• In total there are 0 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 0 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
    Most users ever online was 616 on Thu Jan 18, 2024 7:47 pm

Oh the horror!

A forum dedicated to friendly and civil conversations about domestic and global politics, history, and present-day events.
Forum rules
Do not promote books in this forum. Instead, promote your books in either Authors: Tell us about your FICTION book! or Authors: Tell us about your NON-FICTION book!.

All other Community Rules apply in this and all other forums.
Niall001
Stupendously Brilliant
Posts: 706
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2003 4:00 am
20

Re: Some Axioms

Unread post

www.govexec.com/dailyfed/...305nj1.htm^Very interesting article about CIA vets' opinions on torture and how effective it is.In particular note the contrast between the effects of the SV violent tactics and the non-violent techniques of the Americans.Chris, in a situation where there is an immediate threat, torture can be effectively use on pragmatic grounds, simply because other techniques take longer to use. But in a situation where the threat is not immediate and you have people in a detention centre, it can't be justified, either on moral or pragmatic grounds.www.alternet.org/rights/28585/Quote:No one has yet offered any validated evidence that torture produces reliable intelligence. While torture apologists frequently make the claim that torture saves lives, that assertion is directly contradicted by many Army, FBI, and CIA professionals who have actually interrogated al Qaeda captives. Exhibit A is the torture-extracted confession of Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, an al Qaeda captive who told the CIA in 2001, having been "rendered" to the tender mercies of Egypt, that Saddam Hussein had trained al Qaeda to use WMD. It appears that this confession was the only information upon which, in late 2002, the president, the vice president, and the secretary of state repeatedly claimed that "credible evidence" supported that claim, even though a now-declassified Defense Intelligence Agency report from February 2002 questioned the reliability of the confession because it was likely obtained under torture. In January 2004, al-Libi recanted his "confession," and a month later, the CIA recalled all intelligence reports based on his statements. Let us agree, there is no one single reality. Not upon this stage, not in this world, all is in the mind... imagination is the only truth. Because it cannot be contradicted except by other imaginations - Richard MathesonThere are no conclusive indications by which waking life can be distinguished from sleep - Rene Descartes
Luck of the Draw

more horror.....

Unread post

DH---More precisely, we fight wars for freedom, justice and security: our enemies fight wars for subjugation, criminality and terror.So what exactly is the difference? You have simply become that which you hunt. You think your cause was noble. He obviously thinks his was also. To him you're the enemy and vis-versa, no? Who really gets to claim the higher/more noble status? The end of the day you're simply someone who has no qualms about torturing another being.
User avatar
Frank 013
Worthy of Worship
Posts: 2021
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2005 8:55 pm
18
Location: NY
Has thanked: 548 times
Been thanked: 171 times

Legal horror

Unread post

[AD015: The treaties are in fact, charters, which are not agreements between pairs of nations which can be discarded upon first breach, but a commitment to the entire community of nations that we will not act like savage beasts, in the interest of developing and maintaining a peaceful world with understood common values in which human commerce, whether intellectual, artistic or economic, can take place in security.] I think you should take a good look at the rules of warfare I listed below; they do require a group to be abiding by the laws in the treaties before said group would be protected by them.[DH: You seem to think our military endeavors are free of malice and treachery, until we are provoked.][Luck: The end of the day you're simply someone who has no qualms about torturing another being.]Man you guys really need to read what you are responding to. I never said any thing about the malice of our people or the morality of torture, just the necessity and legality of it. The laws of war, foremost the United Nations Charter, the Geneva conventions and the Hague conventions, bind consenting nations and have achieved widespread consent. There are also customary rules of war, many of which were explored at the Nuremberg War Trials. These laws define both the permissive rights of states as well as prohibitions on their conduct when dealing with irregular forces and non-signatories.Spies and terrorists may be subject to civilian law or military tribunal for their acts and in practice have been subjected to torture and/or execution. The laws of war neither approve nor condemn such acts, which fall outside their scope.These are the rules that the terrorists must follow before they would be protected by the UN treaties.4.1.2 Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, provided that they fulfill the following conditions: that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance that of carrying arms openly; that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. Citizens and soldiers of nations which have not signed the Fourth Geneva Convention are also not protected by it (Article 4: "Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it".), whether they are spies or terrorists. Also, citizens and soldiers of nations which have not signed and do not abide by the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions are not protected by them.GCIV provides other important exemptions:"Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention [ie GCIV] as would ... be prejudicial to the security of such State." (GCIV article 5) In a conflict like the U.S. War on Terrorism many "unlawful combatants" have been denied protection under the Geneva Conventions, because they are either excluded by their nationality (see below) or they are deemed to be so dangerous that Article 5 can be invoked.There are two further groups who are not protected by GCIV:Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it. Nationals of a neutral State in the territory of a combatant State, and nationals of a co-belligerent State, cannot claim the protection of GCIV if their home state has normal diplomatic representation in the State that holds them. (article 4)Since nearly every state has diplomatic recognition of every other state, most citizens of neutral countries in a war zone are not able to claim any protection from GCIV. The United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.Section 2: If a state has signed the treaty without reservations, then there are no exceptional circumstances whatsoever where a state can use torture and not break its treaty obligations. The worst sanction which can be applied to a powerful county is the publishing of the information that they have broken their treaty obligations. The United States ratified the Convention, but with one reservation: that "... nothing in this Convention requires or authorizes legislation, or other action, by the United States of America prohibited by the Constitution of the United States as interpreted by the United States."The United States did not sign the treaty "without reservations" and has not written any laws prohibiting the use of torture in extreme situations.In every instance the charters and treaties only protect combatants when they themselves follow the agreements. This is not my "idea" this is the way it is written in the treaties. If you don't like it, I suggest you take it up with your respective governments. Later Edited by: Frank 013 at: 2/18/06 9:36 pm
Luck of the Draw

