NationStates Jolt Archive

Clicky (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20050624/pl_afp/unustortureguantanamo_050624132300;_ylt=AmlkNCFMVuL.tdt9DpEAsv1X6GMA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJV RPUCUl)

GENEVA (AFP) - Washington has for the first time acknowledged to the
United Nations that prisoners have been tortured at US detention centres in Guantanamo Bay, as well as Afghanistan and Iraq, a UN source said.

The acknowledgement was made in a report submitted to the UN Committee against Torture, said a member of the ten-person panel, speaking on on condition of anonymity.

"They are no longer trying to duck this, and have respected their obligation to inform the UN," the Committee member told AFP.

"They they will have to explain themselves (to the Committee). Nothing should be kept in the dark."

UN sources said it was the first time the world body has received such a frank statement on torture from US authorities.

Guess there's a few people around here who are going to have to eat a little crow on this one.

Quelle surprise!

You'd think so. But sand keeps the head warm. I have to agree with David Cross, at this point Bush could come one TV eating a Jewish baby and they would find an excuse for him.

And I still have to listen to people bitch about a blowjob. Fuck...

You'd think so. But sand keeps the head warm. I have to agree with David Cross, at this point Bush could come one TV eating a Jewish baby and they would find an excuse for him.

And I still have to listen to people bitch about a blowjob. Fuck...

For puritans, sex is always worse than violent death.

According to most human rights organizations, merely detaining someone and asking them questions politely is considered psychological torture under threat.

HAH!

Toldja so,

DAMMNIT!

People with their goddamn heads in the sand.

HAH!

Clicky (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20050624/pl_afp/unustortureguantanamo_050624132300;_ylt=AmlkNCFMVuL.tdt9DpEAsv1X6GMA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJV RPUCUl)



Guess there's a few people around here who are going to have to eat a little crow on this one.

I'll have mine with Tabasco and salt, thanks.
Obviously, since the time I was in, the Army and the Military in general have been drinking a lot of Stupid Juice. Probably something you can actually blame on the RIF in the 1990's-all the experienced people who knew better were run out. :(

You'd think so. But sand keeps the head warm. I have to agree with David Cross, at this point Bush could come one TV eating a Jewish baby and they would find an excuse for him.

And I still have to listen to people bitch about a blowjob. Fuck...

David Cross rocks.

According to most human rights organizations, merely detaining someone and asking them questions politely is considered psychological torture under threat.

Oh, the apologists aren't even trying to keep up the semblance of a connection to reality any more.

HAH!

Toldja so,

DAMMNIT!

People with their goddamn heads in the sand.

HAH!

Using drugs to get confessions is torture under UNCAT.

So are the sensory deprivation techniques used by the UK and France, and now used by the US.

Do I look like I care? My head is not in the sand. I just don't care if the al-Q guys get their skin peeled off with a belt sander.

Um, given that the source is anonymous, how much money do you want to place on the fact that those who made the "acknowledgement" have never actually seen direct evidence of this torture? When an article is this vague on it I get a tad suspicious. You know, just a small amount.

For puritans, sex is always worse than violent death.


because everyone knows God hates people who have too much fun

HAH!

Toldja so,

DAMMNIT!

People with their goddamn heads in the sand.

HAH!
wow, brilliant arguement there :rolleyes:

I think it's a matter of redefining the word torture. The administation seems to accept the definition that people have been using for a while now... if we make someone uncomfortable it's torture.

I've said it before, when there has been videotaped, televised decapitations at gitmo, when there has been middle-eastern skin lampshades... when detainees have been made to live on 180 grams of rice every 2 days.... then I'll appologize for "torture".

For puritans, sex is always worse than violent death.

and for liberals, freedom and security apparently are not things worth fighting for...

Using drugs to get confessions is torture under UNCAT.

So are the sensory deprivation techniques used by the UK and France, and now used by the US.

Do I look like I care? My head is not in the sand. I just don't care if the al-Q guys get their skin peeled off with a belt sander.

Finally, the truth. You just don't care about human rights violations when it is the US that commits them. Horribly sad and silly a behaviour, but at least it's truthful.

and for liberals, freedom and security apparently are not things worth fighting for...

Since when is it that that the US is fighting for?

wow, brilliant arguement there :rolleyes:

I think it's a matter of redefining the word torture. The administation seems to accept the definition that people have been using for a while now... if we make someone uncomfortable it's torture.

I've said it before, when there has been videotaped, televised decapitations at gitmo, when there has been middle-eastern skin lampshades... when detainees have been made to live on 180 grams of rice every 2 days.... then I'll appologize for "torture".

well that's just it...

to people who hate the US, rubbing yourself against an inmate is an example of torture.

lmao

maybe that's what we're admitting to.

Um, given that the source is anonymous, how much money do you want to place on the fact that those who made the "acknowledgement" have never actually seen direct evidence of this torture? When an article is this vague on it I get a tad suspicious. You know, just a small amount.

I could care less in any case.

If you are a detainee, and I tie you to a chair, and ask you a question, and you refuse to answer, and I ask you again, louder, according to most human rights organizations, I am in violation of the UN Convention Against Torture and have already "tortured" you.

I need do nothing else.

If you experience any feelings of dread, fear, intimidation, nervousness, or you just miss your mom when I ask you the question, I am mentally torturing you. There is NO line that can be crossed, except the asking of the question.

