US admits Torture

Hobbes

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

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

Capt'n Midnight

Hobbes wrote:

Why isn't this guy fired yet?

Hobbes wrote:

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

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

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

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

Easily_Irritated

Bloody americans!!!

parasite

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

Victor

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

Screwdriver

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

Goodshape

Screwdriver wrote:

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

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

Go home, tbh.

Hobbes

Screwdriver wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

bonkey

Screwdriver wrote:

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

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

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

jc

Hydroquinone

Screwdriver wrote:

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

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

Villain

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

Oh and I love the bit where it says

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

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

swimtwobirds

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

Capt'n Midnight

Screwdriver wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

ISAW

Screwdriver wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

sceptre

ISAW wrote:

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

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

ISAW wrote:

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

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

Hobbes

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

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

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

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

BlitzKrieg

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

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


ontopic.

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

ISAW

First yes I meant Zola not Hugo.

Hobbes wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Victor

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

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

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

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

ISAW

Victor wrote:

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

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

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

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

xm15e3

ISAW wrote:

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

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

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

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

xm15e3

ISAW wrote:

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

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

rsynnott

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

xm15e3

rsynnott wrote:

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

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

rsynnott

xm15e3 wrote:

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

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

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

rancheros

rsynnott wrote:

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

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

xm15e3

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

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

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

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

Since when were library records private?

xm15e3

rancheros wrote:

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

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

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

the_syco

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

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

=-=

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

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

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

rancheros

xm15e3 wrote:

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

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

Well an admission of torture today is a start.

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

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.