NEWS: Red Cross accuses US of torture in Guantanamo

Originally posted by squirrely
Ok, I'm quite new to this forum but I would like to see what I can contribute.

I believe that terrorists are obviously in the wrong, yet this isn't to say that the United States isn't in the wrong also.

Gto Bay is a terrible thing no doubt. It obviously goes against every principle for due process of law that we have previously established.

I'm really not so sure that it is infact. Law says that uniformed military caught during war can be held during the war and must be well fed, given proper clothing, housing and protection from the elements and that there are rules about any 'trials' (of course, they don't need a trial to become a POW) for any sort of extra punishment, and even then there are rules about the kinds of punishment that can be doled out and its required that groups like the red cross visit them (you know, the same red cross that visitied and worked for allied pows in wwii) and all sorts of things. However, the taliban, so far as I know, are not geneva signatories, (afghanistan is tho), and the people captured there were not uniformed military troopers. Its also unclear if they were abiding by the convention. I do recall that one soldier in afghanistan fell from a landing helicopter and was observed to be still alive, but immobilized, and killed by the talibani. IF he was unable to fight I am rather certain that he'd be required to be taken prisoner. But why quibble about individual cases, in war, some prisoners are allways shot, and some soldiers are shot rather than taken prisoner.

Anyway, since the taliban is not a signatory, not a recognized government, and does not have a recognized nor identifiable military (and presumably might not even have an 'officer class' that control the 'grunts' from raping pillaging and looting) they -don't- get the protections of the Geneva Convetions.

Having said that, they can be detained -permanently-. The british did just that in the Boer War with the very heads of the Boer States. One of them was kept in a detainment camp until his death -years- after the war and resistance were over. Please note that, I think, this was before the Convention so far as I know.
Presumably, the are subject to any arbitrary decision the US makes, tho I think that there must be some general global laws (not to mention US laws) that forbid outright torture, and that also define it in some verifiable way. But more important than that, it'd be -wrong- to torture abuse and humiliate these people and -thats- all that is needed to require action on the part of the US admin to investigate these claims and, if they are found to be valid, correct them. But nothing more.

That, plus it is a mechanism of discrimination for you know that Gto Bay has about 2,000 arabs and maybe 1 white guy.

Its a place where people captured in afghanistan are kept. Afghanistan. Not too many 'white guys' running around there. Heck, not too many arabs in afghanistan either

Nygdan said : However, the taliban, so far as I know, are not geneva signatories, (afghanistan is tho), and the people captured there were not uniformed military troopers. Its also unclear if they were abiding by the convention.

This doesnt matter. Even if the Taliban did not sign conventions, the US is still held to abide by them by customary law, the jus cogens, and by a sentiment of honor (if it has one). Dishonorable fighting is dishonorable fighting and will be severely punished by history. The Taleban fighters are either 'soldiers' or 'criminals' or 'innocent civilians'. There is no other category.

Moreover, torture is forbidden in the United States, even against civilians, soldiers or criminals picked up in Afghanistan. Evidence extracted by torture cannot be used in the american legal system. Why is that so ?

And, if these people are 'terrorists' as the administration suggests every day, why not treat them as standard terrorist criminals, charge them with whatever crimes they alledgedly commited and judge them ? Or is the administration afraid that truth about the detainees might come out ?





[edit on 3-12-2004 by Mokuhadzushi]

Originally posted by Mokuhadzushi
jsobecky, you are advocating illegal torutre against a group of suspects. These people perhaps include real terrorists, but most of them are just enemy fighters, bakers from around the corner, or drivers. Many of them are probably as guilty of 9/11 as you are. Before credibly advocating violence against them, you should volunteer as a CIA spy to china, get caught, tortured three years, get exchanged, come back to the US. We'll see how you'll be talking then about human rights abuses.

Well listen to you, as if you are all of a sudden concerned. You are a joke. Out of one corner of your mouth you say it's OK to murder women, out of the other side you cry for your boyfriends in Gitmo.

Your burka is showing it's true colors, Mokuhadzushi.

Originally posted by aape
i just cannot see a connection between alleged flight crew slicing and iraq citizens tortured at guantamo. Except the hate towards america..Maybe those insurgents should stop beheading and just torture american soldiers for months, that would balance the case a bit.
-ap

Here's a clue:

from Psychoses
There is no situation, no matter how extreme, that can ever justify the
infliction of severe pain and suffering, whether it be mental or physical, on one individual by another. It is these actions that are corroding the very fabric of our society.

I'll try to talk real slow so that you understand:
Flight crew slicing is also the"infliction of severe pain and suffering", is it not?

Try to follow along, aape.

No need to talk slowly on my account and I'm sure most of your countymen would distance themselves from your stated opinion.

