US admits Torture

Hobbes

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20050624/pl_afp/unustortureguantanamo_050624132300

How Rumsfield can then go on Fox news and claim the reports are false just astounds me. Why isn't this guy fired yet?

Capt'n Midnight

Hobbes wrote:

Why isn't this guy fired yet?

Hobbes wrote:

Rumsfield can then go on Fox news and claim the reports are false

It's the old deny everything, until the story is off the front page.

Washington's report to the Committee reaffirms the US position that the Guantanamo detainees are classed as "enemy combatants," and therefore do not benefit from the POW status set out in the Geneva Conventions, the Committee member said.

This is a bit like the classify it as a "police action" because there are laws about war.

Easily_Irritated

Bloody americans!!!

parasite

rumsfled has offered to resign a a couple of times, but bush refused apparently

Victor

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8341926/

Screwdriver

They are only doing it to the Islamic prisioners. They don't play by the rules of modern society, fair enough. They should not be treated like a normal person therefore.

Goodshape

Screwdriver wrote:

They are only doing it to the Islamic prisioners. They don't play by the rules of modern society, fair enough. They should not be treated like a normal person therefore.

Are you referring to the muslim detainees being not normal? What the **** is a 'normal person'?

Go home, tbh.

Hobbes

Screwdriver wrote:

They are only doing it to the Islamic prisioners. They don't play by the rules of modern society, fair enough. They should not be treated like a normal person therefore.

You know how many convictions they have gotten out of that place? I believe to date, ONE. There are 100's detained there with no rights and not being charged.

Rummy was on CNBC last night, watched a bit of it. He was asked about this and he said (sic) "Look, they are very bad people there. They aren't innocent" followed by a little later "We released a few 100 from that place, and already we have found 10-12 who have joined the enemy".

So he not only admits that they have released a load of people as innocent, after claiming they were not. He then goes on to show that a small percentage of those people joined the other side and TBH being stuck in a cage for 3 years can probably do that to a person.

Now what do you mean when you say not treated like a normal person? Do you mean they should all be rounded up regardless if they have been charged or not.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4625201.stm

bonkey

Screwdriver wrote:

They don't play by the rules of modern society, fair enough. They should not be treated like a normal person therefore.

And then we, by treating them this way, don't play by the rules of modern society either, which makes one wonder what - exactly - any notion of you having some moral high-ground is.

Oh - I know - we can say "but they started it". That obviously makes their mistreatment of us unacceptable, but our mistreatment of them fine.

jc

Hydroquinone

Screwdriver wrote:

They are only doing it to the Islamic prisioners. They don't play by the rules of modern society, fair enough. They should not be treated like a normal person therefore.

You should be delighted you weren't certain parts of this island not too long ago. All maner of people were subjected to the injustices by the British in Northern Ireland, under the same "they're not like us - they're terrortists" mentality. Just replace the word Islamic with Catholic, and you'll get the idea.
Was that OK, too?
No, it wasn't. And neither is this.

Villain

The amazing thing here is that Rumsfeld has offered his resignation twice but Mr Bush has refused to accept it.

Oh and I love the bit where it says

The US report said that those involved were low-ranking members of the military and that their acts were not approved by their superiors, the member added.

I wonder what the superiors were doing while this was taking place, probably busy flushing Quran's down the toilet

swimtwobirds

I think the bush administration will answer for their actions, eventually.. In the ten years down the line, retired rumsfeld before senate committee answering what he knew about "rendering" & when kind of way. The main thing protecting them from the repercussions of their actions is their incumbency. America will in course swing back to a centrist course, or more specifically its citizenry will, & the politicians will dutifully follow suit. In that climate, the actions of this administration will be seen in a very harsh light, probably to the point of being disengenuous, given how weak the democratic response has been, up to this point. Apparently the Italians are beginning legal action, in relation to CIA bagman squads lifting Italian(?) citizens on Italian soil for interrogation/torture in a third country? Neo-Con nirvana can't go on forever.