Ask the question, and you are guilty of torture. Plain and simple.

Show me a prisoner who has no feelings of dread, fear, intimidation, nervousness, or who doesn't miss his mom - you won't find one - and then put him in a position where he is asked a question - it's torture, plain and simple.

I personally don't care what happens to the detainees.

and for liberals, freedom and security apparently are not things worth fighting for...

Have you any idea what liberal means? From the latin Libertas. Just because we don't support your desire to carry guns everywhere and charge into countries you dislike goin YEEEEHAAAAAW! the whole damn way doesn't mean we want everyone locked in a 2-yard cell.

and for liberals, freedom and security apparently are not things worth fighting for...
Given that Fass is swedish and what the term liberal means on the european continent, your comment is just fucking hilarious.

Since when is it that that the US is fighting for?

oh, i don't know... we're putting terrorists in Guantanamo so they can't form groups and bomb buildings like the one you work in or the home you live in... that's called security. you'd think people would be happy to be saved from people like them, but I guess...

and fighting to depose a brutal dictator, in turn allowing iraqis to vote to choose their own leaders... that's called (or is at least one huge part of, and a stepping stone to...) freedom.

and for liberals, freedom and security apparently are not things worth fighting for...

Wrong, it is far more appropriate to say that conservatives don't follow national law

Finally, the truth. You just don't care about human rights violations when it is the US that commits them. Horribly sad and silly a behaviour, but at least it's truthful.

If you've read my posts, you'll find I always thought this.

You can't ask anyone any questions at all - any questioning is bound to incite feelings of dread, fear, hopelessness, etc. - and that's torture under the UN Convention against Torture.

You should tell your police to stop asking suspects any questions - they are in violation of UNCAT.

Using drugs to get confessions is torture under UNCAT.

So are the sensory deprivation techniques used by the UK and France, and now used by the US.

...
Erm... is it? I've inferred from Article 1 that there are levels of pain that do not amount to torture, which is defined as 'severe pain and suffering'. The European Court of Human Rights did not recognize sensory deprivation as torture.

Given that Fass is swedish and what the term liberal means on the european continent, your comment is just fucking hilarious.

Psst! Don't burst his US-centric bubble, please! It can be quite traumatic for his lot.

wow, brilliant arguement there :rolleyes:

I think it's a matter of redefining the word torture. The administation seems to accept the definition that people have been using for a while now... if we make someone uncomfortable it's torture.

I've said it before, when there has been videotaped, televised decapitations at gitmo, when there has been middle-eastern skin lampshades... when detainees have been made to live on 180 grams of rice every 2 days.... then I'll appologize for "torture".

Well I sure hope nobody ever mistakenly makes you uh... "uncomfortable", there pally. Wouldn't that be unpleasant? All the more so knowing that you yourself wouldn't raise to much of a fuss when it happens to other people? I mean, it's not like it's torture or anything like that.

Right?

Erm... is it? I've inferred from Article 1 that there are levels of pain that do not amount to torture, which is defined as 'severe pain and suffering'. The European Court of Human Rights did not recognize sensory deprivation as torture.

The UNCAT refers to "mental anguish".

That could mean anything. "I miss my mom because I'm detained here in Guantanamo" is mental anguish, no matter how nice your room is.

If you've read my posts, you'll find I always thought this.

You can't ask anyone any questions at all - any questioning is bound to incite feelings of dread, fear, hopelessness, etc. - and that's torture under the UN Convention against Torture.

You should tell your police to stop asking suspects any questions - they are in violation of UNCAT.

No, no they aren't. As I said, you apologists aren't even trying to keep up a semblance of a connection to reality any more.

No, no they aren't. As I said, you apologists aren't even trying to keep up a semblance of a connection to reality any more.

Oh yes they are.

The UNCAT refers to "mental anguish".

That could mean anything. "I miss my mom because I'm detained here in jail" is mental anguish, no matter how nice your room is.

I could care less in any case.

If you are a detainee, and I tie you to a chair, and ask you a question, and you refuse to answer, and I ask you again, louder, according to most human rights organizations, I am in violation of the UN Convention Against Torture and have already "tortured" you.

I need do nothing else.

If you experience any feelings of dread, fear, intimidation, nervousness, or you just miss your mom when I ask you the question, I am mentally torturing you. There is NO line that can be crossed, except the asking of the question.

Ask the question, and you are guilty of torture. Plain and simple.

Show me a prisoner who has no feelings of dread, fear, intimidation, nervousness, or who doesn't miss his mom - you won't find one - and then put him in a position where he is asked a question - it's torture, plain and simple.

I personally don't care what happens to the detainees.

Even those that have done nothing wrong?

Psst! Don't burst his US-centric bubble, please! It can be quite traumatic for his lot.
Not really, considering I'm much, much closer to "his lot" than you. I'm just pissed off that the social dems in my country have hijacked the term liberal.

Wrong, it is far more appropriate to say that conservatives don't follow national law

national law?

okay.

So in 2000 when Gore tried to overturn Florida law and continue counting votes long after the deadline ... he was following national law, which dictates that the states shall provide laws governing how elections are carried out, counted, reported, etc.?

Not really, considering I'm much, much closer to "his lot" than you. I'm just pissed off that the social dems in my country have hijacked the term liberal.

are they communists?