Your idealism is perverse in the extreme. These hijackers you keep referring to died on the planes. They're dead, but seeing as they can't be bought to justice you are quite happy to torture anyone you can lay your hands on even though they are innocent just because it makes you feel better.

Didn't your parents teach you that two wrongs don't make a right?

Originally posted by Psychoses
No need to talk slowly on my account and I'm sure most of your countymen would distance themselves from your stated opinion.

Psychoses, this is the second time on just one page that you have made dumbass errors...

First there was this:

You admit that you haven't seen the tape, yet are adamant that it is irrefutable proof of Hassan's death, even though the officials who have seen it clearly state that they can't be certain it's her?

Now this:

No need to talk slowly on my account and I'm sure most of your countymen would distance themselves from your stated opinion.

If you read and comprehended what I wrote, you'd see:

Try to follow along, aape.

Pet peeve of mine, people who resort to obfuscation because they can't read. I'm gonna have to give up on you lad, because I don't want to keep correcting you.

Excuse me for now, I must go oil my thumbscrews.



[edit on 4-12-2004 by jsobecky]

Ah yes, because "forced positions" is the gruesomest method of torture one can implement. I have watched footage of people being beheaded and shot by the people you constantly defend. Are we on the same Earth or is it because you are seeing things that I am "ignorant" of. In all honesty, help me understand where you are coming from on your issues.

Mephorium,

your neverending quest to relativize human suffering when it is applied to arabs somehow excites me I also find it highly amusing how you are colporting the holy cow that lives of innocent iraqi civilians aren't worth a dime while the poor beheaded spies are a human drama of unimaginable extent Good job, keep it up

Truthfully, I say to you sir, I have not one clue what you just posted to me. Care to elaborate?

Why is , in your eyes, the life of an innocent arab worth less than that of a CIA spy ?

Well jsobecky, I did read and comprehended what you wrote.

You said,

Posted by jsobecky
Some of the flight attendants had their throats slit with boxcutters on 9/11 before the planes hit the towers. Now, if given a choice, what would you choose: a slit throat, or a fiery death?

Chew on that and then talk to me about "the infliction of severe pain and suffering, whether it be mental or physical, on one individual by another"

and then followed it up with,

Posted by jsobecky

from Psychoses
There is no situation, no matter how extreme, that can ever justify the
infliction of severe pain and suffering, whether it be mental or physical, on one individual by another. It is these actions that are corroding the very fabric of our society.

I'll try to talk real slow so that you understand:
Flight crew slicing is also the"infliction of severe pain and suffering", is it not?

By quoting my post it was pretty obvious who you were addressing in you're own, very condescending way.

I have a pet hate too. It is misguided individuals who think it's O'K for governments to torture people. Especially governments who publicly claim they support and wish to deliver "Freedom and Democracy".

Believe me when I say to you that the citizens of the world are starting to wake up. We now know the real meaning of the phrase "Truth, Justice and the American Way!"

Oh, and another thing, what gives you the idea that aape's any slower than what you are?

dumbass

Hmm, I never said anything about a CIA spy. Of whom do you speak? And I never knew that I had a "never-ending quest"; thanks for letting me know. As for colport, not a word, but I understand your meaning. I don't believe in God: I believe in science. As for me, or Americans, for that matter, thinking that Iraqi civilians are not worth a dime, that is absurd. I wish for them to live free and I would like to see our troops come home to be with their families. And I've never known a "forced position" to be lethal; I find myself in one at least twice a day

Originally posted by Mokuhadzushi

Originally posted by Montana

Originally posted by Mokuhadzushi

usually the beheading is preceeded by a trial, on charges of 'spying for the ennemy' as in many cases of contractors where these guys where CIA agents dropping bomb target emitters by houses which they thought might contain insurgents (or just people they didnt like), or often, 'comfort/cooperation with the enemy'.

Where did this come from?????

Do you have anything to backup this statement?

I searched yahoo news etc, the only thing i could find is this article in french www.lemonde.fr...

There has been extensive video footage of these trials in September.

That is odd if there have been Extensive video coverage, Your words not mine, why haven't they been televised? We are not talking a beheading here certainly if there were in fact trials one of the major news agencies would have covered them.


Now either you made this all up or they never had any trials as you claim, which is it?

[edit on 12/4/2004 by shots]

Lemonde is probably one of the most serious news sources available. The article describes the trials in detail. If it hasnt been aired by western media, perhaps someone is blackmailing them...

Originally posted by Psychoses
Well jsobecky, I did read and comprehended what you wrote.

You said,

Posted by jsobecky
Some of the flight attendants had their throats slit with boxcutters on 9/11 before the planes hit the towers. Now, if given a choice, what would you choose: a slit throat, or a fiery death?

