A variety of torture instruments including, at right, the iron maiden of Nuremberg.

Torture is the act of inflicting severe pain (whether physical or psychological) as a means of punishment, revenge, forcing information or a confession, or simply as an act of cruelty. Throughout history, torture has taken on a wide variety of forms, and has often been used as a method of political re-education, interrogation, punishment, and coercion. In addition to state-sponsored torture, individuals or groups may be motivated to inflict torture on others for similar reasons to those of a state; however, the motive for torture can also be for the sadistic gratification of the torturer.

Torture is prohibited under international law and the domestic laws of most countries in the 21st century. It is considered to be a violation of human rights, and is declared to be unacceptable by Article 5 of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Signatories of the Third Geneva Convention and Fourth Geneva Convention officially agree not to torture prisoners in armed conflicts. Torture is also prohibited by the United Nations Convention Against Torture, which has been ratified by 147 countries.^[1]

National and international legal prohibitions on torture derive from a consensus that torture and similar ill-treatment are immoral, as well as impractical.^[2] Despite these international conventions, organizations that monitor abuses of human rights (e.g. Amnesty International, the International Rehabilitation Council for Torture Victims) report widespread use condoned by states in many regions of the world.^[3] Amnesty International estimates that at least 81 world governments currently practice torture, some of them openly.^[4]

Definitions[link]

Torture, according to the 1984 United Nations Convention Against Torture (an advisory measure of the UN General Assembly) is:

...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 only from, inherent in, or incidental to, lawful sanctions. --UN Convention Against Torture^[5]

This definition was restricted to apply only to nations and to government-sponsored torture and clearly limits the torture to that perpetrated, directly or indirectly, by those acting in an official capacity. It appears to exclude:

1. torture perpetrated by gangs, hate groups, rebels or terrorists who ignore national or international mandates;
2. random violence during war; and
3. punishment allowed by national laws, even if the punishment uses techniques similar to those used by torturers such as mutilation or whipping when practiced as lawful punishment. Some professionals in the torture rehabilitation field believe that this definition is too restrictive and that the definition of politically motivated torture should be broadened to include all acts of organized violence.^[6]

In 1986, the World Health Organization working group introduced the concept of organized violence, which was defined as:^[7]

"The inter-human infliction of significant, avoidable pain and suffering by an organized group according to a declared or implied strategy and/or system of ideas and attitudes. It comprises any violent action that is unacceptable by general human standards, and relates to the victims’ feelings. Organized violence includes “torture, cruel inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment” as in Article 5 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1984). Imprisonment without trial, mock executions, hostage-taking, or any other form of violent deprivation of liberty, also fall under the heading of organized violence."^[8]

An even broader definition was used in the 1975 Declaration of Tokyo regarding the participation of medical professionals in acts of torture:

For the purpose of this Declaration, torture is defined as the deliberate, systematic or wanton infliction of physical or mental suffering by one or more persons acting alone or on the orders of any authority, to force another person to yield information, to make a confession, or for any other reason.^[9]

This definition includes torture as part of domestic violence or ritualistic abuse, as well as in criminal activities. Since 1973 Amnesty International has adopted the simplest, broadest definition of torture:

"Torture is the systematic and deliberate infliction of acute pain by one person on another, or on a third person, in order to accomplish the purpose of the former against the will of the latter."^[10]

History[link]

This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (November 2011)

Impalement of Judeans in a Neo-Assyrian relief.

For most of recorded history, capital punishments were often deliberately painful. Severe historical penalties include the breaking wheel, boiling to death, flaying, disembowelment, crucifixion, impalement, crushing, stoning, execution by burning, dismemberment, sawing, scaphism, or necklacing.^[11] An example from Archaic Greece is the story of the brazen bull proposed to Phalaris in the mid 6th century BC. The Five Pains are an example from Ancient China.

Deliberately painful methods of execution for severe crimes were taken for granted as part of justice until the development of Humanism in 17th century philosophy, and "cruel and unusual punishment" came to be denounced in the English Bill of Rights of 1689. The Age of Enlightenment in the western world further developed the idea of universal human rights. The adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 marks the recognition at least nominally of a general ban of torture by all UN member states. Its effect in practice is limited, however, as the Declaration is not ratified officially and does not have legally binding character in international law, but is rather considered part of customary international law.

Antiquity[link]

The ancient Greeks and Romans used torture for interrogation. Until the 2nd century AD, torture was used only on slaves (with a few exceptions). After this point it began to be extended to all members of the lower classes. A slave's testimony was admissible only if extracted by torture, on the assumption that slaves could not be trusted to reveal the truth voluntarily.^[12]

One of the oldest methods of torture was crucifixion. Its antiquity is indicated in its wide use by the Phoenicians. It was employed also by the Scythians, the Greeks, the Romans, the Persians and the Carthaginians.^[13] Notorious mass crucifixions followed the slave rebellion under Spartacus and the Destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. To frighten other slaves from revolting, Crassus crucified 6,000 of Spartacus' men along the Appian Way from Capua to Rome.^[14] Prior to crucifixion, victims were often savagely whipped with barbed metal lashes, to induce exsanguination (bleeding to death). This had the effect of weakening the condemned and thus speed up what could be an inconveniently long execution process.

Over time the conceptual definition of torture has been expanded and remains a major question for ethics, philosophy, and law, but clearly includes the practices of many subsequent cultures.

Modern scholars find the concept of torture to be compatible with society's concept of Justice during the time of Jesus Christ. Romans, Jews, Egyptians and many others cultures during that time included torture as part of their justice system. Romans had crucifixion, Jews had stoning and Egyptians had desert sun death.^{[citation needed]} All these acts of torture were considered necessary (as to deter others) or good (as to punish the immoral).^[15]

Middle Ages[link]

This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (November 2011)

Medieval torture rack

Medieval and early modern European courts used torture, depending on the crime of the accused and his or her social status. Torture was deemed a legitimate means to extract confessions or to obtain the names of accomplices or other information about a crime. It was permitted by law only if there was already half-proof against the accused.^[16] Often, defendants already sentenced to death would be tortured to force them to disclose the names of accomplices. Torture in the Medieval Inquisition began in 1252 with a papal bull Ad Extirpanda and ended in 1816 when another papal bull forbade its use.

While secular courts often treated suspects ferociously, Will and Ariel Durant argued in The Age of Faith that many of the most vicious procedures were inflicted upon pious heretics by even more pious friars. The Dominicans gained a reputation as some of the most fearsomely innovative torturers in medieval Spain.

Torture was usually conducted in secret, in underground dungeons. By contrast, torturous executions were typically public, and woodcuts of English prisoners being hanged, drawn and quartered show large crowds of spectators, as do paintings of Spanish auto-da-fé executions, in which heretics were burned at the stake.

Early modern period[link]

During the early modern period, the torture of witches took place. In 1613, Anton Praetorius described the situation of the prisoners in the dungeons in his book Gründlicher Bericht Von Zauberey und Zauberern (Thorough Report about Sorcery and Sorcerers). He was one of the first to protest against all means of torture.

Ling Chi – execution by slow slicing – in Beijing around 1904.

In England the trial by jury developed considerable freedom in evaluating evidence and condemning on circumstantial evidence, making torture to extort confessions unnecessary. For this reason in England a regularized system of judicial torture never existed and its use was limited to political cases. Torture was in theory not permitted under English law, but in Tudor and early Stuart times, under certain conditions, torture was used in England. For example the confession of Marc Smeaton at the trial of Anne Boleyn was presented in written form only, either to hide from the court that Smeaton had been tortured on the rack for four hours, or because Thomas Cromwell was worried that he would recant his confession if cross-examined. When Guy Fawkes was arrested for his role in the Gunpowder Plot of 1605 he was tortured until he revealed all he knew about the plot. This was not so much to extract a confession, which was not needed to prove his guilt, but to extract from him the names of his fellow conspirators. By this time torture was not routine in England and a special warrant from King James I was needed before he could be tortured. The wording of the warrant shows some concerns for humanitarian considerations, the severity of the methods of interrogation were to be increased gradually until the interrogators were sure that Fawkes had told all he knew. In the end this did not help Fawkes much as he was broken on the only rack in England, which was in the Tower of London. Torture was abolished in England around 1640 (except peine forte et dure, which was abolished in 1772).

In Colonial America, women were sentenced to the stocks with wooden clips on their tongues or subjected to the "dunking stool" for the gender-specific crime of talking too much.^[17] Certain Native American peoples, especially in the area that later became the eastern half of the United States, engaged in the sacrificial torture of war captives.^[18]

In the 17th century the number of incidents of judicial torture decreased in many European regions. Johann Graefe in 1624 published Tribunal Reformation, a case against torture. Cesare Beccaria, an Italian lawyer, published in 1764 "An Essay on Crimes and Punishments", in which he argued that torture unjustly punished the innocent and should be unnecessary in proving guilt. Voltaire (1694–1778) also fiercely condemned torture in some of his essays.

