US breaking laws to torture
Commy
Posts: 4,984
Geneva conventions state, ratified with US signature...
No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind.
Thus it was that the United States has not called the prisoners of its War on Terror "prisoners of war". But in 1984, another historic step was taken, by the United Nations, with the drafting of the "Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment" (came into force in 1987, ratified by the United States in 1994). Article 2, section 2 of the Convention states:
No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.
international law is clear.
And torture hasn't stopped with obama, despite what the TV says.
Rendition continues. ship em off to poland, and have them do the dirty work.
I like this guy...
"I would personally rather die than have anyone tortured to save my life." - Craig Murray, former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan, who lost his job after he publicly condemned the Uzbek regime in 2003 for its systematic use of torture.6
from Bill Blum's ant empire report.
found here
http://www.killinghope.org/bblum6/aer69.html
No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind.
Thus it was that the United States has not called the prisoners of its War on Terror "prisoners of war". But in 1984, another historic step was taken, by the United Nations, with the drafting of the "Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment" (came into force in 1987, ratified by the United States in 1994). Article 2, section 2 of the Convention states:
No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.
international law is clear.
And torture hasn't stopped with obama, despite what the TV says.
Rendition continues. ship em off to poland, and have them do the dirty work.
I like this guy...
"I would personally rather die than have anyone tortured to save my life." - Craig Murray, former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan, who lost his job after he publicly condemned the Uzbek regime in 2003 for its systematic use of torture.6
from Bill Blum's ant empire report.
found here
http://www.killinghope.org/bblum6/aer69.html
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
-
f-ing bleeding hearts
Don't you get it that these terrorists would KILL you and your family if given the chance? These aren't law-abiding peaceful people. They are the scum that flew planes into buildings and killed almost 3000 innocent people.
I would not think twice about doing whatever it took to get information out of these animals if it saved the lives of innocent people. Sign me up.
Like the show says, we need people like Jack Bauer.0 -
The terrorists???
you mean them stinking Iraqi people?0 -
are there still people who think terrorists exists because americans own cell phones and watch tv?0
-
jlew24asu wrote:Abuskedti wrote:The terrorists???
you mean them stinking Iraqi people?
no, not Iraqis.
according to the memos, two people were waterboarded, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and Abu Zubaydah. both leaders of el queda and planners of 9/11.
realize we don't have laws with exceptions for particular people. Just because it may have been fun to hurt these men, we have to understand that these decisions destroy our integrity. You can be sure that we have tortured others. If its wrong, its wrong.0 -
Abuskedti wrote:realize we don't have laws with exceptions for particular people. Just because it may have been fun to hurt these men, we have to understand that these decisions destroy our integrity. You can be sure that we have tortured others. If its wrong, its wrong.
I was just clearing up your ridiculous statement.
whether its right or wrong is a gray area to me. although I'm perfectly fine with Obama's policy. BUT if we had to waterboard Kalid sheik Mohammad to find out if a dirty bomb was on its way to downtown Chicago, you better believe I would support that too.0 -
jlew24asu wrote:Abuskedti wrote:realize we don't have laws with exceptions for particular people. Just because it may have been fun to hurt these men, we have to understand that these decisions destroy our integrity. You can be sure that we have tortured others. If its wrong, its wrong.
I was just clearing up your ridiculous statement.
whether its right or wrong is a gray area to me. although I'm perfectly fine with Obama's policy. BUT if we had to waterboard Kalid sheik Mohammad to find out if a dirty bomb was on its way to downtown Chicago, you better believe I would support that too.
this is a fact: NO INFORMATION has ever been garnered that has saved a bunch of lives through Torture. This is based on a Documentary on Torture shown on PBS0 -
polaris_x wrote:
this is a fact: NO INFORMATION has ever been garnered that has saved a bunch of lives through Torture. This is based on a Documentary on Torture shown on PBS
in many cases I would agree. enhanced interrogations should only be used under circumstances were there is PROOF that the given person has intelligence about imminent attacks.
regardless, PBS doesnt have access to classifed CIA documents which apparently prove intel gathered from enhanced interrogations prevented attacks.
http://www.pubrecord.org/torture/848-ch ... ve-it.html0 -
jlew24asu wrote:polaris_x wrote:
this is a fact: NO INFORMATION has ever been garnered that has saved a bunch of lives through Torture. This is based on a Documentary on Torture shown on PBS
in many cases I would agree. enhanced interrogations should only be used under circumstances were there is PROOF that the given person has intelligence about imminent attacks.
regardless, PBS doesnt have access to classifed CIA documents which apparently prove intel gathered from enhanced interrogations prevented attacks.
http://www.pubrecord.org/torture/848-ch ... ve-it.html
i am open to the possibility that it may have worked at some point in history but the words that come out of dick cheney has absolutely zero credibility ... this guy has lied on numerous occassions for purely selfish reasons ...0 -
polaris_x wrote:
i am open to the possibility that it may have worked at some point in history but the words that come out of dick cheney has absolutely zero credibility ... this guy has lied on numerous occassions for purely selfish reasons ...
LOL you hate cheney, got it. but there are apparently memos that show it worked. doesnt matter who the messenger is.0 -
Hasn't research basically shown that torture and aggressive interrogation sucks at getting real information, because after a shorter or longer while, the victim will agree to fuck-all anyway and thus making any admissions pretty worthless?
And I think that "ticking bomb" scenario is so rare in real life that it doesn't need any real consideration as policy. I mean, when that is allowed, imagine what they're not telling about what they do to people. I think torture is kinds like death penalty. Some may deserve it, but, fuck, how hard it is to find out whether they really do, and how many innocents that inevitably will suffer.