Chew on that and then talk to me about "the infliction of severe pain and suffering, whether it be mental or physical, on one individual by another"

and then followed it up with,

Posted by jsobecky

from Psychoses
There is no situation, no matter how extreme, that can ever justify the
infliction of severe pain and suffering, whether it be mental or physical, on one individual by another. It is these actions that are corroding the very fabric of our society.

I'll try to talk real slow so that you understand:
Flight crew slicing is also the"infliction of severe pain and suffering", is it not?

By quoting my post it was pretty obvious who you were addressing in you're own, very condescending way.

Believe me when I say to you that the citizens of the world are starting to wake up. We now know the real meaning of the phrase "Truth, Justice and the American Way!"

Of course, when you leave out the preceding quote,

quote: Originally posted by aape
i just cannot see a connection between alleged flight crew slicing and iraq citizens tortured at guantamo. Except the hate towards america..Maybe those insurgents should stop beheading and just torture american soldiers for months, that would balance the case a bit.
-ap

it makes sense to your twisted logic.

I notice you weren't willing to answer my question about viewing the tape.

You lied when you responded to that. Why do you lie?

I'll sum it up for you Psychoses, because you bore me and I'm ending this conversation:

I despise terrorists, and I despise those who sympathize with them. You sympathize with terrorists.

So now you resort to the old "Liar, liar, pants on fire" and then take your bat and ball and go home cause you're bored. Never mind, I'll respond to your reply anyway.

Don't you remember saying this?

Posted by jsobecky
Al Jazeera acknowledged the tape, but true to their cowardly ways, didn't release it because it would "upset some viewers"

So if the video wasn't released then how did you view it? If you have viewed it, please provide a link so the rest of us can form our own opinions as to whether or not it is in fact Margaret Hassan on the tape. It would certainly help in putting the rest of us on a more even playing field.

Liar

Originally posted by Mokuhadzushi


Lemonde is probably one of the most serious news sources available. The article describes the trials in detail. If it hasnt been aired by western media, perhaps someone is blackmailing them...

If they are such a great source as you put it, why haven't the major news services carried their stories?????????????????? Also note you have yet to prove they said what you claim they did. You ,made the statements reguarding what you claim they said, yet we have seen nothing more then an outdated link that is no longer available. Rather convient for you isn't it?

You do not need to be a rocket scientist to figure that answer out, any fool knows that all major news services will quote each other on good stories!. That is not the case here though is it? Your problem is you just think the stories they post are good. No one to blame but yourself for that is there? Care to give us some examples of praise for this so called good source of yours? I did not think so!

That is odd if there have been Extensive video coverage, Your words not mine, why haven't they been televised?

perhaps because us media these days seem to have lost their objectivity and thus political independence? many events aren(t, or are hardly, covered by us media, but prominently reported in europe or elsewhere. reporting or not by the us media, isn(t a strong indication for authenticity or falsehood, as far as news on the iraq war are concerned.

That is odd if there have been Extensive video coverage, Your words not mine, why haven't they been televised? We are not talking a beheading here certainly if there were in fact trials one of the major news agencies would have covered them.

a good question indeed : why did the us corporate media decide not to report the initial trials to the same extent as the executions themselves? perhaps because this serves better the pentagon propaganda, which seeks to dehumanize all Iraqi Resistants as "savage terrorists", whose presence alone would "justify" massive use of military force against targets located in civilian neighborhoods, read, high "collateral damage".

here, i found an example of a such "trial video that the major agencies havent covered": tides.carebridge.org...

The leaked Red Cross report that accuses the United States of maltreating al-Qaeda and Taliban detainees must be read with a critical eye. According to The New York Times, the Red Cross complained that prisoners at Guantanamo Bay were subjected to "solitary confinement, temperature extremes, use of forced positions".

While certainly unpleasant, do such practices really meet the legal definition of torture? It seems that even the Red Cross has its doubts, hence its use of the term "tantamount to torture" in its leaked report.

---snip---

The laws of war essentially propose a contract to combatants: if you observe these rules of civilised warfare, then you will be treated in a civilised manner. The conditional nature of legitimate combatant status is reflected in the text of the four Geneva Conventions of 1949. A common article two of those conventions states that parties to the treaty are under no legal obligation to apply their terms to non-parties who do not themselves abide by the law of armed conflict.

The men detained at Guantanamo were captured on the battlefield while fighting for organisations that systematically violated the most basic tenets of the law of war. Captured al-Qaeda fighters were drawn from the ranks of an organisation that sees the deliberate destruction of women, children and the elderly as a legitimate tactic. From flying hijacked airliners into office buildings to bombing commuter trains in Madrid, Osama bin Laden's minions have committed every war crime on the books.

When rules go out the window and near-torture is self-defence




seekerof

[edit on 7-12-2004 by Seekerof]