While in Egypt in 1798, Napoleon Bonaparte wrote to Major-General Berthier that the

barbarous custom of whipping men suspected of having important secrets to reveal must be abolished. It has always been recognized that this method of interrogation, by putting men to the torture, is useless. The wretches say whatever comes into their heads and whatever they think one wants to believe. Consequently, the Commander-in-Chief forbids the use of a method which is contrary to reason and humanity.^[19]

European states abolished torture from their statutory law in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. Sweden and Prussia were the first to do so in 1722 and 1754 respectively; Denmark abolished torture in 1770, Russia in 1774, Austria in 1776, France in 1780, and the Netherlands in 1798. Bavaria abolished torture in 1806 and Württemberg in 1809. In Spain the Napoleonic conquest put an end to torture in 1808. Norway abolished it in 1819 and Portugal in 1826. The Swiss cantons abolished torture in the first half of the 19th century.^[20]

Native Americans scalping and torturing prisoners, published in May 1873

Tortures included the chevalet, in which an accused witch sat on a pointed metal horse with weights strung from her feet.^[21] Sexual humiliation torture included forced sitting on red-hot stools.^[22] Gresillons, also called pennywinkis in Scotland, crushed the tips of fingers and toes in a vice-like device.^[23] The Spanish Boot, or "leg-screw", used mostly in Germany and Scotland, was a steel boot that was placed over the leg of the accused and was tightened. The pressure from the squeezing of the boot would break the shin bone in pieces. An anonymous Scotsman called it "The most severe and cruel pain in the world".^[24] The echelle more commonly known as the "ladder" or "rack" was a long table that the accused would lie upon and be stretched violently. The torture was used so intensely that on many occasions the victim's limbs would be pulled out of the socket and, at times, the limbs would even be torn from the body entirely. On some special occasions a tortillon was used in conjunction with the ladder which would severely squeeze and mutilate the genitals at the same time as the stretching was occurring.^[23] Similar to the ladder was the "lift". It too stretched the limbs of the accused, this time however the victim's feet were strapped to the ground and their arms were tied behind their back before a rope was tied to their hands and lifted upwards. This caused the arms to break before the horrific portion of the stretching began.^[24]

Recent times[link]

Modern sensibilities have been shaped by a profound reaction to the war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by the Axis Powers in the Second World War, which have led to a sweeping international rejection of most if not all aspects of the practice.^[25] Even as many states engage in torture, few wish to be described as doing so, either to their own citizens or to the international community. A variety of devices bridge this gap, including state denial, "secret police", "need to know", a denial that given treatments are torturous in nature, appeal to various laws (national or international), the use of jurisdictional argument and the claim of "overriding need". Throughout history and today, many states have engaged in torture, albeit unofficially.

According to scholar Ervand Abrahamian, although there were several decades of prohibition of torture that spread from Europe to most parts of the world, by the 1980s, the taboo against torture was broken and torture "returned with a vengeance," propelled in part by television and an opportunity to break political prisoners and broadcast the resulting public recantations of their political beliefs for "ideological warfare, political mobilization, and the need to win 'hearts and minds.'"^[26] According to professor Darius Rejali, although dictatorships may have used tortured "more, and more indiscriminately", it was modern democracies, "the United States, Britain, and France" who "pioneered and exported techniques that have become the lingua franca of modern torture: methods that leave no marks."^[27]

Torture has become distressingly common in liberal democracies despite several international treaties such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the UN Convention Against Torture making torture illegal. Despite such international conventions, torture cases continue to arise such as the 2004 Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse scandal committed by military police personnel of the United States Army. The US Constitution and US federal law prohibits the use of torture, yet such human rights violations occurred. Soldiers involved in the violations have been tried and sentenced to prison, and additional court cases are pending on other persons who engaged in such violations. At least one alleged person who engaged in a violation, an alleged homicide, was granted qualified immunity.

According to the findings of Dr. Christian Davenport of the University of Notre Dame, Professor William Moore of Florida State University, and David Armstrong of Oxford University during their torture research, evidence suggests that non-governmental organizations have played the most determinant factor for stopping torture once it gets started.^[28] Preliminary research suggests that it is civil society, not government institutions, that can stop torture once it has begun. Organizations such as Amnesty International serve to expose widespread human rights violations and hold the individuals accountable to the international community.

Historical methods of execution and capital punishment[link]

Torture in the 16th century

For most of recorded history, capital punishments were often cruel and inhumane. Severe historical penalties include breaking wheel, boiling to death, flaying, slow slicing, disembowelment, crucifixion, impalement, crushing, stoning, execution by burning, dismemberment, sawing, decapitation, scaphism, or necklacing.^[29]

Slow slicing, or death by/of a thousand cuts, was a form of execution used in China from roughly 900 AD to its abolition in 1905. According to apocryphal lore, língchí began when the torturer, wielding an extremely sharp knife, began by putting out the eyes, rendering the condemned incapable of seeing the remainder of the torture and, presumably, adding considerably to the psychological terror of the procedure. Successive rather minor cuts chopped off ears, nose, tongue, fingers, toes, and such before proceeding to grosser cuts that removed large collops of flesh from more sizable parts, e.g., thighs and shoulders. The entire process was said to last three days, and to total 3,600 cuts. The heavily carved bodies of the deceased were then put on a parade for a show in the public.^[30]

Impalement was a method of torture and execution whereby a person is pierced with a long stake. The penetration can be through the sides, from the rectum, or through the mouth. This method would lead to slow, painful, death. Often, the victim was hoisted into the air after partial impalement. Gravity and the victim's own struggles would cause him to slide down the pole. Death could take many days. Impalement was frequently practiced in Asia and Europe throughout the Middle Ages. Vlad III Dracula and Ivan the Terrible have passed into legend as major users of the method.^[31]

The breaking wheel was a torturous capital punishment device used in the Middle Ages and early modern times for public execution by cudgeling to death, especially in France and Germany. In France the condemned were placed on a cart-wheel with their limbs stretched out along the spokes over two sturdy wooden beams. The wheel was made to slowly revolve. Through the openings between the spokes, the executioner hit the victim with an iron hammer that could easily break the victim's bones. This process was repeated several times per limb. Once his bones were broken, he was left on the wheel to die. It could take hours, even days, before shock and dehydration caused death. The punishment was abolished in Germany as late as 1827.^[32]

Etymology[link]

The word 'torture' comes from the French torture, originating in the Late Latin tortura and ultimately deriving the past participle of torquere meaning 'to twist'.^[33] The word is also used loosely to describe more ordinary discomforts that would be accurately described as tedious rather than painful; for example, "making this spreadsheet was torture!"

Religious prohibitions[link]

Roman Catholic Church[link]

The Catholic Church, when deciding to allow governments to use in the medieval inquisitions the very methods of torture which they utilized in other criminal procedures, it limited their application to "stop short of danger to life or limb".^[34] The modern Church's views regarding torture have changed drastically which are generally associated with the Enlightenment^{[citation needed]}. Thus, the Catechism of the Catholic Church (published in 1994) condemns the use of torture as a grave violation of Human Rights. In No. 2297-2298 it states:

Torture, which uses physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred is contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity... In times past, cruel practices were commonly used by legitimate governments to maintain law and order, often without protest from the Pastors of the Church, who themselves adopted in their own tribunals the prescriptions of Roman law concerning torture. Regrettable as these facts are, the Church always taught the duty of clemency and mercy. She forbade clerics to shed blood. In recent times it has become evident that these cruel practices were neither necessary for public order, nor in conformity with the legitimate rights of the human person. On the contrary, these practices led to ones even more degrading. It is necessary to work for their abolition. We must pray for the victims and their tormentors.

Laws against torture[link]

On December 10, 1948 the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). Article 5 states, "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."^[35] Since that time, a number of other international treaties have been adopted to prevent the use of torture. Two of these are the United Nations Convention Against Torture and for international conflicts the Geneva Conventions III and IV.

United Nations Convention Against Torture[link]

The United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment came into force in June 1987. The most relevant articles are Articles 1, 2, 3, and the first paragraph of Article 16.

Article 1
1. For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means 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 only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
2. This article is without prejudice to any international instrument or national legislation which does or may contain provisions of wider application.

Article 2
1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.
2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.
3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.

Article 3
1. No State Party shall expel, return ("refouler") or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.
2. For the purpose of determining whether there are such grounds, the competent authorities shall take into account all relevant considerations including, where applicable, the existence in the State concerned of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights.

Article 16
1. Each State Party shall undertake to prevent in any territory under its jurisdiction other acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment which do not amount to torture as defined in article I, when such acts are committed by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. In particular, the obligations contained in articles 10, 11, 12 and 13 shall apply with the substitution for references to torture of references to other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Map of the world with parties to the Convention against Torture shaded dark green, states that have signed but not ratified the treaty in light green, and non-parties in gray

Note several points:

• Article 1: Torture is "severe pain or suffering".^[36] The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) influences discussions on this area of international law. See the section Other conventions for more details on the ECHR ruling.
• Article 2: There are "no exceptional circumstances whatsoever" where a state can use torture and not break its treaty obligations".^[37]
• Article 16: Obliges signatories to prevent "acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment", in "any territory under its jurisdiction".^{[nb 1][nb 2]}

As of June 2008, 145 states are parties to the Convention against Torture, and another nine states have signed but not ratified the treaty.^[38]

Optional Protocol to the UN Convention Against Torture[link]

The Optional Protocol to the Convention Against Torture (OPCAT) entered into force on 22 June 2006 as an important addition to the UNCAT. As stated in Article 1, the purpose of the protocol is to "establish a system of regular visits undertaken by independent international and national bodies to places where people are deprived of their liberty, in order to prevent torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."^[39] Each state ratifying the OPCAT, according to Article 17, is responsible for creating or maintaining at least one independent national preventive mechanism for torture prevention at the domestic level^{[citation needed]}.

Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court[link]

Map of the world with the states parties to the International Criminal Court (as of June 2008) shown in green, states that have signed but not ratified the treaty in orange, and non-parties in gray

The Rome Statute, which established the International Criminal Court (ICC), provides for criminal prosecution of individuals responsible for genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. The statute defines torture as "intentional infliction of severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, upon a person in the custody or under the control of the accused; except that torture shall not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions". Under Article 7 of the statute, torture may be considered a crime against humanity "when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack".^[40] Article 8 of the statute provides that torture may also, under certain circumstances, be prosecuted as a war crime.^[41]

The ICC came into existence on 1 July 2002^[42] and can only prosecute crimes committed on or after that date.^[43] The court can generally exercise jurisdiction only in cases where the accused is a national of a state party to the Rome Statute, the alleged crime took place on the territory of a state party, or a situation is referred to the court by the United Nations Security Council.^[44] The court is designed to complement existing national judicial systems: it can exercise its jurisdiction only when national courts are unwilling or unable to investigate or prosecute such crimes.^[45] Primary responsibility to investigate and punish crimes is therefore reserved to individual states.^[46]

Geneva Conventions[link]

The four Geneva Conventions provide protection for people who fall into enemy hands. The conventions do not clearly divide people into combatant and non-combatant roles. The conventions refer to:

• "wounded and sick combatants or non-combatants"
• "civilian persons who take no part in hostilities, and who, while they reside in the zones, perform no work of a military character"^[47]
• "Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces"
• "Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements"
• "Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power"
• "Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces"
• "Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory"^[48]

The third (GCIII) and fourth (GCIV) Geneva Conventions are the two most relevant for the treatment of the victims of conflicts. Both treaties state in Article 3, in similar wording, that in a non-international armed conflict, "Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms... shall in all circumstances be treated humanely." The treaty also states that there must not be any "violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture" or "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment".^[49][50]

GCIV covers most civilians in an international armed conflict, and says they are usually "Protected Persons" (see exemptions section immediately after this for those who are not). Under Article 32, protected persons have the right to protection from "murder, torture, corporal punishments, mutilation and medical or scientific experiments...but also to any other measures of brutality whether applied by non-combatant or military agents".

GCIII covers the treatment of prisoners of war (POWs) in an international armed conflict. In particular, Article 17 says that "No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted or exposed to unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind." POW status under GCIII has far fewer exemptions than "Protected Person" status under GCIV. Captured enemy combatants in an international armed conflict automatically have the protection of GCIII and are POWs under GCIII unless they are determined by a competent tribunal to not be a POW (GCIII Article 5).

Geneva Convention IV exemptions

GCIV provides an important exemption:

Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention [ie GCIV] as would ... be prejudicial to the security of such State ... In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity (GCIV Article 5)

Also, nationals of a State not bound by the Convention are not protected by it, and nationals of a neutral State in the territory of a combatant State, and nationals of a co-belligerent State, cannot claim the protection of GCIV if their home state has normal diplomatic representation in the State that holds them (Article 4), as their diplomatic representatives can take steps to protect them. The requirement to treat persons with "humanity" implies that it is still prohibited to torture individuals not protected by the Convention.

The George W. Bush administration afforded fewer protections, under GCIII, to detainees in the "War on Terror" by codifying the legal status of an "unlawful combatant". If there is a question of whether a person is a lawful combatant, he (or she) must be treated as a POW "until their status has been determined by a competent tribunal" (GCIII Article 5). If the tribunal decides that he is an unlawful combatant, he is not considered a protected person under GCIII. However, if he is a protected person under GCIV he still has some protection under GCIV, and must be "treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention" (GCIV Article 5).^{[nb 3]}

Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions

There are two additional protocols to the Geneva Convention: Protocol I (1977), relating to the protection of victims of international armed conflicts and Protocol II (1977), relating to the protection of victims of non-international armed conflicts. These clarify and extend the definitions in some areas, but to date many countries, including the United States, have either not signed them or have not ratified them.

Protocol I does not mention torture but it does affect the treatment of POWs and Protected Persons. In Article 5, the protocol explicitly involves "the appointment of Protecting Powers and of their substitute" to monitor that the Parties to the conflict are enforcing the Conventions.^[51] The protocol also broadens the definition of a lawful combatant in wars against "alien occupation, colonial domination and racist regimes" to include those who carry arms openly but are not wearing uniforms, so that they are now lawful combatants and protected by the Geneva Conventions—although only if the Occupying Power has ratified Protocol I. Under the original conventions combatants without a recognisable insignia could be treated as criminals, and potentially be executed. It also mentions spies, and defines who is a mercenary. Mercenaries and spies are considered an unlawful combatant, and not protected by the same conventions.

Protocol II "develops and supplements Article 3 [relating to the protection of victims of non-international armed conflicts] common to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 without modifying its existing conditions of application" (Article 1). Any person who does not take part in or ceased to take part in hostilities is entitled to humane treatment. Among the acts prohibited against these persons are, "Violence to the life, health and physical or mental well-being of persons, in particular murder as well as cruel treatment such as torture, mutilation or any form of corporal punishment" (Article 4.a), "Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment, rape, enforced prostitution and any form of indecent assault" (Article 4.e), and "Threats to commit any of the foregoing acts" (Article 4.h).^[52] Clauses in other articles implore humane treatment of enemy personnel in an internal conflict. These have a bearing on torture, but no other clauses explicitly mention torture.

Other conventions[link]

In accordance with the optional UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (1955), "corporal punishment, punishment by placing in a dark cell, and all cruel, inhuman or degrading punishments shall be completely prohibited as punishments for disciplinary offences."^[53] The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, (16 December 1966), explicitly prohibits torture and "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" by signatories.^[54]

European agreements

Article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union prohibits torture.

In 1950 during the Cold War, the participating member states of the Council of Europe signed the European Convention on Human Rights. The treaty was based on the UDHR. It included the provision for a court to interpret the treaty, and Article 3 "Prohibition of torture" stated; "No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."^[55]

In 1978, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the five techniques of "sensory deprivation" were not torture as laid out in Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, but were "inhuman or degrading treatment"^[56] (see Accusations of use of torture by United Kingdom for details). This case occurred nine years before the United Nations Convention Against Torture came into force and had an influence on thinking about what constitutes torture ever since.^[57]

On 26 November 1987 the member states of the Council of Europe, meeting at Strasbourg, adopted the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (ECPT). Two additional Protocols amended the Convention, which entered into force on 1 March 2002. The Convention set up the Committee for the Prevention of Torture to oversee compliance with its provisions.

Inter-American Convention

The Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, currently ratified by 17 nations of the Americas and in force since 28 February 1987, defines torture more expansively than the United Nations Convention Against Torture.

For the purposes of this Convention, torture shall be understood to be any act intentionally performed whereby physical or mental pain or suffering is inflicted on a person for purposes of criminal investigation, as a means of intimidation, as personal punishment, as a preventive measure, as a penalty, or for any other purpose. Torture shall also be understood to be the use of methods upon a person intended to obliterate the personality of the victim or to diminish his physical or mental capacities, even if they do not cause physical pain or mental anguish.

The concept of torture shall not include physical or mental pain or suffering that is inherent in or solely the consequence of lawful measures, provided that they do not include the performance of the acts or use of the methods referred to in this article.^[58]

Supervision of anti-torture treaties[link]

The Istanbul Protocol, an official UN document, is the first set of international guidelines for documentation of torture and its consequences. It became a United Nations official document in 1999.

Under the provisions of OPCAT that entered into force on 22 June 2006 independent international and national bodies regularly visit places where people are deprived of their liberty, to prevent torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Each state that ratified the OPCAT, according to Article 17, is responsible for creating or maintaining at least one independent national preventative mechanism for torture prevention at the domestic level.

The European Committee for the Prevention of Torture, citing Article 1 of the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture, states that it will, "by means of visits, examine the treatment of persons deprived of their liberty with a view to strengthening, if necessary, the protection of such persons from torture and from inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment".^[59]

In times of armed conflict between a signatory of the Geneva conventions and another party, delegates of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) monitor the compliance of signatories to the Geneva Conventions, which includes monitoring the use of torture. Human rights organizations, such as Amnesty International, the World Organization Against Torture, and Association for the Prevention of Torture work actively to stop the use of torture throughout the world and publish reports on any activities they consider to be torture.^[60]

Municipal law[link]

States that ratified the United Nations Convention Against Torture have a treaty obligation to include the provisions into municipal law. The laws of many states therefore formally prohibit torture. However, such de jure legal provisions are by no means a proof that, de facto, the signatory country does not use torture.

To prevent torture, many legal systems have a right against self-incrimination or explicitly prohibit undue force when dealing with suspects.

England abolished torture in about 1640 (except peine forte et dure, which England only abolished in 1772), Scotland in 1708, Prussia in 1740, Denmark around 1770, Russia in 1774, Austria and Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in 1776, Italy in 1786, France in 1789, Baden in 1831, Japan in 1873.^[61][62][63]

The last European jurisdictions to abolish legal torture were Portugal (1828) and the canton of Glarus in Switzerland (1851).

The French 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, of constitutional value, prohibits submitting suspects to any hardship not necessary to secure his or her person. Statute law explicitly makes torture a crime. In addition, statute law prohibits the police or justice from interrogating suspects under oath.

