US admits Torture

xm15e3

rancheros wrote:

Well an admission of torture today is a start.

Well, actually that is not a start. Those guys fall under the catagory of individual idiots, it is not systematic.

Also, we could torture them and we would still not be breaking the GC.

It would be wrong and stupid, but since they are not signitories of GC, they are fair game.

rancheros wrote:

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

Nope, my point is that the double standard is getting one's nickers in a bunch over American idiots going to military prison, yet NEVER raising a concern over the activities nationally sanctioned groups like the Viet Cong (who's very existance violated the Geneva Convention).

rancheros

xm15e3 wrote:

Also, we could torture them and we would still not be breaking the GC.

It would be wrong and stupid, but since they are not signitories of GC, they are fair game.

thin you would because the GC is there to protect every ones rights whether they are signitories or not.

xm15e3 wrote:

they are fair game.

Thats a nice way to describe fellow man GAME. Why don't we all go hunting

rsynnott

xm15e3 wrote:

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.



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?

You realise that by European standards, both the Democrats and Republicans are right wing? And yes, that private property thing was horrific. Another sign of sickness.

You think the EU and UN (and Israel, don't forget) are nutty about torture definitions? Sleep deprivation isn't torture? It kills people, and before that puts them under physical and emotional stesses comparable with physical torture. Mock executions aren't torture? That England woman's actions weren't torture? And really, don't respond with rubbish about it being the actions of a few people. America can surely control its own soldiers? I'm quite sure they were doing what they were told, and were unfortunate enough to be caught.

And "our enemies don't abide by it, so we don't have to either" is not a valid argument. The US and Britain did NOT round up and gas minorities simply because Htiler did. They didn't even use slave labour! "But he hit me first" is not a valid argument for torture, tbh.

Capt'n Midnight

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?

off hand, the US never declared war on Vietnam. I'm not sure what the story on Grenada was since that was almost certainly illegal under US law.

If the captives were given prisoner of war status then the Geneva Convetion would have been broken as I guess the war is over, but like the redefinition of unemployed as job seekers, the label you use for a person can dramatically affect their rights.

Do you reckon Grenada or Panama broke the Geneva conventions ?

ISAW

xm15e3 wrote:

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.

As to the Us having nothing to do with Nuremberg.
http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/genocide/cntrl10_trials.htm

Taylor, T. The Nuremberg War Crimes Trials. International Conciliation, No.450, April 1949. wrote:

In the American Zone twelve trials were held under the provisions of Control Council Law No.10 at Nuremberg. The tribunals were set up by the Military Governor, pursuant to Military Government Ordinance No.7, promulgated on 25 October 1946. One hundred and eighty-five persons were indicted, the last judgment of these tribunals being delivered on 14 April 1949.
These were not the only trials held by the Americans.

Telford Taylor, who was Chief of Counsel for the trials held under Control Council Law No.10 at Nuremberg, notes that decisions appertaining to who should be indicted were based on whether or not substantial evidence was available suggesting the perpetration of "criminal conduct under accepted principles of international law.

Now you cant have it both ways can you?

If you are right about concealed weapons and lack of uniforms then surely those US "advisors" they send to other countries had better be careful? As should the secret service guys who arrive months before a Presidential visit and "check out" employees in US companies the President will visit! They could all be shot as spies by your reasoning.

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.

But maybe some are "advisors" or "bodyguards"? So why didn't the Us shoot them first and ask questions later? Probably because they (well some anyway) are goat farmers who were caught in a war zone?

I note also that if it isn't covered by a US ratafied law, then you seem to claim it isnt wrong for the US to behave in contravention of other international law. Now I just showed you above that the US actually oversaw trials where they sentenced Nazis for contravening International Law.

I suppose you are of the belief that slavery was not wrong in the US until they made a law against it?
And if it was wrong before the US made a law then according to what was it wrong?

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.

Torture is not prohibited when it is redifined as not being "anything short of death or permanant physical injury".