Capt'n Midnight

Screwdriver wrote:

They are only doing it to the Islamic prisioners. They don't play by the rules of modern society, fair enough. They should not be treated like a normal person therefore.

unless you are from planet Zog , it could not have escaped you attention that some of the prisoners are first world citizens, France, UK, US etc.

So you are saying that it is ok for the US to ignore it's own laws when dealing with it's own citizens and those of it's allies as well as international law when it suits them.

For the benefit of anyone else from Zog the "insurgents" (or other word that can be used to deny people recourse to POW/legal status) are from a wide variety of backgrounds, not all are islamic fundamentalists. So there won't be a simple one size fits all solution without a lot of compromise.

Goodshape and Captain midnight-please read the posting guidelines sticky.

Captain midnight if I see any more trollery accusations, there will be a one week ban-that warning applies to everybody!!
If you think a poster is a troll Report the post- do not level that accusation on this board as it is against forum rules to do so.

ISAW

Screwdriver wrote:

They are only doing it [torture] to the Islamic prisioners. They don't play by the rules of modern society, fair enough. They should not be treated like a normal person therefore.

First of all how do you know that only Islamic prisioners are being tortured? second isnt that against US law - I mean not "torture" which has been re classified so that anything short of death or permanent physical injury is not torture. i mean discrimination. Surely singling out by race, sexual perference , gender or creed is discriminating. How can the Us do what is against their own law?

second, I suggest you look up jurisprudence. US jurisprudence is currently not along the lines of Natural Law which enables more twists than an eel out of water to be put on "torture". However it is an established principle in jurisprudence that the State can not behave in ways that enemies of the state behave.

Third who should not be treated like "normal people"? The Muslim prisioners? You are aware that there is another principle of lawe that says innocence is assumed until guilt is proven?

And what is a "normal person"? You seem to be defining "normal" as whatever the US authoirities care to define it as. to that I refer you to my comments about the eel above. Which I find ironic since Bush claims to support the concept of Natural Law and Natural Justice.

Finally do you know what the Dreyfuss case, the Birmingham Six and the Guildford four had in common? Have you ever read Victor Hugo's J'accuse!

sceptre

ISAW wrote:

Have you ever read Victor Hugo's J'accuse!

Emile Zola's J'accuse (Hugo was dead just over a decade by then) but I assume that's one of those mistakes cum typos that I'm prone to make myself probably more than people notice. And arguably directly relevant and certainly indirectly relevant so I found a translation for those who've never heard of it. It's far beyond the scope of the thread to outline the Dreyfus affair but this might give any uninitiated an idea. It's the blatant coverup and repeated denials that make the case relevant. I've highlighted Dreyfus as I assume everyone is familiar with the other two and unlike the other two coverups it undeniably directly and actively involved the higher echelons of government and polarised the society of an entire country.

ISAW wrote:

How can the Us do what is against their own law?

In this particular case, they cheat. Twice. Three times if you include the denials.

Hobbes

We don't need to go examples of Birminham six to prove how wrong it is. 100's have been let go years after being detained without ever being charged.

A large number of these people were handed over as terrorists to get a $5,000 reward from the US Military. The northern alliance were just rounding up strangers or anyone who spoke English/looked foreign.

For being in the wrong place at the wrong time people lost years of their lives and treated as a criminal without ever having the right to defend themselves or see what they were accused of.

And people have the gall to say that this is somehow acceptable in this day and age?

BlitzKrieg

And people have the gall to say that this is somehow acceptable in this day and age?

[sarcasm]well we are at war...[/sarcasm]


ontopic.

Its not the US admits torture, but that torture has been commited by low ranked individuals within US military and govermental bodies. So i'm curious as to where this will lead to. As already made clear Rumsfield wont be resigned. And if he cant be resigned despite the numerous recent screw ups, then i get the feeling that the problems of Gauntomino (sp?) bay and iraq are going to be skewed to look solved like the above.

