Liberties Union, including FBI reports that describe severe abuses of prisoners and highly coercive methods of interrogation, going back to Guantanamo Bay in 2002. Some of the FBI agents submitting these field reports expressed the belief that the tactics they observed (and considered both objectionable and unproductive) had high-level approval, coming from the Pentagon and/or the White House. Cf. Kate Zernike, “Newly released reports show early concern on prison abuse”, New York Times, 6 January 2005, pp. Al and A18.

6 Burgers, J. Herman and Danelius, Hans, The United Nations Convention against Torture: A Handbook on the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Dordrecht/Boston/London, 1988, pp. 177–8.Google Scholar

7 Kelman, Herbert C. and Hamilton, V. Lee, Crimes of Obedience: Toward a Social Psychology of Authority and Responsibility, Yale University Press, New Haven and London, 1989, p. 46.Google Scholar

8 Ibid., p. 50.

9 Burgers and Danelius, op. cit. (note 6), p. 178.

10 See Kelman and Hamilton, 1989, op. cit. (note 7), chs. 11 and 12.

11 Berto Jongman, “Why some States kill and torture while others do not”, PIOOM Newsletter, 1991, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 8–11.

12 Peters, Edward, Torture, Basil Blackwell, New York and London, 1985.Google Scholar

13 Heinz, Wolfgang S., “The military, torture and human rights: Experiences from Argentina, Brazil, Chile and Uruguay”, in Crelinsten, Ronald D. and Schmid, Alex P. (eds.), The Politics of Pain: Torturers and their Masters, COMT, University of Leiden, Leiden, The Netherlands, 1993, pp. 73–108.Google Scholar

14 Shaw, Martin, War and Genocide: Organized Killing in Modern Society, Polity Press, Cambridge, UK, 2003.Google Scholar

15 Radtke, H., “Torture as an illegal means of control”, in Bockle, Franz and Pohier, Jacques (eds.), The Death Penalty and Torture, Seabury Press, New York, 1979, pp. 3–15Google Scholar; Gibson, Janice T., “Factors contributing to the creation of a torturer”, in Suedfeld, Peter (ed.), Psychology and Torture, Hemisphere Publishing Corporation, New York, 1990, pp. 77–88.Google Scholar

16 Radtke, op. cit. (note 15); see also Crelinsten, Ronald D., “In their own words: The world of the torturer”, in Crelinsten, Ronald D. and Schmid, Alex P. (eds.), The Politics of Pain: Torturers and their Masters. COMT, University of Leiden, Leiden, The Netherlands, 1993, pp. 39–72.Google Scholar

17 Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, 12 August 1949; Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, 12 August 1949.

18 Kelman, Herbert C., “Violence without moral restraints: Reflections on the dehumanization of victims and victimizers”, journal of Social Issues, Vol. 29, No. 4, 1973, pp. 25–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kelman and Hamilton, 1989, op. cit. (note 7).

19 Gibson, op. cit. (note 15).

20 Faraone, Stephen V., “Psychology's role in the campaign to abolish torture: Can individuals and organizations make a difference?”, in Suedfeld, Peter (ed.), Psychology and Torture, Hemisphere Publishing Corporation, New York, 1990, pp. 185–193Google Scholar. See also Arrigo, Jean Maria, “A utilitarian argument against torture interrogation of terrorists”, Science and Engineering Ethics, Vol. 10, No. 3, 2004, pp. 543–572.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

21 See, for example, Bloche, M. Gregg and Marks, Jonathan H., “When doctors go to war”, The New England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 29, No. 1, 6 January 2005, pp. 3–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

22 Peters, op. cit. (note 12).

23 Radtke, op. cit. (note 15).

24 Peters, op. cit. (note 12).

25 Heinz, op. cit. (note 13).