Even those that have done nothing wrong?

We've already released 240. Who did nothing wrong.

This is not a police matter. This is a matter of military capture.

If you capture soldiers or combatants (fighters who wear no uniform), then they are captured. They are not arrested by police for a crime. They are being detained for the duration of the war because they were captured under arms.

Those for whom it was determined by tribunal and interrogation that they were truly innocent have already been released.

The remainder will be in the camp until the war is over.

are they communists?
Sort of. They're socialists, aka diet communism

Oh yes they are.

The UNCAT refers to "mental anguish".

That could mean anything. "I miss my mom because I'm detained here in jail" is mental anguish, no matter how nice your room is.

Umm, no it doesn't. Ever heard of jurisprudence? Have you even looked at torture cases decided on by the organ? It seems to me like you just took a word out of context and are trying to somehow represent your ignorance on the matter as some sort of fact to support something (well, other than the obvious fact of its own existence, that is)...

Sort of. They're socialists, aka diet communism

aka "we're jealous of successful people and want their money, but are too lazy to work for it ourselves so let's pass laws in our favor so that we can tax the hell out of them and we can get their money that way"

hehe

The UNCAT refers to "mental anguish".

That could mean anything. "I miss my mom because I'm detained here in Guantanamo" is mental anguish, no matter how nice your room is.
I cannot find the part about 'mental anguish' in the UNCAT. But -

It [torture] does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

I think that plain interrogation is certainly lawful.

I could care less in any case.

If you are a detainee, and I tie you to a chair, and ask you a question, and you refuse to answer, and I ask you again, louder, according to most human rights organizations, I am in violation of the UN Convention Against Torture and have already "tortured" you.

I need do nothing else.

If you experience any feelings of dread, fear, intimidation, nervousness, or you just miss your mom when I ask you the question, I am mentally torturing you. There is NO line that can be crossed, except the asking of the question.

Ask the question, and you are guilty of torture. Plain and simple.

Show me a prisoner who has no feelings of dread, fear, intimidation, nervousness, or who doesn't miss his mom - you won't find one - and then put him in a position where he is asked a question - it's torture, plain and simple.

I personally don't care what happens to the detainees.

Your words there pretty much express the attitude that has the United States on the world's Shit List.

The "I don't care what happens to the detainees because if they're in Guantanamo in the first place they are terrorists and we don't need a formal trial to determine whether or not they actually were terrorists to begin with" attitude that shows just how two-faced the Bush Administration is.

After this, if American troops get captured in another conflict and they go through the same shit or worse, guess what? Bush brought it upon the troops with his cowboy recklessness.

Well I sure hope nobody ever mistakenly makes you uh... "uncomfortable", there pally. Wouldn't that be unpleasant? All the more so knowing that you yourself wouldn't raise to much of a fuss when it happens to other people? I mean, it's not like it's torture or anything like that.

Right?
Explain your definition of torture.. I explained mine in my post.
I'll reiterate it for you.
Decapitations....
The tanning of human flesh for personal "momentos"...
Disfigurment/Dismemberment...
Severe starvation/dehydration, e.g. the 180 grams of rice every 2 days Pol Phot fed his prisoners

That is the level of treatment that I concider torture.

Umm, no it doesn't. Ever heard of jurisprudence? Have you even looked at torture cases decided on by the organ? It seems to me like you just took a word out of context and are trying to somehow represent your ignorance on the matter as some sort of fact.

Yes, it does. I didn't make this up. I had lunch with some workers from Amnesty who told me that it's outrageous to isolate any prisoner by any means for any period of time in a cell. To them, it is impossible to carry out any asking of questions without inferring some level of intimidation - i.e., difference in power between the interrogator and the prisoner.

It's apparently the view of Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International.

To them, no prisoner of war or other combatant should EVER be detained - not even for a minute. And if detained, should NEVER be questioned.

You remember the answer, "Name, Rank, and Serial Number"?

They say that is the jurisprudence. Since they believe that a detainee should only be required to give that information, asking ANY other question under even a perceived threat of force or deprivation is TORTURE.

Al-Q fighters don't even have a rank or serial number. So asking them anything beyond their name is TORTURE.

The UNCAT refers to "mental anguish".

That could mean anything. "I miss my mom because I'm detained here in Guantanamo" is mental anguish, no matter how nice your room is.

Addition to my earlier post:

"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."

Again, your ignorence of the matter at hand is astounding. The UNCAT doesn't even contain the words "mental anguish", and lo, the bolded part dismisses all your claims.

After this, if American troops get captured in another conflict and they go through the same shit or worse, guess what? Bush brought it upon the troops with his cowboy recklessness.

They already have. They were executed on the spot, primarily because of an edict by Osama, saying that no prisoners will ever be taken.

He wrote that in 1993.

This is not the police. Police arrest people, take them to court, and try them.

Soldiers capture people and put them in camps for the duration of the war.

Or are you saying that the UK, by imprisoning thousands of German POWs without so much as a trial or hearing, was acting irresponsibly by detaining them for the duration of the war?

Explain your definition of torture.. I explained mine in my post.
I'll reiterate it for you.
Decapitations....
The tanning of human flesh for personal "momentos"...
Disfigurment/Dismemberment...
Severe starvation/dehydration, e.g. the 180 grams of rice every 2 days Pol Phot fed his prisoners

That is the level of treatment that I concider torture.