Hobbes

xm15e3 wrote:

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_combatant

The "Detaining Power" may choose to accord detained unlawful combatants the rights of prisoners of war as described in the Third Geneva Convention (GCIII), but is not required to do so. Unlawful combatants may retain rights under the Fourth Geneva Convention in that they must be "treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial".

The US is stretching that rule. Taliban forces did not use a Uniform would be classed as soliders. In Afganistan nearly everyone (male) has a weapon of some sort. Its pretty much a given. If you check the rules of what a POW is a lot of the people detained there would have to be released.

Some of the people who had been kept there for years and been released have been for example a taxi driver whos only crime was to drive a passenger to a part of Afganistan he did not know, or another who was a cook for the Taliban.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_combatant#Criticism

Many governments and human rights organizations worry that the introduction of the unlawful combatant status sets a dangerous precedent for other regimes to follow. When the government of Liberia detained American activist Hassan Bility in 2002, Liberian authorities dismissed the complaints[11] of the United States, responding that he had been detained as an unlawful combatant.

sovtek

rsynnott wrote:

America can surely control its own soldiers? I'm quite sure they were doing what they were told, and were unfortunate enough to be caught.

Lets not forget Texas' own Gonzales justifying torture to Bush as well as the FBI memos.
Oh yeah and I forgot about the Red Cross telling Rumsfeld about it.
And the fact that it's happening in detention centres around the world certainly suggests that it was just a "few bad apples".

Lemming

xm15e3 wrote:

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.

Actually, the term "illegal combatant" was made up by the current administration, and is in itself a violation of the Geneva convention. The status of these people is covered by the Geneva convention. There is a default status setting for anyone not covered under any explicit definitions as set down in the convention.

I've argued this before with people, and I have quoted the relevant passages. I'll dig them up and post them.

sovtek

xm15e3 wrote:

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.

And I'd work for free on that motel project!
A centrist, career status quo Democrat is not a leftist.
Nevermind that their rich Republican and Democrat buddies are the ones that will be getting even richer off this ruling.

the_syco

rsynnott wrote:

The US and Britain did NOT round up and gas minorities simply because Htiler did. They didn't even use slave labour! "But he hit me first" is not a valid argument for torture, tbh.

The Nazi's used Jews and other peoples for their experiments.
The US has in the past used its own people for experiments (nuclear soldiers).
Britain experimented on its own soldiers during WW2.

xm15e3

rancheros wrote:

thin you would because the GC is there to protect every ones rights whether they are signitories or not.

The GC does not protect everyone.
Findlaw: http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20020123.html

rancheros wrote:

Thats a nice way to describe fellow man GAME. Why don't we all go hunting

It's a figure of speach which probably gained or lost something in translation. But, actually, we are hunting them. There is no way to sugar coat it.

xm15e3

rsynnott wrote:

You realise that by European standards, both the Democrats and Republicans are right wing? And yes, that private property thing was horrific. Another sign of sickness.

Yah, a sickness called Dialectic Materialism..imo.

rsynnott wrote:

.... That England woman's actions weren't torture? And really, don't respond with rubbish about it being the actions of a few people. America can surely control its own soldiers? I'm quite sure they were doing what they were told, and were unfortunate enough to be caught.

Of course you are sure. Your also wrong. Where is England now? How about her CO? And her compadres? BTW, one had been doing this in US prisons prior to the war. I doubt it was policy there either.

As far as America controlling it's own solders, that is why we have UCMJ (as does EVERY nations military). Young angry people can do horrible things, especially with weak officers.

rsynnott wrote:

And "our enemies don't abide by it, so we don't have to either" is not a valid argument. The US and Britain did NOT round up and gas minorities simply because Htiler did. They didn't even use slave labour! "But he hit me first" is not a valid argument for torture, tbh.

The argument has nothing to do with justifying what was done, it is that there is a double standard when people get all twisted over transgressions by individual Americans, but get all moist and sappy over the VC. Seen any cool Che T-shirts lately?

xm15e3

ISAW wrote:

As to the Us having nothing to do with Nuremberg.
http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/genocide/cntrl10_trials.htm

My statement was that Nuremberg had nothing to do with US or any other CIVIL law. I know you're reading comprehention is better than this. Cut the crap.