ISAW

First yes I meant Zola not Hugo.

Hobbes wrote:

We don't need to go examples of Birminham six to prove how wrong it is. 100's have been let go years after being detained without ever being charged.

One point which is relevant to the B6 G4 Dreyfus etc. and which also can be questioned in relation to the Gardaí is the presence of a cultyre typified by a particular mindset. I believe the psychological term is "groupthink". It enables people to stand aside from their personal responsibility. In our current "risk" society one could claim it extends into other arms of the civil and public service.

Anyway the point with the B6 was that there had been a cadre established in the West midlands Police with a particular mindset. The infulence of this cadre spread so that in the end they were framing West Indians rastas and anyone else they thought was "not normal".

This can also happen in the military and leads to the likes of the recent torture events as well as the likes of the Mai Lai massacre or the behaviour of The Republican Guard in Iraq in the eighties when they were supported by the US.

And people have the gall to say that this is somehow acceptable in this day and age?

I have no doubt that black ops worked with several of the Republican Guard just as the "Rocky" film is dedicated to others they worked alongside the Mujahadeen. It wasnt really that long ago. As a certain Us President said "Fool me once shame on you. Fool me...[ten second pause] You won't get fooled again". Listened to the Who too much I suppose:)


The Irony of the US supported Al Khada Frankenstein never fails to renew its lasting impression whenever I think of todays "holier than thou" lobby with their close connections to certain agency's black ops.

Contradiction, paradox or just simply double standards and hypocracy? Take your pick but dont claim that claiming to preach from a self justified "groupthink" mindset actually morally justifies anything!

Victor

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

So you are saying that it is ok for the US to ignore it's own

The Americans point is that American law only applies in the USA.

The only operational law in Guantanamo Bay is the base treaty with Cuba and American military law.

ISAW

Victor wrote:

The Americans point is that American law only applies in the USA.

So what was their basis for the Nuremburg Trials? They didnt pass a "Patriotic Americans against the Nazis Act" into law did they?

The only operational law in Guantanamo Bay is the base treaty with Cuba and American military law.

But if they are not refugees what are they. Are not the US calling them "active combatants"? Surely that is an "enemy soldier"? If so then are not POW's under international treaties signed by the US and by US Martial Law? If the US claim thay are "terrorists" then why have over 600 of them not been brought to trial or even charged?

xm15e3

ISAW wrote:

But if they are not refugees what are they. Are not the US calling them "active combatants"? Surely that is an "enemy soldier"? If so then are not POW's under international treaties signed by the US and by US Martial Law? If the US claim thay are "terrorists" then why have over 600 of them not been brought to trial or even charged?

To be an P.O.W. They would have to be fighting in uniform, overtly carrying their weapons (not concealed), not-targeting civilians, and operating under the flag of a nation that has signed the Geneva Convention.

Since they are not they are illegal combatants. In short, they are not covered by the geneva convention, and to my knowledge they could be summarily executed. My understanding is that they are a similar status as a war time spy.

Either way, they are still covered by our UCMJ and any rights afforded by that code. Torture and Mutilation are prohibited and counsel must be provided if charged.

xm15e3

ISAW wrote:

So what was their basis for the Nuremburg Trials? They didnt pass a "Patriotic Americans against the Nazis Act" into law did they?

Nuremburg Trials were international military tribunals, having nothing to do with US, or any other civil code. I'd guess they were based in British and American military tradition (pre-dating UCMJ??). But that is just a guess.

rsynnott

The Americans have been applying the "one law for us, one for everyone else" concept for quite some time now.

xm15e3

rsynnott wrote:

The Americans have been applying the "one law for us, one for everyone else" concept for quite some time now.