...but you've got to understand that some in here would consider being forced to play with Barbie dolls a form of torture... if it's the US doing it.

other countries, like China, can line em up and shoot em in the back of the head, but nobody notices that. We serve a terrorist the wrong soft drink for lunch and suddenly we're torturing them. lmao. gotta love the double-standard.

Addition to my earlier post:

"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."

Again, your ignorence of the matter at hand is astounding. The UNCAT doesn't even contain the words "mental anguish", and lo, the bolded part dismisses all your claims.

Intimidating is the word. What prisoner is not "intimidated" by being captured, detained, and questioned?

There are also more documents than the UNCAT.

Yes, it does. I didn't make this up. I had lunch with some workers from Amnesty who told me that it's outrageous to isolate any prisoner by any means for any period of time in a cell. To them, it is impossible to carry out any asking of questions without inferring some level of intimidation - i.e., difference in power between the interrogator and the prisoner.

It's apparently the view of Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International.

To them, no prisoner of war or other combatant should EVER be detained - not even for a minute. And if detained, should NEVER be questioned.

You remember the answer, "Name, Rank, and Serial Number"?

They say that is the jurisprudence. Since they believe that a detainee should only be required to give that information, asking ANY other question under even a perceived threat of force or deprivation is TORTURE.

Al-Q fighters don't even have a rank or serial number. So asking them anything beyond their name is TORTURE.

More bull, not much unlike your claims about what the UNCAT is to state. Seriously, your ignorance about this matter is almost enough to make one speechless.

More bull, not much unlike your claims about what the UNCAT is to state. Seriously, your ignorance about this matter is almost enough to make one speechless.

Perhaps you should read the Federal Law that was passed to comply with UNCAT.

Intimidating is the word. What prisoner is not "intimidated" by being captured, detained, and questioned?

There are also more documents than the UNCAT.
The Convention talks about 'severe pain and suffering', implying that there are such levels of pain and suffering that, not being severe, cannot be defined as torture.

Intimidating is the word. What prisoner is not "intimidated" by being captured, detained, and questioned?

Which part of the bolded sentence was it you did not read?

There are also more documents than the UNCAT.

Are you seriously going to try to demonstrate more ignorance of this matter? Please, do. Your display so far has been so funny.

Perhaps you should read the Federal Law that was passed to comply with UNCAT.

Psst! American law is inconsequential for UN matters and breaches of international law.

"2. This article is without prejudice to any international instrument or national legislation which does or may contain provisions of wider application."

The Convention talks about 'severe pain and suffering', implying that there are such levels of pain and suffering that, not being severe, cannot be defined as torture.

Yeah, another part he seems to not have read.

Are you seriously going to try to demonstrate more ignorance of this matter? Please, do. Your display so far has been so funny.

Are you? What is the definition of "severe"?

Is it the definition that Bush gives to "severe"?

Or is it the definition that you give to "severe"?

US Courts? (that's how we enforce the provisions of UNCAT here - through domestic courts)

Or do we take Amnesty International's definition of "severe"?

Or should I ask the prisoner - is being imprisoned without hope of release and having sat in Guantanamo for three years "severe" even if no one touched you?

Yeah, another part he seems to not have read.
Neither are you familiar with how treaties are enforced.

Countries, after accepting treaties, pass laws to ensure compliance with treaties like UNCAT.

And in the end, international law is meaningless without an enforcement mechanism.

Are you? What is the definition of "severe"?

Is it the definition that Bush gives to "severe"?

Or is it the definition that you give to "severe"?

US Courts? (that's how we enforce the provisions of UNCAT here - through domestic courts)

Or do we take Amnesty International's definition of "severe"?

Or should I ask the prisoner - is being imprisoned without hope of release and having sat in Guantanamo for three years "severe" even if no one touched you?

You seem to not know anything of the jurisprudence in this matter. Perhaps you should? Because the answer to your questions all lie there - international courts and organs have already established a standard of what "severe" is and, well, it's really nowhere near what you seem to want to imply.

So, please, do read up. Sweden has been found guilty of breaking the UNCAT several times. You could start with our cases.

You seem to not know anything of the jurisprudence in this matter. Perhaps you should? Because the answer to your questions all lie there - international courts and organs have already established a standard of what "severe" is and, well, it's really nowhere near what you seem to want to imply.

So, please, do read up. Sweden has been found guilty of breaking the UNCAT several times. You could start with our cases.

No US people will ever be in an international court. Try again.

As an aside, these men don't seem to have undergone the "torture" that everyone else claims was the fate of every detainee at Guantanamo.

Why is that?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/2371349.stm

I'm all for torture. These are not just every day people they are torturing. They are people, that given the chance, would kill you, your mother, your father, anyone you ever knew without thinking twice... isn't it about time we responded in kind?

Explain your definition of torture.. I explained mine in my post.
I'll reiterate it for you.
Decapitations....
The tanning of human flesh for personal "momentos"...
Disfigurment/Dismemberment...
Severe starvation/dehydration, e.g. the 180 grams of rice every 2 days Pol Phot fed his prisoners

That is the level of treatment that I concider torture.

Let's leave my definition of torture to one side, shall we?