As the United States Constitution recognizes customary international law, or the law of nations, the U.S. Alien Tort Claims Act also provides legal remedies for victims of torture in the United States. Specifically, the status of torturers under the law of the United States, as determined by a famous legal decision in 1980, Filártiga v. Peña-Irala, 630 F.2d 876 (1980), is that, "the torturer has become, like the pirate and the slave trader before him, hostis humani generis, an enemy of all mankind."^[64]

Exclusion of Evidence Obtained Under Torture[link]

Recently the question of the use of evidence obtained under torture has arisen in connection with prosecutions in the so-called War on Terror in the United Kingdom and the United States.

United Kingdom[link]

In September 2011, UK involvement in torture overseas was brought to light yet again with the unearthing of top secret documents by Human Rights Watch in Libya. Chief Executive of Freedom from Torture Keith Best stated: 'If verified, they show the head of counter-terrorism at MI6 engaged in fawning dialogue with Gaddafi’s former intelligence chief, Musa Kusa, about how "glad" Britain was to help deliver into his hands the Libyan dissident Abdel Hakim Belhadj' on Freedom from Torture website. During a House of Commons debate on 7 July 2009, MP David Davis accused the UK government of outsourcing torture, by allowing Rangzieb Ahmed to leave the country (even though they had evidence against him upon which he was later convicted for terrorism) to Pakistan, where it is said the Inter-Services Intelligence was given the go ahead by the British intelligence agencies to torture Ahmed. Davis further accused the government of trying to gag Ahmed, stopping him coming forward with his accusations, after he had been imprisoned back in the UK. He said, there was "an alleged request to drop his allegations of torture: if he did that, they could get his sentence cut and possibly give him some money. If this request to drop the torture case is true, it is frankly monstrous. It would at the very least be a criminal misuse of the powers and funds under the Government's Contest strategy, and at worst a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice."^[65]

In 2003, the United Kingdom's Ambassador to Uzbekistan, Craig Murray, suggested that it was "wrong to use information gleaned from torture".^[66] In March 2003 he was informed in the London offices of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) by Sir Michael Wood, chief Legal Adviser, that it was not illegal under the UN Convention Against Torture for the UK to obtain or to use intelligence gained under torture, provided the British government itself did not use torture or request that a named individual be tortured.^{[citation needed]}

The unanimous Law Lords judgment on December 8, 2005 confirmed this position. They ruled that, under English law tradition, "torture and its fruits" could not be used in court.^[67] But the information thus obtained could be used by the British police and security services as "it would be ludicrous for them to disregard information about a ticking bomb if it had been procured by torture."^[68] The Law Lords thus dismissed concerns about the validity of information obtained under torture, which have been expressed by various security agents and human rights activists.

Murray's accusations did not lead to any investigation by his employer, the FCO, and he resigned after disciplinary action was taken against him in 2004. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office itself is being investigated by the National Audit Office because of accusations that it has victimized, bullied and intimidated its own staff.^[69]

Murray later stated that he felt that he had unwittingly stumbled upon what has been called "torture by proxy".^[70] He thought that Western countries moved people to regimes and nations where it was known that information would be extracted by torture, and made available to them.^{[citation needed]}

Murray states that he was aware from August 2002 "that the CIA were bringing in detainees to Tashkent from Bagram airport Afghanistan, who were handed over to the Uzbek security services (SNB). I presumed at the time that these were all Uzbek nationals — that may have been a false presumption. I knew that the CIA were obtaining intelligence from their subsequent interrogation by the SNB." He goes on to say that he did not know at the time that any non-Uzbek nationals were flown to Uzbekistan and although he has studied the reports by several journalists and finds their reports credible he is not a firsthand authority on this issue.^[71]

United States[link]

As in the United Kingdom, US law prohibits using evidence obtained illegally or under duress in US courts. The United States includes protection against self-incrimination in the fifth amendment to its federal constitution, which in turn serves as the basis of the Miranda warning, which law enforcement officers issue to individuals upon their arrest. Additionally, the US Constitution's eighth amendment forbids the use of "cruel and unusual punishments," which is widely interpreted as prohibiting torture. Finally, 18 U.S.C. § 2340^[72] et seq. define and forbid torture outside the United States.

In May 2008 Susan Crawford, the official overseeing prosecutions before Military Tribunals at Guantanamo, declined to refer for trial the case of Mohammed al-Qahtani because she said, "we tortured [him]".^[73][74] Crawford said that a combination of techniques with clear medical consequences amounted to the legal definition of torture, and that torture "tainted everything going forward."^[73]

In the 2010 New York trial of Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani who was accused of complicity in the bombing of US embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, Judge Lewis Kaplan ruled evidence obtained under coercion inadmissible.^[75] The ruling excluded an important witness, whose name had been extracted from the defendant under duress.^[76] The jury acquitted him of 280 charges and convicted on only one charge of conspiracy.^[75][76]

Use of torture[link]

"Recent times" in the context of this article is from 10 December 1948, when the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Torture perpetrators[link]

By definition, torture 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. Those most likely to be involved in torture include persons such as:^[77]

• prison officers/detention staff
• the police
• criminals
• the military
• paramilitary forces
• state-controlled contra-guerilla forces

But perpetrators may also include:

• health professionals
• legal professionals
• co-detainees acting with the approval or on the orders of public officials
• death squads

In the context of armed conflicts, torture and other forms of ill-treatment could also be inflicted by:

• opposition forces
• the general population (in a civil war situation)

Torture by proxy[link]

In 2003, Britain's Ambassador to Uzbekistan, Craig Murray, made accusations that information was being extracted under extreme torture from dissidents in that country, and that the information was subsequently being used by Western, democratic countries that officially disapproved of torture.^[78]

The accusations did not lead to any investigation by his employer, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and he resigned after disciplinary action was taken against him in 2004. No misconduct by him was proven. The National Audit Office is investigating the Foreign and Commonwealth Office because of accusations of victimisation, bullying, and intimidating its own staff.^[79]

Murray later stated that he felt that he had unwittingly stumbled upon what others called "torture by proxy"^[80] and with the euphemism of "extraordinary rendition". He thought that Western countries moved people to regimes and nations knowing that torturers would extract and disclose information. Murray alleged that this practice circumvented and violated international treaties against torture. If a country participated in torture by proxy and had signed the UN Convention Against Torture, that country would be in specific breach of Article 3 of that convention.

Aspects of torture[link]

Ethical arguments regarding torture[link]

The examples and perspective in this article may not represent a worldwide view of the subject. Please improve this article and discuss the issue on the talk page. (November 2009)

Torture has been criticized on humanitarian and moral grounds, on the grounds that evidence extracted by torture is unreliable, and because torture corrupts institutions that tolerate it.^[81]

Organizations like Amnesty International argue that the universal legal prohibition is based on a universal philosophical consensus that torture and ill-treatment are repugnant, abhorrent, and immoral.^[82] But since shortly after the September 11, 2001 attacks there has been a debate in the United States about whether torture is justified in some circumstances. Some people, such as Alan M. Dershowitz and Mirko Bagaric, have argued the need for information outweighs the moral and ethical arguments against torture.^[83][84] However, after coercive practices were banned, interrogators in Iraq saw an increase of 50 percent more high-value intelligence. Maj. Gen. Geoffrey D. Miller, the American commander in charge of detentions and interrogations, stated "a rapport-based interrogation that recognizes respect and dignity, and having very well-trained interrogators, is the basis by which you develop intelligence rapidly and increase the validity of that intelligence."^[85] Others including Robert Mueller, FBI Director since July 5, 2001, have pointed out that despite former Bush Administration claims that waterboarding has "disrupted a number of attacks, maybe dozens of attacks", they do not believe that evidence gained by the U.S. government through what supporters of the techniques call "enhanced interrogation" has disrupted a single attack and no one has come up with a documented example of lives saved thanks to these techniques.^[86][87] On June 19, 2009, the US government announced that it was delaying the scheduled release of declassified portions of a report by the CIA Inspector General that reportedly cast doubt on the effectiveness of the "enhanced interrogation" techniques employed by CIA interrogators, according to references to the report contained in several Bush-era Justice Department memos declassified in the Spring of 2009 by the US Justice Department.^[88][89][90]

The ticking time bomb scenario, a thought experiment, asks what to do to a captured terrorist who has placed a nuclear time bomb in a populated area. If the terrorist is tortured, he may explain how to defuse the bomb. The scenario asks if it is ethical to torture the terrorist. A 2006 BBC poll held in 25 nations gauged support for each of the following positions:^[91]

• Terrorists pose such an extreme threat that governments should be allowed to use some degree of torture if it may gain information that saves innocent lives.
• Clear rules against torture should be maintained because any use of torture is immoral and will weaken international human rights.

