This memo turned out to be one of the few extant examples of the United States governments' view on torture following the September 11th attacks, and it seems to suggest that from a national standpoint, torture does have justification under certain conditions. This perspective is incongruous with international ordinances that relegate torture as unqualified under any conditions. The Geneva Conventions, for example, ban the use of torture regardless of the situations. Torture for the Geneva Conventions is "violence to life and person." The United Nations, similarly, does not approve of torture, claiming in Article Five of their Human Rights declaration that: "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." The salient terminology within this statement, of course, includes the words "no one." A third international statute, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, even classifies torture as a "crime against humanity," punishable by trial at the international court of The Hague. How then, can anyone, much less representatives of the self-proclaimed "freest nation on earth," the political elite of the USA, then so blatantly advocate the use of torture? The answer is in the semantics. The Geneva Conventions rules only apply to "prisoners of war." Terrorists and spies are not always classified as such. Furthermore, the specified wording of the United Nations refers only to acts conducted on the nation's own soil or territory. This is why the United States makes sure to evade such policy by stationing internment camps in other nations – such as Cuba with Guantanamo Bay. By exercising loopholes, the United States passes the decrees of international ordinances, and so is not held culpable. But can torture be viewed as truly justifiable if it has to be conducted in such a manner? .