Decapitation isn't torture, it's decapitation. The point of torture is either to elicit information (which clearly decapitation would frustrate at the very least, if not make downright improbable. Well, except maybe forensic information), or simply to sustain and prolong a maximum level of discomfort. In the case of the latter, decapitation also falls short. True, it has a predictable outcome, which other forms of so-called 'torture' cannot guarantee, but the outcome (death) is not necessarily desirable for the torturers. As well, a swift guillotining or garroting is anathema to the concept of a sustained prolongation of maximum discomfort.

*swifff-THUCK* and it's all over.

Tanning human flesh isn't in-and-of-itself torture, not unless the tanning process is being carried out on a living human being. I think you'll note it's far easier to tan the hide of non-living mammals. So, while the tanning of human skin is certainly unpleasant, as it's done with corpses, it's not technically torture. I'll certainly concede that it constitutes the desecration of a human body, but unless the corpse died as the result ofthe tanning process, or even from some related form of torture, I'm afraid ghoulish mementos are just that: ghoulish mementos.

*ewwwwwww*

Disfigurment or dismemberment? Sure deal.


Severe starvation or dehydration? Yup, that's a no-brainer.

But torture isn't limited to that, or to your, or my, imagination. It's limited by the minds of people open, ready and willing to torture human beings. Let's hope those minds can apply their native inventiveness to matters better suited to constructive goals, rather than to the goal of breaking the human spirit or worse.

Are you? What is the definition of "severe"?

Is it the definition that Bush gives to "severe"?

Or is it the definition that you give to "severe"?

US Courts? (that's how we enforce the provisions of UNCAT here - through domestic courts)

Or do we take Amnesty International's definition of "severe"?

Or should I ask the prisoner - is being imprisoned without hope of release and having sat in Guantanamo for three years "severe" even if no one touched you?
Now someone from the American executive branch told the UN Committee that it is torture (Mr Bush, probably, is unaware of that, of course). I suppose that, in the end, it is for the US courts to decide, however unclear the legal status of Guantanamo is.

Neither are you familiar with how treaties are enforced.

Countries, after accepting treaties, pass laws to ensure compliance with treaties like UNCAT.

And in the end, international law is meaningless without an enforcement mechanism.

Such luck that the ICC is there. And the courts in the Hague, and Nürnberg and such. Oh, and were you not aware that there is a UN comittee against torture (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu2/6/cat/) that reviews torture cases?

Such luck that the ICC is there. And the courts in the Hague, and Nürnberg and such. Oh, and were you not aware that there is a UN comittee against torture (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu2/6/cat/) that reviews torture cases?

As I said, no American will ever appear before the ICC. Try again.

The UN Committee reviews many torture cases. I see it's having a great effect worldwide (even if we leave out the US) on stopping torture, and in convicting and sentencing people.

Don't make me laugh.

No US people will ever be in an international court. Try again.

Now that is your silliest comment so far.

As an aside, these men don't seem to have undergone the "torture" that everyone else claims was the fate of every detainee at Guantanamo.

Why is that?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/2371349.stm

So the US government is lying when admitting to the torture?

national law?

okay.

So in 2000 when Gore tried to overturn Florida law and continue counting votes long after the deadline ... he was following national law, which dictates that the states shall provide laws governing how elections are carried out, counted, reported, etc.?

First off I will apologize because I meant inter national law.

Secondly don't even try to bring up the 2000 election because you lost that election and only because of the electoral college did you steal a victory

As I said, no American will ever appear before the ICC. Try again.

American citizens are not immune to ICC prosecution. Why do you think your government is trying to pressure other governments into agreeing not to send any Americans there?

The UN Committee reviews many torture cases. I see it's having a great effect worldwide (even if we leave out the US) on stopping torture, and in convicting and sentencing people.

Don't make me laugh.

Hey, it works in the countries that work with it, like Sweden. It has actually brought forward several changes in procedure and law here. There are countries out there who do comply with the UNCAT and comply when found in breach. But then again, it's jurisprudence isn't either at all what you were trying to allude to. So, it is you who should try again, as you seem to have a hard time proving (in fact, you're failing miserably in that endevour) that the UNCAT and any international law defines as torture the things you claim.

Now that is your silliest comment so far.

So the US government is lying when admitting to the torture?

So far, the US isn't going along with the ICC. And I don't believe it will. And I don't believe any nation can force it.

No, I'm saying that all the people who raise charges of torture say it's universal. And I'm saying that most of the people there have had an experience just like the men in that article.

Imprisoned. Questioned. But other than that, just like being in prison for a while.

American citizens are not immune to ICC prosecution.

Effectively, it is. Especially its soldiers.

Erm... is it? I've inferred from Article 1 that there are levels of pain that do not amount to torture, which is defined as 'severe pain and suffering'. The European Court of Human Rights did not recognize sensory deprivation as torture.

Possibly not, but all the human rights people did:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3376951.stm

Why do you even care about the detantees? They are terrorists. They were willing to kill our own soldiers, and you think they deserve rights? And what is all this bullshit about charging them with crimes? Since when have POWs have to be charged with a crime? They took up arms against our troops, and then they surendered, they don't need to be charged to be held.

They already have. They were executed on the spot, primarily because of an edict by Osama, saying that no prisoners will ever be taken.

He wrote that in 1993.