ISAW wrote:

If you are right about concealed weapons and lack of uniforms then surely those US "advisors" they send to other countries had better be careful? As should the secret service guys who arrive months before a Presidential visit and "check out" employees in US companies the President will visit! They could all be shot as spies by your reasoning.

The advisors, especially groups like the Ravens and other black ops, typically CIA groups are unlawful combatents, and they have no protection under the GC.

ISAW wrote:

I note also that if it isn't covered by a US ratafied law, then you seem to claim it isnt wrong for the US to behave in contravention of other international law. Now I just showed you above that the US actually oversaw trials where they sentenced Nazis for contravening International Law.


I suppose you are of the belief that slavery was not wrong in the US until they made a law against it?
And if it was wrong before the US made a law then according to what was it wrong?

Uh, re-read the post. Did I not say, regardless of coverage of the GC, torture was wrong..and stupid? Besides it is illegal under UCMJ. The GC/EU/UN take take a flying leap, but UCMJ will be enforced.

BTW, I don't see much differnce between Socialism and Slavery, both should be capital crimes.

xm15e3

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

off hand, the US never declared war on Vietnam. I'm not sure what the story on Grenada was since that was almost certainly illegal under US law.

If the captives were given prisoner of war status then the Geneva Convetion would have been broken as I guess the war is over, but like the redefinition of unemployed as job seekers, the label you use for a person can dramatically affect their rights.

Do you reckon Grenada or Panama broke the Geneva conventions ?

Thanks to the War Powers Act, a declaration of war is not necessary for military force to be legal under US law. For better or worse, probably worse. And..what war is over? Afganistan and Iraq are still cooking along just fine.

I'd imagine Greneda broke the GC when the Austin Junta targeted civilians and murderd Bishop. Panama, or at least Noreiega and his "Dignity Battlains" or whatever targeted families of US dependents, and killed a US Marine. I have no idea if that is covered by the GC or not.

I seriously doubt the US, or any other military, has engaged in combat without the GC being broken. It happens, my point is, I ONLY hear Euros upset when it is the US. And that greatly effects wether most Americans really care what European opinion is. I'm here because I like debate.

xm15e3

Lemming wrote:

Actually, the term "illegal combatant" was made up by the current administration, and is in itself a violation of the Geneva convention. The status of these people is covered by the Geneva convention. There is a default status setting for anyone not covered under any explicit definitions as set down in the convention.

I've argued this before with people, and I have quoted the relevant passages. I'll dig them up and post them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_combatant

According to the above, the term is over 100 years old. And that the GCV gives them about the same protection as UCMJ. Good luck defining Humane, much less torture.

It's going to be REALLY interesting when the tribunals start, and the executions follow.

rancheros

xm15e3 wrote:

The GC does not protect everyone.
Findlaw: http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20020123.html

It lucky that the US goverment were able to find a loop hole, ie call them unlawful combatents, that way there not protected by the convention..

Is that to say as well that all foreign soliders held captive all accross the world are not protected by it, if that label is stuck on them.

I bring you back to your soliders in grenada.....if they were detained then are they unlawful combatents.....

Lemming

"illegal combatants" doesn't wash well with the terms of the rules of engagement anyway. Once someone picks up a weapon, they become an "enemy combatant", thus they are covered under existing US warfare doctrine.

I'm having trouble dredging up my old commentary on the debacle of "illegal" combatant status so it'll require a little more time. I think I'll need to go read the Geneva Convention again to get the bits I found last time.

ISAW

xm15e3 wrote:

My statement was that Nuremberg had nothing to do with US or any other CIVIL law. I know you're reading comprehention is better than this. Cut the crap.

Your statement was:

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??).

I posted the relevant legal references which referred to the US courts in the US zone.
http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/documents/cntrl10.htm#Article%205
Punishment of Persons Guilty of War Crimes, Crimes Against Peace
and Against Humanity
US law with appeals to natural law by the US prosecution. Having to do with the US referring to international treaties as a basis for crimes against humanity! My comprehension is fine thank you very much.
I suggest you look up who supplied the prosecution and the judges for Nuremburg.

