Sneaky Tactics: US breaks Geneva Convention

Originally posted by dawnstar
DO US laws apply???

assembler.law.cornell.edu...

Yes, that is why the people who committed the various acts as the prison camps are now being court martial, ie Lynndie England.

Those that haven been found to violate the various acts are being punished, what is your point?

"
§ 2340A. Torture


Release date: 2004-08-06

(a) Offense.— Whoever outside the United States commits or attempts to commit torture shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both, and if death results to any person from conduct prohibited by this subsection, shall be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life.
(b) Jurisdiction.— There is jurisdiction over the activity prohibited in subsection (a) if—
(1) the alleged offender is a national of the United States; or
(2) the alleged offender is present in the United States, irrespective of the nationality of the victim or alleged offender.
(c) Conspiracy.— A person who conspires to commit an offense under this section shall be subject to the same penalties (other than the penalty of death) as the penalties prescribed for the offense, the commission of which was the object of the conspiracy. "

assembler.law.cornell.edu...

they have done nothing (except award) the conspirators!!

"More secret documents have come to light proving that the systematic torture of prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan--including the murder of dozens--was not the fault of a few "bad apples" breaking the rules. The torture happened because U.S. forces were following rules set at the highest levels of the U.S. government.

One such memo which recently came to light is dated March 6, 2003 and titled "Working Group Report on Detainee Interrogations in the Global War on Terrorism." This is the latest in a whole series of post-9/11 Bush administration legal/policy memos giving a green light to torture. (See "Secret Memos Connect Bush and the Global Campaign of Torture," RW #1242 and online at rwor.org) The memo was leaked to the Wall Street Journal , which reported on this in its June 7 issue.

The newly revealed memo was drafted by a Pentagon team working under the direction of Defense Department General Counsel William J. Haynes II. Defense Secretary Rumsfeld immediately classified it secret. While focused on the U.S. military jail in Guantánamo, the memo laid out legal arguments and interrogation methods that were soon used in Iraq.

This and other memos not only redefine what constitutes torture in order to "legalize" a raft of brutal, degrading, even murderous punishments. They also articulate a sweeping logic that places the executive branch of government, the president in particular, above past law and practice as well as other branches of government. They have implications far beyond today's torture scandal--bringing to light a police state in the making. They are part of moves to consolidate even greater power in the executive and the repressive apparatus of the state."

rwor.org...

IMO


What we're seeing here is an erosion of the "spirit of the law" by a focus on the "letter of the law."

...The US Justice system always has upheld the "spirit of the law" and equitable application (in public at least).

Gonzales, the new Attorney General, is changing that - with respect to the Geneva Conventions, international treaties - AND domestic law. He's the loophole master - and he's justifying everything from torture to covert propaganda.

...His strategy is to lose us in the legalities. The only workable defense is to go back to the spirit of the law. There are numerous legal precedents, and it works.


.

more documents???


"On June 22, 2004, the White House officially released 14 documents originating from the White House, the Pentagon and the Justice Department concerning the Administration's interrogation policies. These records include only one that previously was published by news media sources, and did not include at least 5 additional documents widely reported in the news media and already made available to the public by the news media concerning interrogation policies from the White House, Pentagon, Justice Department and Department of State. Still other records are reported to exist or referenced in the already released materials, but have not been made available -- either officially or unofficially -- to the public. This Electronic Briefing Book includes a comprehensive listing of available records relating to U.S. interrogation policies, including records officially released by the White House and the Department of Defense on June 22, leaked documents that have not been officially released, and a description of 17 records that have not been made available to the public. In addition, this posting includes the text of a congressional subpoena proposed by Senators Leahy and Feinstein that was defeated on June 17, 2004 by the Senate Judiciary Committee and a copy of the "Taguba Report" detailing the findings of a Department of Defense investigation into the treatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib Prison in Iraq.

www.gwu.edu...

there's lots of memos, and documents that have been released relate to this on this site.