Oh really? Can you show me this edict, and proof that Americans soldiers were captured and executed by the insurgents on Osama's orders? Because this really is a straw man argument. And it goes back to the "They Did It First" argument which is seriously retarded for a nation that keeps chanting how morally superior it is to the rest of the world.

This is not the police. Police arrest people, take them to court, and try them.

Soldiers capture people and put them in camps for the duration of the war.

Or are you saying that the UK, by imprisoning thousands of German POWs without so much as a trial or hearing, was acting irresponsibly by detaining them for the duration of the war?

Another straw man argument. The UK treated the POWs rather humanely, and for the most part the Germans reciprocated that treatment on their Allied prisoners. And that was during a war against nations with expansionist ambitions back then, not a group of guerillas trying to drive foreign occupation off their land.

If the military is not the police, then why would there be tribunals for these alleged terrorists in the first place?

So far, the US isn't going along with the ICC. And I don't believe it will. And I don't believe any nation can force it.
--merge---
Effectively, it is. Especially its soldiers.

No country needs to force you. They just send your citizens, or soldiers, there, as the court is legitimate, as per its ratification in a sufficient number of states. You see, the US needn't comply - the country extraditing does. Hence the "effective" immunity is quite hollow, indeed.

Also, your failure to respond to the majority of my arguments in that post was duly noted.

No, I'm saying that all the people who raise charges of torture say it's universal. And I'm saying that most of the people there have had an experience just like the men in that article.

Imprisoned. Questioned. But other than that, just like being in prison for a while.

So, again the US government is lying when admitting to torture? I know it's been quite untrustworthy lately, but why would it lie in an admission of crimes?

Effectively, it is. Especially its soldiers.
Let's suppose that the ICC gets several cases from some failed African state, where were committed some crimes against humanity. One of the accused is a mercenary - and a US citizen. Will the US invoke the severe provisions of the law (its name escapes me, something about servicemembers) in defence of that 'wild goose'? I don't think so.

Why do you even care about the detantees? They are terrorists. They were willing to kill our own soldiers, and you think they deserve rights?

Just wondering, do you believe the US had a moral duty to go into Iraq?

Possibly not, but all the human rights people did:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3376951.stm

Why do you even care about the detantees? They are terrorists. They were willing to kill our own soldiers, and you think they deserve rights? And what is all this bullshit about charging them with crimes? Since when have POWs have to be charged with a crime? They took up arms against our troops, and then they surendered, they don't need to be charged to be held.

Prove they are what you maintain them to be, and maybe people won't think you're trafficking, to the tune of 5 grand USD per head, with those eminently trustworthy Afghani and Pakistani warlords, in kidnapped Kuwaiti tourists. At least, not as a general rule.

Is proving a thing so difficult to do? It's not as though you're on anything remotely like a timetable, or anything.

I just don't care if the al-Q guys get their skin peeled off with a belt sander.
Did Al-Queida ops start carrying membership cards while I was a sleep? Otherwise, how would we know who is worknig with AL-Queida and not just some random muslim?

Oh really? Can you show me this edict, and proof that Americans soldiers were captured and executed by the insurgents on Osama's orders? Because this really is a straw man argument. And it goes back to the "They Did It First" argument which is seriously retarded for a nation that keeps chanting how morally superior it is to the rest of the world.

I have it in Arabic. I need only point to the execution of Navy SEAL Neal Roberts as the first example of that policy in action. It's not a straw man argument, and it's not a "they did it first".

This is war to the knife. And I do not claim any moral superiority - you are putting that on there for your own effect. This is a matter of survival - not a time for delusions of morality.


Another straw man argument. The UK treated the POWs rather humanely, and for the most part the Germans reciprocated that treatment on their Allied prisoners. And that was during a war against nations with expansionist ambitions back then, not a group of guerillas trying to drive foreign occupation off their land.

If the military is not the police, then why would there be tribunals for these alleged terrorists in the first place?

Third Geneva Convention implies that people get a tribunal to determine their status - not their guilt or innocence - but their status after capture.

I'm not talking about treating humanely - although the UK also did torture German prisoners on occasion - I'm talking about detaining them until the end of the war.

The UK detained its German prisoners. Until the end of the war. That's not a straw man - that's an example of what a military does with captured fighters - the UK did not pat the Germans on the back and send them home.

There are also multiple incidents of UK troops shooting Germans out of hand - because the Germans were not in standard uniform. When the SS came out with a new camouflage smock, hundreds of captured SS were shot over a period of weeks by UK troops because they were thought to be spies.

No trial, no tribunal, no hearing - in some cases, the SS men were hung.

I have many, many photos of that. And no one was prosecuted for it. It's the rules of war - and according to the rules of war, you don't have to accept the surrender of a spy, saboteur, or anyone not fighting in a uniform.

Stop saying that war has rules - you'll get over it.

Let's suppose that the ICC gets several cases from some failed African state, where were committed some crimes against humanity. One of the accused is a mercenary - and a US citizen. Will the US invoke the severe provisions of the law (its name escapes me, something about servicemembers) in defence of that 'wild goose'? I don't think so.
It depends on who it is. If they are a mercenary, they'll be thrown to the wolves.

Active duty soldiers will not be sent over. There have been many discussions on this. Even Clinton refused to accept the idea of letting the ICC have jurisdiction over US troops.