You'll have to wait for the "Bush Doctrine of Global Conquest" before we apply our laws to everyone else. :eek:

rsynnott

xm15e3 wrote:

You'll have to wait for the "Bush Doctrine of Global Conquest" before we apply our laws to everyone else. :eek:

Well, by then there'll no longer be a political need to keep torture from the average American citizen (incidentally, some "interrogation" practices used in the US, even on their own citizens, are considered torture by the EU and even by such a bastion of human rights as Israel).

I'm being deadly serious, here, by the way, even though the tone of the original post was a little jokey. Americans were incredibly happy to abandon their freedom in exchange for a feeling of safety. Things will get worse before they get better. (Although I was glad to see the ridiculous librarian thing defeated; there might be hope yet).

rancheros

rsynnott wrote:

The Americans have been applying the "one law for us, one for everyone else" concept for quite some time now.

Just wondering is there no such a thing as international law any more, the geneva convention was set up to protect the rights of everyone, America seems to use this when they want to and disregard if it dosn't suit. This is making a mockery of all those people who before spent years protecting our rights and those who still are.
To quote bush "if your not with us, your against us" sound to me like school boy bully tactics,

xm15e3

Well, by then there'll no longer be a political need to keep torture from the average American citizen (incidentally, some "interrogation" practices used in the US, even on their own citizens, are considered torture by the EU and even by such a bastion of human rights as Israel).

As an American, I have no problem with being in synch with EU law. IMO, the EU and UN get a little nutty about how they define torture. Pulling out fingernails is torture, mind games and fatigue is pushing it. Torture useless in interogation and tends to yield false information. For that reason, I'm not concerned about it being a systemic problem. The UCMJ is very effective at dealing with sadistic American (and others) twits who get the rocks off by it.

I'm being deadly serious, here, by the way, even though the tone of the original post was a little jokey. Americans were incredibly happy to abandon their freedom in exchange for a feeling of safety. Things will get worse before they get better. (Although I was glad to see the ridiculous librarian thing defeated; there might be hope yet).

Funny how Europeans get hung up on the Patriot Act. It really is a red herring for what is going wrong in this country. Anyone take notice of what the lefties in the Supreme Court just pulled off? Private Property in the US is now solely a right of the local municipality. The 4th amendment has effectively been shredded, by the left. But you are correct, there is hope, there is already a move to eminent domain Justice Souter's home and turn it into a motel.

Since when were library records private?

xm15e3

rancheros wrote:

Just wondering is there no such a thing as international law any more, the geneva convention was set up to protect the rights of everyone, America seems to use this when they want to and disregard if it dosn't suit. This is making a mockery of all those people who before spent years protecting our rights and those who still are.
To quote bush "if your not with us, your against us" sound to me like school boy bully tactics,

Where exactly have we breached the Geneva Convention as a matter of policy (not including the random idiots headed to Leavenworth).

Name one country we have fought against since Nazi Germany that actually adhered to the Geneva Convention?

the_syco

Quite odd. The US has never released this type of info.

Must be something big coming up. That, or they found out the press had something juicy.

=-=

About those who abused the prisoners: so far its been, according to the Yanks, people low in rank, from the National Guard, etc. Basiclly Weekend Soldiers with a gun.

A "career solider" is less likely to do so, than a "weekend soldier", as the "weekend soldier" has a job to go back to (mostly). So they get pissed off, they take it out on the nearest towel-head to them. A prisoner.

As for the superiors, they proberly knew about it, but couldn't care less, as they may have feared it would weaken moral/recruitment if they disaplined the weekend soldiers. What harm would it do, I suppose they thought. Think about it: unless some overproud mother/father showed the neighbours that their son/daughter was "giving the towel-heads one from the home team", no-one would ever know.

rancheros

xm15e3 wrote:

Where exactly have we breached the Geneva Convention as a matter of policy (not including the random idiots headed to Leavenworth).

Name one country we have fought against since Nazi Germany that actually adhered to the Geneva Convention?

Well an admission of torture today is a start.

and other countries adhering to geneva convention, whats your point? they broke it so we can...