An average of 59% of people worldwide rejected torture. However there was a clear divide between those countries with strong rejection of torture (such as Italy, where only 14% supported torture) and nations where rejection was less strong. Often this lessened rejection is found in countries severely and frequently threatened by terrorist attacks. E.g., Israel, despite its Supreme Court outlawing torture in 1999, showed 43% supporting torture, but 48% opposing, India showed 37% supporting torture and only 23% opposing.^[92]

Within nations there is a clear divide between the positions of members of different ethnic groups, religions, and political affiliations, sometimes reflecting distinctions between groups considering themselves threatened or victimized by terror acts and those from the alleged perpetrator groups. For example, the study found that among Jews in Israel 53% favored some degree of torture and only 39% wanted strong rules against torture while Muslims in Israel were overwhelmingly against any use of torture, unlike Muslims polled elsewhere. Differences in general political views also can matter. In one 2006 survey by the Scripps Center at Ohio University, 66% of Americans who identified themselves as strongly Republican supported torture, whereas 24% of those who identified themselves as strongly Democratic.^[93] In a 2005 U.S. survey 72% of American Catholics supported the use of torture in some circumstances compared to 51% of American secularists.^[94] A Pew survey in 2009 similarly found that the religiously unaffiliated are the least likely (40 percent) to support torture, and that the more a person claims to attend church, the more likely he or she is to condone torture; among racial/religious groups, white evangelical Protestants were far and away the most likely (62 percent) to support inflicting pain as a tool of interrogation.^[95]

A CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll "found that sizable majorities of Americans disagree with tactics ranging from leaving prisoners naked and chained in uncomfortable positions for hours, to trying to make a prisoner think he was being drowned".^[96]

There are also different attitudes as to what constitutes torture, as revealed in an ABC News/Washington Post poll, where more than half of the Americans polled thought that techniques such as sleep deprivation were not torture.^[97]

In practice, so-called "enhanced interrogation" techniques were employed by the CIA in situations that did not involve the "ticking time bomb" scenario that has been the subject of opinion polls and public debate. In April 2009 a former senior U.S. intelligence official and a former Army psychiatrist stated that the Bush administration applied pressure on interrogators to use the "enhanced interrogation" techniques on detainees to find evidence of cooperation between al Qaida and the late Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein's regime.^[98] The purported link between al Qaida and Hussein's regime, which has been disproven,^[99] was a key political justification for the Iraq War. On May 13, 2009, former NBC News investigative producer Robert Windrem reported, as confirmed by former Iraq Survey Group leader Charles Duelfer, that the Vice President's Office suggested that an interrogation team led by Duelfer waterboard an Iraqi prisoner suspected of knowing about a relationship between al Qaeda and Saddam.^[100][101]

On February 14, 2010, in an appearance on ABC's This Week, Vice-President Dick Cheney reiterated his support of waterboarding and "enhanced interrogation" techniques for captured terrorist suspects, saying, "I was and remain a strong proponent of our enhanced interrogation program."^[102]

Pressed by the BBC in 2010 on his personal view of waterboarding, Presidential Advisor Karl Rove said: "I'm proud that we kept the world safer than it was, by the use of these techniques. They’re appropriate, they're in conformity with our international requirements and with US law."^[103]

Utilitarian arguments against torture[link]

There is a strong utilitarian argument against torture; namely, that there is simply no scientific evidence supporting its effectiveness.^[104]

The lack of scientific basis for the effectiveness of torture as an interrogation techniques is summarized in a 2006 Intelligence Science Board report titled "EDUCING INFORMATION, Interrogation: Science and Art, Foundations for the Future".^[105]

Those favoring torture have however pointed to some specific cases where torture has elicited true information.^[106]

Rejection of torture[link]

A famous example of rejection of the use of torture was cited by the Argentine National Commission on the Disappearance of Persons in whose report, Italian general Carlo Alberto Dalla Chiesa was reputed to have said in connection with the investigation of the disappearance of prime minister Aldo Moro, "Italy can survive the loss of Aldo Moro. It would not survive the introduction of torture."^[107]

Incrimination of innocent people[link]

This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (April 2009)

One well documented effect of torture is that its victims will say or do anything to escape the situation, including untrue "confessions" and implication of others without genuine knowledge, who may well then be tortured in turn. That information may have been extracted from the Birmingham Six through the use of police beatings was counterproductive because it made the convictions unsound as the confessions were worthless. There are rare exceptions, such as Admiral James Stockdale, Medal of Honor recipient, who refused to provide information under torture.

Secrecy[link]

Before the emergence of modern policing, torture was an important aspect of policing and the use of it was openly sanctioned and acknowledged by the authority. The Economist magazine proposed that one of the reasons torture endures is that torture does indeed work in some instances to extract information/confession, if those who are being tortured are indeed guilty.^[108] Depending on the culture, torture has at times been carried on in silence (official denial), semi-silence (known but not spoken about), or openly acknowledged in public (to instill fear and obedience).

In the 21st century, even when states sanction their interrogation methods, torturers often work outside the law. For this reason, some prefer methods that, while unpleasant, leave victims alive and unmarked. A victim with no visible damage may lack credibility when telling tales of torture, whereas a person missing fingernails or eyes can easily prove claims of torture. Mental torture, however can leave scars just as deep and long-lasting as physical torture.^[109] Professional torturers in some countries have used techniques such as electrical shock, asphyxiation, heat, cold, noise, and sleep deprivation, which leave little evidence, although in other contexts torture frequently results in horrific mutilation or death. However the most common and prevalent form of torture worldwide in both developed and under-developed countries is beating.^[110]

Torture methods and devices[link]

A rack in the Tower of London.

The contrast shown between Guy Fawkes' signatures: the one above (a faint, shaky 'Guido') was done immediately after torture; the one below eight days later.^[111]

Physical torture methods have been used throughout recorded history and can range from a beating with nothing more than fist and boot, through to the use of sophisticated custom designed devices such as the rack. Remarkable ingenuity has been shown in the invention of instruments and techniques of physical torture, exploiting medical knowledge of the vulnerabilities of the human body (e.g., the sensitivity of the nail beds to pressure, or of the soles of the feet to heat). Other types of torture can include sensory or sleep deprivation, restraint or being held in awkward or damaging positions, uncomfortable extremes of heat and cold, loud noises or any other means that inflicts severe physical or mental pain. The boundary between torture and legitimate interrogation techniques is not universally agreed. In a separate opinion, at the end of the 1978 in the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) trial "Ireland v. the United Kingdom" (Case No. 5310/71), Judge Zekia stated that "It seems to me permissible, in ascertaining whether torture or inhuman treatment has been committed or not, to apply not only the objective test but also the subjective test. As an example I can refer to the case of an elderly sick man who is exposed to a harsh treatment—after being given several blows and beaten to the floor, he is dragged and kicked on the floor for several hours. I would say without hesitation that the poor man has been tortured. If such treatment is applied on a wrestler or even a young athlete, I would hesitate a lot to describe it as an inhuman treatment and I might regard it as a mere rough handling".^[112]

Psychological torture uses non-physical methods that cause psychological suffering. Its effects are not immediately apparent unless they alter the behavior of the tortured person. Since there is no international political consensus on what constitutes psychological torture, it is often overlooked, denied, and referred to by different names.^{[citation needed]}

Psychological torture is less well known than physical torture and tends to be subtle and much easier to conceal. In practice the distinctions between physical and psychological torture are often blurred.^{[citation needed]} Physical torture is the inflicting of severe pain or suffering on a person. In contrast, psychological torture is directed at the psyche with calculated violations of psychological needs, along with deep damage to psychological structures and the breakage of beliefs underpinning normal sanity. Torturers often inflict both types of torture in combination to compound the associated effects.^{[citation needed]}

Psychological torture also includes deliberate use of extreme stressors and situations such as mock execution, shunning, violation of deep-seated social or sexual norms and taboos, or extended solitary confinement. Because psychological torture needs no physical violence to be effective, it is possible to induce severe psychological pain, suffering, and trauma with no externally visible effects.^{[citation needed]}

Rape and other forms of sexual abuse are often used as methods of torture for interrogative or punitive purposes.^[113]

In medical torture, medical practitioners use torture to judge what victims can endure, to apply treatments that enhance torture, or act as torturers in their own right. Josef Mengele and Shirō Ishii were infamous during and after World War II for their involvement in medical torture and murder.

Pharmacological torture is the use of drugs to produce psychological or physical pain or discomfort.

Tickle torture is an unusual form of torture which nevertheless has been documented, and can be both physically and psychologically painful.^{[114][115][116][117]}

Torture murder[link]

Torture murder involves torture to the point of murder as for punishment in law enforcement agencies of countries that allow torture. Murderers might also torture their victims to death for sadistic reasons.

Effects of torture[link]

The consequences of torture reach far beyond immediate pain. Many victims suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), which includes symptoms such as flashbacks (or intrusive thoughts), severe anxiety, insomnia, nightmares, depression and memory lapses. Torture victims often feel guilt and shame, triggered by the humiliation they have endured. Many feel that they have betrayed themselves or their friends and family. All such symptoms are normal human responses to abnormal and inhuman treatment.^[118]

Organizations like the Freedom from Torture and the Center for Victims of Torture try to help survivors of torture obtain medical treatment and to gain forensic medical evidence to obtain political asylum in a safe country and/or to prosecute the perpetrators.

Torture is often difficult to prove, particularly when some time has passed between the event and a medical examination, or when the torturers are immune from prosecution. Many torturers around the world use methods designed to have a maximum psychological impact while leaving only minimal physical traces. Medical and Human Rights Organizations worldwide have collaborated to produce the Istanbul Protocol, a document designed to outline common torture methods, consequences of torture, and medico-legal examination techniques. Typically deaths due to torture are shown in an autopsy as being due to "natural causes" like heart attack, inflammation, or embolism due to extreme stress.^[119]

For survivors, torture often leads to lasting mental and physical health problems.