Note Article II 1(c)

(c) Crimes against Humanity. Atrocities and offenses, including but not limited to murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, imprisonment, torture, rape, or other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds whether or not in violation of the domestic laws of the country where perpetrated.

The advisors, especially groups like the Ravens and other black ops, typically CIA groups are unlawful combatents, and they have no protection under the GC.

SO if they are captured does that justify torturing and killing them too?

Uh, re-read the post. Did I not say, regardless of coverage of the GC, torture was wrong..and stupid? Besides it is illegal under UCMJ. The GC/EU/UN take take a flying leap, but UCMJ will be enforced.

But as I said you can't have it both ways. You can't say "whether or not in violation of the domestic laws of the country where perpetrated" and then disregard when that applies to the US!
And if the US can reclassify anything short of death as not being torture then where do you go? Also if slavery was not illegal in 1800 did that mean it was right? so when the US didn't have laws against slavery was slavery wrong? Or did it only start being wrong after theUS passed laws saying it was?

BTW, I don't see much differnce between Socialism and Slavery, both should be capital crimes.

Being a slave is not a crime. Having slaves is! One thing is sure a slave is denied personal freedom and rights and due process. what is the difference between that and the 600 plus in Guantanamo Bay?
BTW I dont see much point in going off the point into attacking socialism. WE are talking about torturing prisioners here and depriving them of freedom without trial.

ISAW

xm15e3 wrote:

Thanks to the War Powers Act, a declaration of war is not necessary for military force to be legal under US law. For better or worse, probably worse. And..what war is over? Afganistan and Iraq are still cooking along just fine.

thanks to the War Powers Act these are "legal invasions". I dont the Us declared war on Iraq or Afghanistan. I think Fox news did that.

I'd imagine Greneda broke the GC when the Austin Junta targeted civilians and murderd Bishop.

did the same not happen in el Salvador but the Us were on the other side?
Did you not claim that the Geneva Convention was not necessary for the US? i.e. The EU/UN can take a hike?

Panama, or at least Noreiega and his "Dignity Battlains" or whatever targeted families of US dependents, and killed a US Marine. I have no idea if that is covered by the GC or not.

So if americans die that is not right but how about Phillipinoes or columbians? Actually how about Hawaiians? they were a non state when the Japenese bombed it werent they?

But the kernel of your argument is quite clear. You argue about international law human rights and mistreatment of prisioners but you admit you "have no idea" if a major treaty applies. Which is why I asked you suppose no US law applied. Was slavery wrong when US law did not say it was wrong when no Us law against it existed?

I seriously doubt the US, or any other military, has engaged in combat without the GC being broken. It happens, my point is, I ONLY hear Euros upset when it is the US. And that greatly effects wether most Americans really care what European opinion is. I'm here because I like debate.

You only hear what you want to hear then! I have posted here and elsewhere about Iraq. who were the first to use chemical weapons there? The English! At the orders of Churchill! They supported a puppet government and the French assisted in the carve up of Arabia. The Germans and Turks would have done the same had they won the War. The Us were busy expanding into central and South america and the Pacific at the time.

I do not practice double standards. If many Americans really care then they should leave when the democratic desire of the natives is that they should leave! The US have not gone when asked elsewhere in history. Nor have other colonialists. I am not anti US. I am anti injustice and anti hypocracy. Many in the EU protest Chinese abuse of human rights. The Us is increasing trade with China.

sceptre

xm15e3 wrote:

BTW, I don't see much differnce between Socialism and Slavery, both should be capital crimes.

I've never seen much of a difference between libertarianism of the economic laissez-faire variety and recklessness but before we both go searching for the dictionary and find that they're not in fact the same thing, let's think about starting a new topic and thread if we want to go off on a completely unrelated tangent please. It makes life in the pews much simpler.

Hobbes

ISAW wrote:

thanks to the War Powers Act these are "legal invasions". I dont the Us declared war on Iraq or Afghanistan. I think Fox news did that.