Legal horror

Unread post

F013----The United States ratified the Convention, but with one reservation: that "... nothing in this Convention requires or authorizes legislation, or other action, by the United States of America prohibited by the Constitution of the United States as interpreted by the United States."What was the need for the reservation/except-ion? This automatically gives us the right to torture POWs? If we had the right to torture prisoners already, what the need for Gonzales and Bush to even need to use Cuba/Gitmo....in essence circumvent the law? When did the term "enemy combatant" come in to use? And why did past presidents find the agreements we had signed sufficient in regards to POW's taken off the battle field? Did past presidents go out of their way to find ways to torture POWs?Is or was there the possibility that the United States could be brought up on war crimes charges? PS....when did we finally outlaw assassination of duly elected officials? Edited by: Luck of the Draw at: 2/18/06 11:31 pm
User avatar
Frank 013
Worthy of Worship
Posts: 2021
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2005 8:55 pm
18
Location: NY
Has thanked: 548 times
Been thanked: 171 times

Re: Legal horror

Unread post

[Luck: What was the need for the reservation/exception?]I do not know, it was put into the charter when it was originally signed.[Luck: This automatically gives us the right to torture POWs?]No, but if the offending party is a serious threat to our government, not a member of a country that signed the treaties or not following the rules of war than they are not protected by the treaties. So my point from before is valid, if the bad guys do not follow the rules they are not protected by the rules. This was put into place to encourage everyone to sign up. [Luck: If we had the right to torture prisoners already, what the need for Gonzales and Bush to even need to use Cuba/Gitmo....in essence circumvent the law?]First of all most of the events at GITMO were the result of sick individuals, not sanctioned interrogations.Second, if we brought them to our own country they would become protected by our legal system.Third, we could still be in breech of the Convention against Torture and get penalized by the publishing of the information that we have broken our treaty obligations. Ouch![Luck: When did the term "enemy combatant" come in to use?]I do not know, some time after the English language was formed. If you are referring to the term "unlawful combatant" than read the following.After September 11, 2001 attacks, the US and some of its allies have suggested that those who do not meet the "lawful combatant" category but do not fall into the non combatant category, should be determined to be "unlawful combatants." By this definition legal protection under the Geneva Conventions is not warranted. By declaring that some detainees do not merit the protections of criminal law because of their combatant activities, and that they do not merit the protections of jus in bello due to the unlawful nature of their combat, the use of the term in current legal discourse puts the detainees beyond the reach of treaty law.This is not a revision of treaty law, it just clarifies the status of people who fell into the gap between lawful combatants and non combatants. [Luck: Why did past presidents find the agreements we had signed sufficient in regards to POW's taken off the battle field?]Because those soldiers were following the rules of war.Because they were not targeting civilians.Because their countries signed the treaties.Because they were not sick, evil extremists that do not answer to anyone and have no conscious.[Luck: Did past presidents go out of their way to find ways to torture POWs?]No, the CIA took care of such matters, no searching required. the lack of an international media made it easy.Later Edited by: Frank 013 at: 2/18/06 11:19 pm
Luck of the Draw