Physical problems can be wide-ranging, e.g. sexually transmitted diseases, musculo-skeletal problems, brain injury, post-traumatic epilepsy and dementia or chronic pain syndromes.

Mental health problems are equally wide-ranging; common are post-traumatic stress disorder, depression and anxiety disorder. Psychic deadness, erasure of intersubjectivity, refusal of meaning-making, perversion of agency, and an inability to bear desire constitute the core features of the post-traumatic psychic landscape of torture.^[120]

The most terrible, intractable, legacy of torture is the killing of desire - that is , of curiosity, of the impulse for connection and meaning-making, of the capacity for mutuality, of the tolerance for ambiguity and ambivalence. For these patients, to know another mind is unbearable. To connect with another is irrelevant. They are entrapped in what was born(e) during their trauma, as they perpetuate the erasure of meaning, re-enact the dynamics of annihilation through sadomasochistic, narcissistic, paranoid, or self-deadening modes of relating, and mobilize their agency toward warding off mutuality, goodness, hope and connection. In brief, they live to prove death. And it is this perversion of agency and desire that constitutes the deepest post-traumatic injury, and the most invisible and pernicious of human-rights violations.^[120]

On August 19, 2007, the American Psychology Association (APA) voted to bar participation, to intervene to stop, and to report involvement in a wide variety of interrogation techniques as torture, including "using mock executions, simulated drowning, sexual and religious humiliation, stress positions or sleep deprivation", as well as "the exploitation of prisoners' phobias, the use of mind-altering drugs, hooding, forced nakedness, the use of dogs to frighten detainees, exposing prisoners to extreme heat and cold, physical assault and threatening the use of such techniques against a prisoner or a prisoner's family."^[121]

However, the APA rejected a stronger resolution that sought to prohibit “all psychologist involvement, either direct or indirect, in any interrogations at U.S. detention centers for foreign detainees or citizens detained outside normal legal channels.” That resolution would have placed the APA alongside the American Medical Association and the American Psychiatric Association in limiting professional involvement in such settings to direct patient care. The APA echoed the Bush administration by condemning isolation, sleep deprivation, and sensory deprivation or over-stimulation only when they are likely to cause lasting harm.

Psychiatric treatment of torture-related medical problems might require a wide range of expertise and often specialized experience. Common treatments are psychotropic medication, e.g. SSRI antidepressants, counseling, Cognitive Behavioural Therapy, family systems therapy and physiotherapy.

See Psychology of torture for psychological impact, and aftermath, of torture.

Rehabilitation[link]

The aim of rehabilitation is to empower the torture victim to resume as full a life as possible. Rebuilding the life of someone whose dignity has been destroyed takes time and as a result long-term material, medical, psychological and social support is needed.^[122]

Treatment must be a coordinated effort that covers both physical and psychological aspects. It is important to take into consideration the patients' needs, problems, expectations, views and cultural references.^[122]

The consequences of torture are likely to be influenced by many internal and external factors. Therefore, rehabilitation needs to employ different treatment approaches, taking into account the victims' individual needs, as well as the cultural, social and political environment.^[122]

Rehabilitation centres around the world, notably the members of the International Rehabilitation Council for Torture Victims, commonly offer multi-disciplinary support and counselling, including:

• medical attention / psychotherapeutic treatment
• psychosocial support / trauma treatment
• legal services and redress
• social reintegration.

In the case of asylum seekers and refugees, the services also may include assisting in documentation of torture for the asylum decision, language classes and help in finding somewhere to live and work.^[122]

Rehabilitation of secondary survivors[link]

In the worst case, torture can affect several generations. The physical and mental after-effects of torture often place great strain on the entire family and society. Children are particularly vulnerable. They often suffer from feelings of guilt or personal responsibility for what has happened. Therefore, other members of the survivor’s family – in particular the spouse and children – are also offered treatment and counselling.^[122]

Broken societies[link]

In some instances, whole societies can be more or less traumatized where torture has been used in a systematic and widespread manner. In general, after years of repression, conflict and war, regular support networks and structures have often been broken or destroyed.^[122]

Providing psychosocial support and redress to survivors of torture and trauma can help reconstruct broken societies.^[123] "Rehabilitation centres therefore play a key role in promoting democracy, co-existence and respect for human rights. They provide support and hope, and act as a symbol of triumph over the manmade terror of torture which can hold back the development of democracy of entire societies."^[122]

See also[link]

• Civil rights
• The Center for Victims of Torture
• Death by a Thousand Cuts
• Enhanced interrogation techniques
• International Rehabilitation Council for Torture Victims
• Physicians for Human Rights
• Rehabilitation and Research Centre for Torture Victims
• Freedom from Torture
• Torture trade
• Torture (journal)
• UN International Day in Support of Victims of Torture
• World Organisation Against Torture
• Human Rights
• Political violence
• Genocide
• Counter-insurgency
• Capital punishment
• War
• Famine
• Police brutality

Notes[link]

Footnotes

Citations

Further reading[link]

• Parry, John T. (2010). Understanding Torture: Law, Violence, and Political Identity. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. ISBN 978-0-472-05077-2.
• Schmid, Alex P.; Crelinsten, Ronald D. (1994). The politics of pain: torturers and their masters. Boulder, Colo: Westview Press. ISBN 0-8133-2527-7. 
• Waldron, Jeremy; Colin Dayan (2007). The Story of Cruel and Unusual (Boston Review Books). Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. ISBN 0-262-04239-8. 
• Reddy, Peter (2005). Torture: What You Need to Know, Ginninderra Press, Canberra, Australia. ISBN 1-74027-322-2
• Levinson, Sanford (2006). Torture: A Collection. Oxford University Press, USA. ISBN 0-19-530646-5. 2010
• Scarry, Elaine (1985). The body in pain the making and unmaking of the world. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-504996-9. 
• Conroy, John (2001). Unspeakable Acts, Ordinary People: The Dynamics of Torture. California: University of California Press. ISBN 0-520-23039-6. 
• Rejali, D. M. (1994). Torture & Modernity: Self, Society, and State in Modern Iran. Boulder: Westview Press. 
• Vreeland, James Raymond (2008). Political Institutions and Human Rights: Why Dictatorships enter into the United Nations Convention Against Torture. International Organization. pp. 62(1):65–101. 
• Wantchekon, L. and A. Healy (1999). The "Game" of Torture. Journal of Conflict Resolution. pp. 43(5): 596–609. 

External links[link]

Look up torture in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

Wikiquote has a collection of quotations related to: Torture

Wikimedia Commons has media related to: Torture

Wikisource has original works on the topic: Torture

• Medieval Torture - Development, equipment and techniques in Europe
• Chinese Methods of Torture and Execution Photograph collection at University of Victoria, Special Collections
• CPT Database (by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment)
• Freedom from Torture (mostly free) publications and research
• Atlas of Torture - Overview of the situation of torture and ill-treatment around the world (by the Ludwig Boltzmann Institute of Human Rights (BIM) in Vienna, Austria)
• [1] - The International Rehabilitation Council for Torture Victims (based in Copenhagen, Denmark)

William Wallace
Born	c. 1272 [1] Elderslie, Renfrewshire, Scotland
Died	23 August 1305 (age 33) Smithfield, London, Middlesex, England
Cause of death	Hanged, drawn and quartered
Occupation	Commander in the Scottish Wars of Independence
Religion	Roman Catholic
Children	None recorded
Parents	Alan or Malcolm Wallace (father)

Sir William Wallace (Medieval Gaelic: Uilliam Uallas; modern Scottish Gaelic: Uilleam Uallas; Latin: Guillelmum le Walois de Scotia militem; born c. 1272, died 23 August 1305) was a Scottish knight and landowner who became one of the main leaders during the Wars of Scottish Independence.^[2]

Along with Andrew Moray, Wallace defeated an English army at the Battle of Stirling Bridge in 1297, and was Guardian of Scotland, serving until his defeat at the Battle of Falkirk. In 1305, Wallace was captured in Robroyston near Glasgow and handed over to King Edward I of England, who had him hanged, drawn, and quartered for high treason and crimes against English civilians.

Since his death, Wallace has obtained an iconic status far beyond his homeland. He is the protagonist of the 15th century epic poem The Acts and Deeds of Sir William Wallace, Knight of Elderslie, by Blind Harry. Wallace is also the subject of literary works by Sir Walter Scott and Jane Porter and of the Academy Award winning epic film Braveheart.

Background[link]

Statue of Wallace at Edinburgh Castle

Although he was a minor member of the Scottish nobility, little is known for certain of William Wallace's family history. Records show early members of the family as holding estates at Riccarton, Tarbolton, and Auchincruive in Kyle, and Stenton in Haddingtonshire.^[3] They were vassals of James Stewart, 5th High Steward of Scotland as their lands fell within his territory. William Wallace is possibly descended from a Richard Wallace who came to Scotland in the 1130s in the service of Walter fitz Alan, who had been appointed Steward by King David I.

Some sources give the name of William Wallace's father as Malcolm Wallace, however the seal attached to a letter sent to the Hanse city of Lübeck in 1297^[4] appears to give his father's name as Alan.^[5][6] His brothers Malcolm and John are known from other sources.^[7] An Alan Wallace appears in the Ragman Rolls as a crown tenant in Ayrshire, but there is no additional confirmation.^[8] The traditional view regards Wallace's birthplace as Elderslie in Renfrewshire, and this is still the view of most historians,^[9] but there have been recent claims that he came from Ellerslie in Ayrshire. There is no contemporary evidence linking him with either location, although both areas had connections with the wider Wallace family.^[10]

Wallace's year of birth can only be guessed at, although he was probably a relatively young man at the time of his military exploits and death. It is not known if he was ever married, or if he had any children.

