Schneier on Security

Fred P • January 22, 2008 11:38 AM

@peter pressure-

Guns are weapons; as far as I’m aware their normal usage does not constitute a form of torture under this convention. Can you, as you point out, torture with a gun? Yes. You can also torture with a finger; no rational law is going to cut off your fingers just due to this possibility. In any event, most interpretations of the 2nd amendment constitute at least some limited recognition of the right of non-felons to bear firearms; the U.S. constitution supersedes any conflicting treaties. Note, however, that this does not hold for all weapons – there are numerous jurisdictions within the U.S.A. where openly wearing a Halberd or Pike is illegal where openly wearing a licensed gun is perfectly legal.

Tasers, on the other hand, are very ineffective as weapons; their effective range is tiny (at least some civilian versions have an effective range that is smaller than that of a knife), their effective conditions small, and they are far easier to defend against than a firearm. They are, however, very effective portable, low-trace torture devices.

In any case, I’m merely wondering how the failure of the U.S.A. to have a ban on the sale of Tasers is consistent with its obligations under the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. I may be missing something (as I’m not an expert in international law), but if not, it seems that such a law should be passed soon.

I’d like to thank you for noting that Tasers aren’t permitted for civilian use in a number of states and jurisdictions, although I’m confused as to what District of Columbia, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Michigan, New Jersey, New York and Wisconsin have to do with Communism; last I noted, they were all representative Democracies (save, to some degree, District of Columbia, which has next to no say in federal matters – but this exception doesn’t seem to make it Communist by any stretch of the definition I can find). I’m also unclear as to why you think that federal legislators directly impact state laws.

Fred P • January 22, 2008 1:56 PM

@anonymous canuck-

Good question. Here ( http://untreaty.un.org/ENGLISH/bible/englishinternetbible/partI/chapterIV/treaty14.asp ) is a source for reservations to this treaty (as well as a link to the treaty).

The U.S.A. has a reservation that in part, reads “(b) That the United States understands that the definition of torture in article 1 is intended to apply only to acts directed against persons in the offender’s custody or physical control.”, which seems to exclude remote forms of torture such as what a taser could be used for from the U.S.’s obligations as far as article 1 is concerned. However, then taser usage would appear to fall under article 16. However, Article 16 seems to exclusively apply to officials, which need not have anything to do with public sale of these devices.

So, if I’m understanding the U.S.A.’s obligations to this treaty correctly, it appears that it would be a violation of that treaty to sell tasers to officials (such as police officers), but not to civilians (assuming that they’re using/intending to use it against people not in their custody or control). I’m guessing that I’m missing something; as I previously stated, I’m not an expert in international law.

Fred P • January 22, 2008 4:05 PM

@peter pressure

“Once again, you and others are stating an Opinion, That Tazers are ineffective weapons for Self Defense. I sir, disagree, we’ll have to agree to disagree on this one….”

-Perhaps I’m not that familiar with tasers, then; are there civilian models that have a effective range larger than (say) a throwing knife? The models I looked up briefly gave a maximum range on the order of 15 feet. Making the assumption that their minimum effective range is similar to handguns, they end up with a far smaller effective range than a throwing knife (which has a larger maximum effective range than 15 feet). Like a throwing knife (and unlike a handgun), you can’t immediately re-use it on another target. Unlike a handgun, it’s ineffective wherever the leads are likely to be unable to penetrate to skin, or encounter higher conductivity than skin. Unlike a throwing knife, it’s cheap, easy and legal to wear armor that appears to be impenetrable to a taser. Even if you go for the high-end tasers, with ranges more like 80 feet, that’s still far less than a rifle.

So I’m unclear as to how you’d use a taser as an effective weapon, for self-defense purposes or otherwise. For most purposes, if my opponent were using deadly force, I’d prefer a handgun, rifle, or knife; if I wanted to immobilize the opponent with little or no injury, I’d use a jo, yawara stick, nightstick, or my hands. Perhaps you’ll enlighten me.

“I am not an expert either, but again I’ll repeat, The Tazer device, CANNOT torture anyone, if used for self defense”

I was referring to the opinion of the Committee against Torture, not mine. However, it seems that the U.S.A.’s reservations to the treaty may mean that this determination has less meaning than I originally thought in the U.S.A.; specifically it suggests that (as I mention above) this treaty only bans official use of tasers (as opposed to private use).