Because of that, expect to see fewer and fewer US involvements in joint multinational peacekeeping operations. It's policy now - we don't want to be sending troops to a place under UN mandate only to have soldiers get in trouble with the ICC.

Next time someone does a Kosovo, or Rwanda (like Mugabe might do in Zimbabwe), the US will NOT be going.

Ihatevacations']Did Al-Queida ops start carrying membership cards while I was a sleep? Otherwise, how would we know who is worknig with AL-Queida and not just some random muslim?

You have to ask questions. And you have to assume that some of them are going to lie.

Possibly not, but all the human rights people did:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3376951.stm

Why do you even care about the detantees? They are terrorists. They were willing to kill our own soldiers, and you think they deserve rights? And what is all this bullshit about charging them with crimes? Since when have POWs have to be charged with a crime? They took up arms against our troops, and then they surendered, they don't need to be charged to be held.

They are not POWs, they have been classified as 'unlawful combatants'. The US definition is based upon Ex parte Quirin, decided by the Supreme Court in 1942.

...the law of war draws a distinction between the armed forces and the peaceful populations of belligerent nations and also between those who are lawful and unlawful combatants. Lawful combatants are subject to capture and detention as prisoners of war by opposing military forces. 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.

Charging them with crimes is not bullshit, it is the Supreme Court's view. After all, unlawful acts must be punished. Mr Quirin was tried and ended up in the electric chair.

Next time someone does a Kosovo, or Rwanda (like Mugabe might do in Zimbabwe), the US will NOT be going.

Seeing as US troops failed so poorly in Rwanda and Kosovo (hello, chinese embassy!), we should only wish!

Seeing as US troops failed so poorly in Rwanda and Kosovo (hello, chinese embassy!), we should only wish!

I wouldn't call forcing the Serbs to retreat a failure.

The UN stood by and watched while people were executed into open pits by the Serbs.

NATO had to go in. The US and UK were the primary drivers - and they forced the Serbs to stop.

Quite unlike the impotent, useless, and morally degenerate UN.

And the UN did such a good job in Rwanda! Kofi Annan should be proud of the orders he gave to Daillaire that day - don't interfere in the slightest.

Charging them with crimes is not bullshit, it is the Supreme Court's view. After all, unlawful acts must be punished. Mr Quirin was tried and ended up in the electric chair.

This initial tribunal they've gotten at Guantanamo is more related to the Third Geneva Convention and the determination of the captured person's status - not their guilt or innocence.

It depends on who it is. If they are a mercenary, they'll be thrown to the wolves.

Active duty soldiers will not be sent over. There have been many discussions on this. Even Clinton refused to accept the idea of letting the ICC have jurisdiction over US troops.

Because of that, expect to see fewer and fewer US involvements in joint multinational peacekeeping operations. It's policy now - we don't want to be sending troops to a place under UN mandate only to have soldiers get in trouble with the ICC.

...
That's sensible. A lot of regimes would be glad to put some American soldier before the ICC just for a wee bit of humiliation.

I wouldn't call forcing the Serbs to retreat a failure.

The UN stood by and watched while people were executed into open pits by the Serbs.

NATO had to go in. The US and UK were the primary drivers - and they forced the Serbs to stop.

And let the Kosovars to begin... I confess myself biased here, though.

Quite unlike the impotent, useless, and morally degenerate UN.

And the UN did such a good job in Rwanda! Kofi Annan should be proud of the orders he gave to Daillaire that day - don't interfere in the slightest.
It definitely raised Mr Annan's clout in the White House - the US insisted upon his candidacy for the Secretary-General in 1996, vetoing the incumbent.

And let the Kosovars to begin... I confess myself biased here, though.

It definitely raised Mr Annan's clout in the White House - the US insisted upon his candidacy for the Secretary-General in 1996, vetoing the incumbent.

That was Clinton's choice. And if you had to choose between Boutrous and Kofi...

it's like choosing between one flat tire and another...

That's sensible. A lot of regimes would be glad to put some American soldier before the ICC just for a wee bit of humiliation.

That's why Rumsfeld says the US is never again going to participate in any UN-sponsored multilateral deployment for peacekeeping.

Never.

That was Clinton's choice. And if you had to choose between Boutrous and Kofi...

it's like choosing between one flat tire and another...
Well, Bush didn't veto Annan's candidacy in 2001 when Annan was standing for re-election. It seems that the US president had been satisfied with Annan's work.

That's why Rumsfeld says the US is never again going to participate in any UN-sponsored multilateral deployment for peacekeeping.

Never.

Only as long as he has anything to say about it, you mean

that's cool... let the UN realize they have no backbone to actually do anything on their own.

maybe if they beg we'll start doing the dirty work again.

first words out of that president's mouth:

"Deez nuts..."

This is war to the knife.
Do you read any Ringo or Weber, perchance?

And I still have to listen to people bitch about a blowjob. Fuck...
Huh??? :confused:

Huh??? :confused:
He's/she's/it's saying republicans are bitching about Clintons oval office antics with interns.

Funny tho... the only time I hear that anymore, is when someone on the left is complaining about the former complaining.

He's/she's/it's saying republicans are bitching about Clintons oval office antics with interns.

Funny tho... the only time I hear that anymore, is when someone on the left is complaining about the former complaining.