Political crisis in Scotland[link]

Coronation of Alexander

When Wallace was growing up, King Alexander III^[11] ruled Scotland. His reign had seen a period of peace and economic stability. In 1286, however, Alexander died after falling from his horse.

The heir to the throne was Alexander's granddaughter, Margaret, Maid of Norway. As she was still a child and in Norway, the Scottish lords set up a government of guardians. Margaret fell ill on the voyage to Scotland and died in Orkney. The lack of a clear heir led to a period known as the 'Great Cause', with several families laying claim to the throne.

With Scotland threatening to descend into civil war, King Edward was invited in by the Scottish nobility to arbitrate. Before the process could begin, he insisted that all of the contenders recognise him as Lord Paramount of Scotland. In early November 1292, at a great feudal court held in the castle at Berwick-upon-Tweed, judgement was given in favour of John Balliol having the strongest claim in law.

Edward proceeded to reverse the rulings of the Scottish Lords and even summoned King John Balliol to stand before the English court as a common plaintiff. John was a weak king, known as "Toom Tabard", or "Empty Coat". John renounced his homage in March 1296 and by the end of the month Edward stormed Berwick-upon-Tweed, sacking the then-Scottish border town. In April, the Scots were defeated at the Battle of Dunbar in East Lothian and by July Edward had forced John to abdicate. Edward then instructed his officers to receive formal homage from some 1,800 Scottish nobles (many of the rest being prisoners of war at that time).

Military career[link]

Silent years (prior to the Wars of Independence)[link]

Wallace statue by D. W. Stevenson on the Scottish National Portrait Gallery, Edinburgh

Some historians such as Andrew Fisher believe Wallace must have had some earlier military experience; campaigns like Edward I of England's wars in Wales provided a good opportunity for a younger son of a landholder, with no other prospects in life than becoming a monk or priest, to become a mercenary soldier.^[12]

This theory suggests that it would have taken military knowledge to defeat the English at Stirling bridge. Wallace's personal seal attached to a letter sent to the Hanse city of Lübeck in 1297 may not only reveal the name of his father but also bears the archers' insignia.^[13] If Wallace was indeed an archer he must have been a professional, worth paying a reasonable sum of money for military services. The first class long bow (as probably used by Wallace) had a draw weight of up to 170 lbs. This is in accordance with Bower who states that Wallace was " a tall man with the body of a giant ... with lengthy flanks ...broad in the hips, with strong arms and legs ... with all his limbs very strong and firm"^[14]. Blind Harry's Wallace reaches seven feet.^[15]

Stained glass portraying the Warrior William Wallace

The start of the uprising[link]

The first act definitely known to have been carried out by Wallace was his assassination of William de Heselrig, the English High Sheriff of Lanark, in May 1297. He then joined with William the Hardy, Lord of Douglas, and they carried out the raid of Scone. This was one of several rebellions taking place across Scotland, including those of several Scottish nobles and Andrew Moray in the north.^[9]

The uprising suffered a blow when the nobles submitted to the English at Irvine in July. Wallace and Moray were not involved, and continued their rebellions. Wallace used the Ettrick Forest as a base for raiding, and attacked Wishart's palace at Ancrum. Wallace and Moray met and joined their forces, possibly at the siege of Dundee in early September.^[9]

Battle of Stirling Bridge[link]

The later Stirling Bridge

On 11 September 1297, an army jointly led by Wallace and Andrew Moray won the Battle of Stirling Bridge. Although vastly outnumbered, the Scottish army routed the English army. John de Warenne, 6th Earl of Surrey's professional army of 3,000 cavalry and 8,000 to 10,000 infantry met disaster as they crossed over to the north side of the river. The narrowness of the bridge prevented many soldiers from crossing together (possibly as few as three men abreast), so while the English soldiers crossed, the Scots held back until half of them had passed and then killed the English as quickly as they could cross. The infantry were sent on first, followed by heavy cavalry. But the Scots' sheltron formations forced the infantry back into the advancing cavalry. A pivotal charge, led by one of Wallace's captains, caused some of the English soldiers to retreat as others pushed forward, and under the overwhelming weight, the bridge collapsed and many English soldiers drowned. Thus the Scots won a significant victory which boosted the confidence of their army. Hugh Cressingham, Edward's treasurer in Scotland, died in the fighting and it is reputed that his body was subsequently flayed and the skin cut into small pieces as tokens of the victory. The Lanercost Chronicle records that Wallace had "a broad strip [of Cressingham’s skin] ... taken from the head to the heel, to make therewith a baldrick for his sword".^[16]

The Wallace Monument, near Stirling Bridge

After the battle, Moray and Wallace assumed the title of Guardians of the Kingdom of Scotland on behalf of King John Balliol. Moray died of wounds suffered on the battlefield sometime in late 1297.

The type of engagement used by Wallace was contrary to the contemporary views on chivalric warfare whereby strength of arms and knightly combat was espoused in the stead of tactical engagements and strategic use of terrain. The battle therefore embittered relations between the two antagonistic nations, whilst also perhaps providing a new departure in the type of warfare with which England had hitherto engaged. The numerical and material inferiority of the Scottish forces would be mirrored by that of the English in the Hundred Years' War, who, in turn, abandoned chivalric warfare to achieve decisive victory in similar engagements such as Crécy and Poitiers.

Around November 1297, Wallace led a large-scale raid into northern England, through Northumberland and Cumberland.^[9]

Around then Wallace was knighted. This would have been carried out by one of three Scottish earls: Carrick, Strathearn or Lennox.^[9][17][18]

Battle of Falkirk[link]

In 1298, Wallace lost the Battle of Falkirk. On 1 April 1298, the English invaded Scotland at Edinburgh. They plundered Lothian and regained some castles, but failed to bring Wallace to combat. The Scots adopted a scorched earth policy and hit and run tactics. The English quartermasters' failure to prepare for the expedition left morale and food supplies low, but Edward's search for Wallace would not end at Falkirk.

Wallace arranged his spearmen in four schiltrons — circular, hedgehog formations surrounded by a defensive wall of wooden stakes. The English however employed Welsh longbowmen who swung strategic superiority in their favour. The English proceeded to attack with cavalry, and break up the Scottish archers. Under the command of the Scottish nobles, the Scottish knights withdrew, and Edward's men began to attack the schiltrons. It remains unclear whether the infantry shooting bolts, arrows and stones at the spearmen proved the deciding factor, although it is very likely that it was the arrows of Edward's bowmen. Gaps in the schiltrons soon appeared, and the English exploited these to crush the remaining resistance. The Scots lost many men, including John de Graham. Wallace escaped, though his military reputation suffered badly.

By September 1298, Wallace had decided to resign as Guardian of Scotland in favour of Robert the Bruce, Earl of Carrick and future king, and John Comyn of Badenoch, King John Balliol's nephew.

Details of Wallace's activities after this are vague, but there is some evidence that he left on a mission to the court of King Philip IV of France to plead the case for assistance in the Scottish struggle for independence. There is a surviving letter from the French king dated 7 November 1300 to his envoys in Rome demanding that they should help Sir William.^[19] It also suggests that Wallace may have intended to travel to Rome, although it is not known if he did.^[20] There is also a report from an English spy at a meeting of Scottish leaders, where they said Wallace was in France.

By 1304 he was back in Scotland, and involved in skirmishes at Happrew and Earnside.

Wallace's trial in Westminster Hall. Painting by Daniel Maclise

Capture and execution[link]

Wallace evaded capture by the English until 5 August 1305 when John de Menteith, a Scottish knight loyal to Edward, turned Wallace over to English soldiers at Robroyston near Glasgow. Wallace was transported to London and taken to Westminster Hall, where he was tried for treason and for atrocities against civilians in war, "sparing neither age nor sex, monk nor nun."^[21][22] He was crowned with a garland of oak to suggest he was the king of outlaws. He responded to the treason charge, "I could not be a traitor to Edward, for I was never his subject." With this, Wallace asserted that the absent John Balliol was officially his king.^{[citation needed]}

Following the trial, on 23 August 1305, Wallace was taken from the hall, stripped naked and dragged through the city at the heels of a horse to the Elms at Smithfield. He was hanged, drawn and quartered — strangled by hanging but released while he was still alive, castrated, eviscerated and his bowels burnt before him, beheaded, then cut into four parts. His preserved head (dipped in tar) was placed on a pike atop London Bridge.^[23] It was later joined by the heads of the brothers, John and Simon Fraser. His limbs were displayed, separately, in Newcastle upon Tyne, Berwick-upon-Tweed, Stirling, and Perth. A plaque stands in a wall of St. Bartholomew's Hospital near the site of Wallace's execution at Smithfield.

Plaque marking the place of Wallace's execution.

In 1869 the Wallace Monument was erected, very close to the site of his victory at Stirling Bridge. The Wallace Sword, which supposedly belonged to Wallace, although some parts were made at least 160 years later, was held for many years in Dumbarton Castle and is now in the Wallace Monument.