Re: Legal horror

Unread post

You didn't address wether there were instances that the United States could be brought up on war crimes charges? "After September 11, 2001 attacks, the US and some of its allies have suggested that those who do not meet the "lawful combatant" category but do not fall into the non combatant category, should be determined to be "unlawful combatants." By this definition legal protection under the Geneva Conventions is not warranted. By declaring that some detainees do not merit the protections of criminal law because of their combatant activities, and that they do not merit the protections of jus in bello due to the unlawful nature of their combat, the use of the term in current legal discourse puts the detainees beyond the reach of treaty law.Could this also have applied to the Viet Namese? Iran-Contras/Sandanistas? They weren't/didn't all come under visible uniforms/could be mistaken for civilian garb also, no? F---Second, if we brought them to our own country they would become protected by our legal system.SWEET JESUS, NOT THAT!!!! LoTD"If the truth ever wins ask which lie fought for it"--Nietzche"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." - George Orwell Edited by: Luck of the Draw at: 2/18/06 11:33 pm
Luck of the Draw

legal horror.....

Unread post

so let me get this straight. We invaded Iraq and called it the "War On Terror". Why wouldn't those taken off the battle field of Iraqs soil come under the same rules of war and as the plain clothes Vietnamese? Also, when asked war crimes United States not simply this war, were there past wars we could've been charged with war crimes?Thus the reason for the stipulation/non compliance Geneva Conventions? Edited by: Luck of the Draw at: 2/19/06 1:17 am
User avatar
Frank 013
Worthy of Worship
Posts: 2021
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2005 8:55 pm
18
Location: NY
Has thanked: 548 times
Been thanked: 171 times

Re: Legal horror

Unread post

[Luck: You didn't address whether there were instances that the United States could be brought up on war crimes charges?]There are no instances that stand out as illegal. The terrorists being detained are NOT protected by treaty law. No laws were broken so no charges are possible. [Luck: Could this also have applied to the Vietnamese? Iran-Contras/Sandinistas? They weren't/didn't all come under visible uniforms/could be mistaken for civilian garb also, no?]Correct, we could have and most likely did, torture some of these people. The simple answer is that they were answerable to their governments or leaders, in those situations the individuals would have been accountable unless we could show that the government was ordering such actions.Terrorists on the other hand have no government to answer to. They are all individuals with no protection from international treaties. F---Second, if we brought them to our own country they would become protected by our legal system.[Luck: SWEET JESUS, NOT THAT!!!!] Yes exactly, this touches on another subject altogether but we are talking about the legal system that let OJ and Michael Jackson loose, where the average juror reads at the 3rd grade level and attractive means lighter sentencing. Later
User avatar
Frank 013
Worthy of Worship
Posts: 2021
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2005 8:55 pm
18
Location: NY
Has thanked: 548 times
Been thanked: 171 times

Re: legal horror.....

Unread post

[Luck: so let me get this straight. We invaded Iraq and called it the "War on Terror". Why wouldn't those taken off the battle field of Iraq's soil come under the same rules of war and as the plain clothes Vietnamese?]They were not protected by the UN treaties, for several reasons. 1. They had no government left that could prosecute them for war crimes. So as the victor we had the reasonability. 2. Their leaders decided that they did not want to be included in the UN treaties, thus no protection.3. We wanted/needed to question them.[Luck: Also, when asked war crimes United States not simply this war, were there past wars we could've been charged with war crimes?]I don't know for sure but I think past offences would be grandfathered out with the signing of the new documents. [Luck: Thus the reason for the stipulation/non compliance Geneva Conventions?]It seems to be more of a "something we might do" or a "some thing we were doing" line of thought that would lead to stipulations in the document, not something we did before.But like I said I do not know for sure.Later
Luck of the Draw

legal horror......

Unread post

As mentioned, Bush and Gonzales did attempt to circumvent the law.....the goal was to deny them any rights and keep them in a state of limbo....some going on 4yrs. By declaring that some detainees do not merit the protections of criminal law because of their combatant activities, and that they do not merit the protections of jus in bello due to the unlawful nature of their combat, the use of the term in current legal discourse seems designed to to put detainees beyond the reach of any law.[1]Should there be doubt about whether persons have fulfilled the conditions that confer prisoner of war status, Article 5 of the GCIII states that their status may be determined by a "competent tribunal" and until such time they are to be treated as prisoners of war.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_combatantThat which came to pass is that the courts finally ruled they did have rights all along..... It means that the Supreme Court has held that U.S. law applies even to Gitmo, a region that the Bush Administration had insisted was outside the jurisidction of American justice.www.warblogging.com/archives/000884.phpIt has to do with honor/ethics....that which Bush and Co fall so short.
Post Reply

Return to “Current Events & History”