Even less funny is the number of times it's heard given as proof-positive of the Dems' supposed lack of moral authority to ever govern again.

Do you read any Ringo or Weber, perchance?
No.

Only as long as he has anything to say about it, you mean
Clinton thought the same thing. I don't foresee a policy change.

You have to ask questions. And you have to assume that some of them are going to lie.

Yes...and is this "Q&A" session before or after you skin them alive? Because I'm a little fuzzy on that. Exactly when does the random person on the street become the terrorist scum not worthy of life? How does this determination get made? Or do you torture them all and let god sort it out?

Face it: Your advocating the torture of ANYONE we pick up, terrorist or not. Just be cause (and I still can't belive you admitted this) you don't give a damn about human rights. You'd said you'd rather brutally torture and kill someone than not, on the off chance they may want to see dead Americans.

Tell me something; do you think that's good US policy? To randomly torture anyone they pick up, just for shits and giggles? 'cause I'm not so sure I agree with that...seems a little counter-productive.

This was apparent before the election.

The is no such thing as an "innocent american" anymore.

I could care less in any case.

If you are a detainee, and I tie you to a chair, and ask you a question, and you refuse to answer, and I ask you again, louder, according to most human rights organizations, I am in violation of the UN Convention Against Torture and have already "tortured" you.

I need do nothing else.

If you experience any feelings of dread, fear, intimidation, nervousness, or you just miss your mom when I ask you the question, I am mentally torturing you. There is NO line that can be crossed, except the asking of the question.

Ask the question, and you are guilty of torture. Plain and simple.

Show me a prisoner who has no feelings of dread, fear, intimidation, nervousness, or who doesn't miss his mom - you won't find one - and then put him in a position where he is asked a question - it's torture, plain and simple.

I personally don't care what happens to the detainees.



A great change of stance from your previous thousands of posts, mainly that no torture existed. Now you don't care. Nominating WL for first against the wall!

This was apparent before the election.

The is no such thing as an "innocent american" anymore.

True.

Only "willfully ignorant" Americans, or Americans who make a point of practising "depraved indifference".

This was apparent before the election.

The is no such thing as an "innocent american" anymore.
You're correct that it was apparent, but this is the first time that the US government has actually admitted that they tortured people in their custody.

Yes...and is this "Q&A" session before or after you skin them alive? Because I'm a little fuzzy on that. Exactly when does the random person on the street become the terrorist scum not worthy of life? How does this determination get made? Or do you torture them all and let god sort it out?

Face it: Your advocating the torture of ANYONE we pick up, terrorist or not. Just be cause (and I still can't belive you admitted this) you don't give a damn about human rights. You'd said you'd rather brutally torture and kill someone than not, on the off chance they may want to see dead Americans.

Tell me something; do you think that's good US policy? To randomly torture anyone they pick up, just for shits and giggles? 'cause I'm not so sure I agree with that...seems a little counter-productive.

a)We're not torturing them... again, unless you're a complete wuss who thinks that swearing/yelling at someone is a form of torture.

b)If I have to choose between being rough with a terrorist and getting answers about future terrorist plans... or being polite to them and not asking any questions and saying "to hell with national security"... sorry, I'll choose the former. I'm not naive enough to believe that these people are at Gitmo for their saintly acts. R.O.F.L.

on a lighter note:

Frangland's national animal is canis familiaris -- the dog

So I checked out my Issues today and what did I find?

Save the canis familiaris Through Domestication


! ! !

a)We're not torturing them... again, unless you're a complete wuss who thinks that swearing/yelling at someone is a form of torture.


So if they're just being yelled at, why are they photographed in sexually compromising positions, with or without electrodes & hoods, snarling attack dogs and soldiers mugging for the cameras optional?

So if they're just being yelled at, why are they photographed in sexually compromising positions, with or without electrodes & hoods, snarling attack dogs and soldiers mugging for the cameras optional?

i guess we disagree on what constitutes torture then

being embarrassed is not torture... not that what you describe is good. but cripes...

TORTURE is when you're beaten, or injured so as to maximize pain... physical torture.

having your head sawed off is a form of torture... i would imagine that you don't die right away, and that this pre-death portion of the sawing is rather painful.

being forced to form a cheerleader pyramid naked is not torture. it is ridiculous and reflects poorly on the US, i'll give you that, but come on... torture? lmao

So you agree they're not just being yelled at, then?

a)We're not torturing them... again, unless you're a complete wuss who thinks that swearing/yelling at someone is a form of torture.

b)If I have to choose between being rough with a terrorist and getting answers about future terrorist plans... or being polite to them and not asking any questions and saying "to hell with national security"... sorry, I'll choose the former. I'm not naive enough to believe that these people are at Gitmo for their saintly acts. R.O.F.L.

Swearing/yelling can be emoptional abnuse which leaves much longer problems than physical ones. Physical abuse can be healed, emotional abuse requires theraphy and might never go away.

I'll choose the later. I'd rather believe innocent till proven guilty :)

For puritans, sex is always worse than violent death.
FLORT!!!!!!!
*tears*

Well, I wanted badly to believe it wasn't true, even against my own gut feelings, but when I heard that they cranked an extremely loud loop tape of Christina Aquilara for hours, I couldn't deny it anymore. :p

Seriously, I just wanted it not to be true... :(