Historiography of Wallace[link]

Although there are problems with writing a satisfactory biography of many medieval persons, the problems with Wallace are greater than usual. Not much is known about him beyond his military campaign of 1297–98, and the last few weeks of his life in 1305. Even in recent years, his birthplace and his father's name have been disputed.

To compound this, the legacy of subsequent 'biographical' accounts, sometimes written as propaganda, other times simply as entertainment, has clouded much scholarship until relatively recently. Some accounts have uncritically copied elements from the epic poem, The Acts and Deeds of Sir William Wallace, Knight of Elderslie, written around 1470 by Blind Harry the minstrel. Harry wrote from oral tradition describing events 170 years earlier, and is not in any sense an authoritative descriptor of Wallace's exploits. Much of the poem is clearly at variance with known historical facts and records of the period and is either fabricated using traditional chivalric motifs or 'borrowed' from the exploits of others and attributed to Wallace.

Wallace in fiction[link]

Wallace depicted in a children's history book from 1906

In the early 19th century, Walter Scott wrote of Wallace in Exploits and Death of William Wallace, the "Hero of Scotland", and Jane Porter penned a romantic version of the Wallace legend in The Scottish Chiefs in 1810. G. A. Henty wrote a novel in 1885 about this time period titled In Freedom's Cause. Henty, a producer of the Boy's Own Paper fiction who wrote for that magazine, portrays the life of William Wallace, Robert the Bruce, The Black Douglas, and others, while dovetailing the events of his novel with historical fiction. Nigel Tranter wrote a historical novel titled The Wallace, published in 1975, which is said to be more accurate than its literary predecessors. In 2010, the novelist Jack Whyte gave another fictionalized account of Wallace’s life, particularly his early life, in The Forest Laird, the first book in The Guardians of Scotland trilogy.

William Wallace Statue, Aberdeen

A well-known account is presented in the film Braveheart, directed by and starring Mel Gibson, written by Randall Wallace, and filmed in both Scotland and Ireland. The film, a highly fictionalized account of Wallace's life, was a commercial success and won five Academy Awards, including Best Picture and Best Director.

Sources[link]

See also[link]

• Auchenbathie Tower - Wallace's Knowe
• Clan Wallace
• Owain Glyndŵr

Notes[link]

External links[link]

Wikimedia Commons has media related to: William Wallace

Wikisource has the text of the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica article Wallace, Sir William.

Quotations related to William Wallace at Wikiquote

• The Life of Sir William Wallace, by John D. Carryck (btm format)
• William Wallace and Battles of Stirling and Falkirk
• Wallace and Bruce^{[dead link]}
• The Lübeck letter
• Wallace letters to go on show
• Portraits of Sir William Wallace at the National Portrait Gallery, London

Olivia Munn
Munn at the 2009 Attack of the Show panel
Born	Lisa Olivia Munn (1980-07-03) July 3, 1980 (age 31) Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, U.S.
Occupation	Actress, model, presenter
Years active	2004–present
Website
www.oliviamunn.com

Lisa Olivia Munn (born July 3, 1980^[1][2]) is an American comedic actress, model, television personality and author. She began her career being credited as Lisa Munn. Since 2006, she has been using the name Olivia Munn personally and professionally.^[3]

Early life[link]

Lisa Olivia Munn was born in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. She is of Chinese descent on her mother's side (though her mother was raised in Vietnam)^[4] and of German and Irish descent on her father's.^[5] When Munn was two, her mother re-married, this time to a man in the United States Air Force. Although the family relocated many times, Munn was predominantly raised in Tokyo, Japan,^[3][6] where the military stationed her stepfather. During this time, she had appeared in a number of local theater productions, and later became a model within the Japanese fashion industry.^[7] Her parents divorced and she moved back to Oklahoma, where she attended Putnam City North High School for her junior and senior years and where she was a contemporary of Hinder bassist Mike Rodden, future Oklahoma state senator David Holt and author Aaron Goldfarb.^[8][9] She also attended the University of Oklahoma, majoring in journalism and minoring in Japanese and dramatic arts.^[3]

Munn moved to Los Angeles to pursue an acting career. In 2004, she interned at Fox Sports Net and worked as a sideline reporter for college football and women's basketball. She has gone on to say that she disliked the experience, explaining "I was trying to be something I wasn't, and that made me really uncomfortable on live TV."^[6]

Career[link]

Olivia cosplaying as Princess Leia Organa.

Soon after her move to Los Angeles, Munn was cast in a small role in the straight to video horror film Scarecrow Gone Wild. She appeared in rock band Zebrahead's video for their song "Hello Tomorrow" as the love interest of the lead singer Justin Mauriello.^[10]

In late 2005, Munn began her portrayal of Mily Acuna, a teen surfer, over two seasons of the TV drama Beyond the Break^[11] on The N network. She enjoys surfing and continues to practice the sport.^[12] She originally auditioned for the part of Kai, but the producers wanted a "local girl."^[13] She also appeared in the film The Road to Canyon Lake.

In 2006, Munn moved on to the G4 network, where she began co-hosting Attack of the Show! with Kevin Pereira on April 10. She replaced departing host Sarah Lane. The network, devoted to the world of video games and the video game lifestyle, was at first hesitant to hire Munn. Although she admits video games were her "weak point," she was confident in her technical knowledge.^[14] On the show, Munn was featured with journalist Anna David in a segment called "In Your Pants," which deals with sex and relationship questions from viewers. While working on Attack of the Show!, Munn hosted Formula D, a now defunct program about American drift racing, and an online podcast called Around the Net (formerly known as The Daily Nut), for G4. Munn left Attack of the Show! in December 2010 and was replaced by Candace Bailey.

Munn appeared in the Rob Schneider movie Big Stan. She played Schneider's character's receptionist Maria.^[6] Munn also had a significant role in the 2008 horror film Insanitarium, in which she played a nurse at an insane asylum. She had roles in the 2010 movies Date Night and Iron Man 2. Robert Downey, Jr. praised Munn for her improvisation skills and led the crew in a round of applause.^[15]

Munn hosted Microsoft's Bing-a-thon, an advertisement on Hulu for the Microsoft search-engine Bing^[16] on June 8, 2009, alongside Jason Sudeikis.

Munn appeared in ABC Family's Greek, portraying Cappie's love interest, Lana.

In May 2010, NBC announced that Munn would star in the upcoming television series Perfect Couples. The half-hour romantic comedy premiered at on January 20, 2011.^[17] The show was cancelled before it completed its first season run.^[18]

On June 3, 2010, Munn debuted in her new role as a correspondent on Comedy Central's The Daily Show.^[19] Her hiring prompted criticism from Irin Carmon of Jezebel, who questioned Munn's credentials and accused the show's production of sexism in hiring Munn, whom Carmon characterized as a sex symbol.^[20] Carmon saw Munn's hiring as a perpetuation of the show production office's history as a male-dominated atmosphere marginalizing and alienating to women.^[21] A group of thirty-two female Daily Show production staff members condemned Carmon's piece as inaccurate and misinformed, as did Munn herself in an interview, in which she stated that Carmon's assertion was an insult both to her and to the rest of the Daily Show staff.^[22][23]

In 2010 Munn guest-starred in NBC's Chuck as a CIA agent.^[24]

In print[link]

Munn has booked modeling campaigns for Nike, Pepsi and Neutrogena. She appeared on the Fall 2006 cover of Foam magazine in September, in Men's Edge magazine in August, and was featured in a pictorial in Complex in November 2006, where she later became a columnist.^[25] In February 2007, she appeared as "Babe of the Month" in a non-nude pictorial in Playboy magazine.^[26] She discusses this shoot in her book, Suck it, Wonder Woman.^[27]

Munn also appeared in the July/August 2007 issue of Men's Health. In September 2007, she was featured in the Italian Vanity Fair for their "Hot Young Hollywood" Issue. Munn appeared in the Winter/Spring 2009 issue of Men's Health Living.^[28] She was featured as the cover girl for the July/August 2009 issue of Playboy, and later on the cover of the January 2010 and February 2011 U.S.Maxim. Munn appears on the cover of FHM Magazine's January 2012 issue. ^[29]

Munn's book, Suck It, Wonder Woman: The Misadventures of a Hollywood Geek (ISBN 0-312-59105-5), was released on July 6, 2010. One critic said it offers glimpses into Munn's life but does not go into depth.^[30]

Charity work[link]

In 2011, Munn teamed up with Dosomething.org's Green Your School Challenge. She was a spokesperson for the campaign by filming a PSA regarding the challenge, and sat on the panel of judges that evaluated the entries.^[31]

Munn helped PETA with a campaign that ultimately freed a sick elephant from a touring circus. Her blog for The Huffington Post^[32] was credited with encouraging fans to contact the USDA on the elephant's behalf.^[33]

Munn posed for PETA's "I'd Rather Go Naked Than Wear Fur" campaign in April 2010,^[34][35] and again in January 2012.^[36]

Filmography[link]

Magazine appearances[link]

• Maxim's Hot 100 Women, 2008 (#99)
• Maxim's Hot 100 Women, 2009 (#96)
• Maxim's Hot 100 Women, 2010 (#8)
• Maxim's Hot 100 Women, 2011 (#2)
• Maxim's Hot 100 Women, 2012 (#2)
• FHM's 100 Sexiest Women of 2008 (#85)
• FHM's 100 Sexiest Women of 2009 (#85)
• FHM's 100 Sexiest Women of 2010 (#52)

References[link]