Strong, clear NO on both.
Peace
Dan"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 19650 -
What I would like explained to me is the whole information gathering process...
I don't see how torture would at all be useful unless the necessary information about a terrorist attack was gained by some other means (wiretap, emails, stealth recording, etc...) first. This would all be done legally, with probably cause of course.
Torture MIGHT only confirm what has been already figured out through surveillance, if the tortured person actually knows about any wrongdoing, and will actually crack. Picture an Al-Queda suspect being grilled on 9/11, or maybe another attack they had planned. Unless it was that very guy that they had on tape talking about it, what would it prove? What kind of false info could this guy give away just to stop being tortured? How vague could he be, "All I know is you have to talk to a guy named Ahmed!!!! He knows everything!!!! AAAAHHHHHHH!!!!"
Through torture I bet I can get anyone on this board to admit their name is MARY POPPINS if you gave me one hour with just me the torturer, and the torturee tied down in a cell, with just my bare hands. Is this effective? Does it prove what I need to prove?
If you captured an enemy combatant, and tortured him without any prior information tying this person to Al-Queda or another terrorist group, I don't see how it would help at all. You can get this guy to admit anything through torture, it doesn't help the cause.
If I thought that there was some "gray area" to this issue that would actually help keep people safe, then I might consider some very choice scenarios where it might actually apply. However, I don't see how it can be used to get any real beneficial information without their already being enough sufficient information obtained from other techniques. I'm against torture.0 -
Vinny, how can the intelligence be gathered "legally" when the person who knows (assuming he's the only person who knows) about it, is sitting in jail cell?
by legally I mean what you were referring to... wiretap, emails, stealth recording, etc.0 -
We need to get our own house in order before we take on and worry about the welfare of foreign
prisoners. Americans need to pay attention to what or leaders are doing. Pay attention to other laws they are breaking. They are the crooks starting with Oboma. Lets pay attention to politicians who are blowing our tax money with bridges in Florida too nowhere. To build the bridge they will have to take peoples homes by emanate domain. Then you have Politician
Murtha’s nephew getting a 124 million dollar contract with no bid. In my own town I see the well-connected hooking up friends and family with no bid contracts.Not sure if you people understand how they are spending our hard earned money that was given by you and I to pay taxes. Taxes are to benefit all Americans. The Water boarding murderer’s controversy is just a distraction to keep you looking the other way while they sell u a bridge too nowhere. We need to watch out for the Welfare of our own law-abiding citizens . In fact I would like to use water boarding on the lying politicians, and ask them a few questions.“We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.” Abraham Lincoln0 -
jlew24asu wrote:Vinny, how can the intelligence be gathered "legally" when the person who knows (assuming he's the only person who knows) about it, is sitting in jail cell?
by legally I mean what you were referring to... wiretap, emails, stealth recording, etc.
My question is, how does this guy end up in a jail cell in the first place? How does anyone end up in a position to be potentially tortured? There are only two ways that I can gather... One is that intelligence has found this person to be doing something illegal, or conspiring to do something illegal. Intelligence and military then seek him out. He then gets arrested / captured, and then gets interrogated. Whatever evidence they thought to be strong enough to bring him in would be used to get a confession, right? Why would torture be necessary if the evidence that brought this person into custody is what intelligence agencies and military would otherwise try and obtain through torture?
The other way in which someone ends up being subject to torture: He gets captured off the battlefield with no real evidence of wrongdoing outside of firing at his "enemy." You don't have to be a member of Al-Queda to want to fire at foreign troops that you believe are invading your homeland. So, once these types are captured, what happens to them? Are they automatically interrogated? Tough interrogation techniques that precede torture aren't necessarily going to get this guy to say anything useful, especially if he actually doesnt' know anything... It's quite possible that he doesn't work for Al-Queda. You can yell and scream in his face for hours, and subject him to all sorts of techniques that are borderline torture. What then stops someone from taking it to the next level? It's not like all of these guys in Al Queda have a Bin Laden tattoo on their left ass cheek-- so, who gets "questioned," and who doesn't?0 -
I assume there are thousands of ways a top ranking person can be caught. lets say its a completely random anonymous tip. should we just count on that happening all the time to gather our intelligence?0
-
jlew24asu wrote:I was just clearing up your ridiculous statement.
whether its right or wrong is a gray area to me. although I'm perfectly fine with Obama's policy. BUT if we had to waterboard Kalid sheik Mohammad to find out if a dirty bomb was on its way to downtown Chicago, you better believe I would support that too.
that's the thing, its not gray at all.
its completely illegal according to international law.
it not like anyone can stop us if we decide to ignoreit, but if we violate a law it sets a precedent for other countries to do the same.
If we do it, maybe 5 years from now 2 countries in Africa might go at it...and they could both torture their pow's with the excuse "the US does it".
not to mention the morality of it all.0 -
but according to pictures from Abu ghraib, yes it included Iraqi's.jlew24asu wrote:Abuskedti wrote:The terrorists???
you mean them stinking Iraqi people?
no, not Iraqis.
according to the memos, two people were waterboarded, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and Abu Zubaydah. both leaders of el queda and planners of 9/11.0 -
yeah, and don't you think if the Bush admin had this proof that torture saved a bunch of lives, that it would have been all over the front page of every newspaper around the country?polaris_x wrote:
this is a fact: NO INFORMATION has ever been garnered that has saved a bunch of lives through Torture. This is based on a Documentary on Torture shown on PBS
it would have been de-classified the next day.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.8K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110K The Porch
- 274 Vitalogy
- 35K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.1K Flea Market
- 39.1K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help