Being legal and being right are two different things. I recall for example it is possible to be guilty of a crime in the US but the jury can call the law unjust and allow the person to go free. Rarely happens but is possible.

sovtek

ISAW wrote:

thanks to the War Powers Act these are "legal invasions". I dont the Us declared war on Iraq or Afghanistan. I think Fox news did that.

Actually they aren't necessarily legal. The US Constitution states that all treaties that the US signs up to are the "law of the land". That means if the UN Charter, the Geneva Convention or...say the Nuremburg Principles are breached then it is illegal by US law.

ISAW

xm15e3 wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_combatant

According to the above, the term ["illegal combatant"] is over 100 years old. And that the GCV gives them about the same protection as UCMJ. Good luck defining Humane, much less torture.

Actually it doesn't say that at all. It says quite the opposite:

unlike the terms "combatant" "prisoner of war" and "civilian" the term "unlawful combatant", or similar, is not mentioned in either the Hague or the Geneva Conventions. So while the former terms are well understood and clear under international law, the term "unlawful combatant" is not.

The US law on it dates from WWII. It is 63 years old and not "over 100 years old". The case ex Parte Quirin states:

...Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful. The spy who secretly and without uniform passes the military lines of a belligerent in time of war, seeking to gather military information and communicate it to the enemy, or an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, are familiar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war, but to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals."

Now catching spies looking at targets in civies in the US is one thing. Driving an armoured column up a mountain and arresting an Afghan shepard because he is not in uniform and therefore must be an unlawful combatant is pushing the envelope a little dont you think?

Your link above continues in reference to:

Using the authorization granted to him by Congress, on November 13, 2001, President Bush issued a Presidential Military Order: "Detention, Treatment, and Trial of Certain Non-Citizens in the War Against Terrorism"
...
The military order uses the term "detainees" to describe the individuals detained under the military order. The U.S. administration chooses to describe the detainees held under the military order as "Illegal enemy combatants".

So Lemmings post/claim that

Actually, the term "illegal combatant" was made up by the current administration,...

is only confirmed by your link!

It's going to be REALLY interesting when the tribunals start, and the executions follow.

Ill bet Captain Blackadder thought as much when he defended the 1916 Signatories of the Irish Proclimation eh?

swimtwobirds

xm15e3 made reference back a bit to the few bad apples argument, in relation to action taken against the "illegal combatants". I don't think that holds water. Seymour Hersh has broken some major stories on this subject:

http://www.correspondences.org/archives/000607.html

here’s a few bits:
[/QUOTE] According to Hersh's article, Rumsfeld set up a "Special Access Program" (SAP) which is another word for a "black" or covert program and picked Stephen Cambone (appointed Under-Secretary of Defence for Intelligence in 3/03) to head the program…. The SAP goes under a number of code names - one of which is "Copper Green."…. The response was the establishment of a covert project that allowed immediate action by operators, and created a "no rules apply" environment in the interrogation of Al Qaeda suspects. In the spring of 2003, this approach was applied in Guantanamo, and then carried to Iraq in the late summer of 2003 (in the person of General Miller)…. President Bush was informed of the existence of the program.

As the situation in Iraq continued to deteriorate, the SAP extended from "high value targets" to "dead enders" (folks who took $300 from unspecified people to shoot at convoys), and ultimately (from other reports folks just in the wrong place at the wrong time). It was decided to "Gitmoize" Iraq. [/QUOTE]

The administration know exactly whats being done; the britney homo-torture, (which came out of psy-ops research, originally commisioned in the seventies), rendering people to mordor for questioning,in other words; the whole, weird, unsettling lot of it.

HelterSkelter

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.

Appropiate nickname. I think someone stuck a screwdriver in your brain and damaged it.

HelterSkelter

HelterSkelter wrote:

Appropiate nickname. I think someone stuck a screwdriver in your brain and damaged it.

2 week ban for that blatant abuse helterSkelter.

axtradub12

Torture is at our own doors within the EU member states. The EU on human rights is a big joke. One has only to look at Spain who tortures prisoners in their country.