"Even if you believe that there had been a military attack on the United States that justified treating people under military law, this order did not call for regular, competent, impartial commissions or tribunals, such as courts-martial, that are normally used to try violations of the laws of war. Rather, the military commissions are special courts set up by the president to try people for crimes against the laws of war. I do not believe they are legal in light of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. In the last American war-crime trial in the 1970s, Lieutenant William Calley was tried for the My Lai massacre not by a military commission, but by a regular court-martial."
"Consider the three aspects of a prosecution. First, one body of the government defines what the crimes are. Second, another body of the government prosecutes the crimes. And a third body of the government adjudicates the guilt and determines the punishment. In our system of checks and balances, each of those steps is taken by a different branch of the government of the United States. The Congress defines crimes. The executive branch prosecutes people for crimes that have been defined by the Congress in courts that have been established by the Congress and the Constitution. The judiciary adjudicates guilt and dispenses punishment.
In this case, the executive has taken all these roles unto itself. The president and the Pentagon have decided that they will define the crimes, prosecute people, adjudicate guilt, and dispense punishment. This is unchecked rule by the executive branch. It dispenses entirely with our system of checks and balances.
Moreover, a convicted person normally has the right to appeal to a higher court. Under these military commissions, the only appeal is to an administrative board (also set up by the executive branch) to the secretary of defense, and then to the president. Here, the president has taken all the functions that normally are distributed widely in our government and put them in his own hands. If that’s not rule by fiat or dictatorship, I don’t know what is."
www.narconews.com...

---------------------------------------------------------

I think it is a matter of them wanting the president to BE ABOVE THE LAW!!!

Originally posted by dawnstar

I think it is a matter of them wanting the president to BE ABOVE THE LAW!!!

I think you're absolutely right. Please - read my post above about "letter of the law" versus "spirit of the law."

...Gonzales is setting legal precedents that will destroy this country, not just the legal system.


.

ya, what get's me though, is that as they are doing this, they are trying to divert attention to all those "liberal judges" who are overstepping their authority and writing the law!!!!!


ummmm....ya, sure.......
Im beginning to think that when they make accusations like these (upsetting the balance of power), well, if we look hard enough, we will find that it is them that is doing it, not the liberals.....



[edit on 15-3-2005 by dawnstar]

Uh...I think it was cleared by the upper officials first before publication, if they safeguarded the geneva convention they wouldn't have let them be shown publically, but they handed them over to the media..

wah wah wah the poor insurgents. i never heard of any of these laws giving every single example of torture so if you say it is torture and the government does not then who is right? if there is some guy caught who is identified as someone who has knowledge of impending attacks and the only way he will give up info is by ramming a broom up him i say ram away. if there was a force invading the united states and i took up arms against the enemy i would expect the same to happen to me if i was captured. of course there are different tiers to interrogation but torture should be used for those with the most valuable info. some of you people sound like hope they are able to rise up and defeat us. that is treasonous and i hope the government gives you a nice interrogation.

Originally posted by 00PS
Uh...I think it was cleared by the upper officials first before publication, if they safeguarded the geneva convention they wouldn't have let them be shown publically, but they handed them over to the media..

Seems that I recall that a CD was created and shipped back home to a private individual that posted the pictures on a website. They were shown publicly before any involvement by the upper officials.

Torture is a 50/50 weapon, most people will make any BS up to get them out of the pain.

as posted by devilwasp
...most people will make any BS up to get them out of the pain.

If that is so that "most" people will, devilwasp, then how does "most" equate to a 50/50 proposition?

Seems to me that the word use of "torture" is becoming like when one tries to define insurgents and terrorists. Let me see, some people claim that the US is "torturing" those at Gitmo, and yet, when the US proposes to send those detained people back to their nation of origin', to be placed under the authority of their respective nation, the US gets berated over that. Why? Because where they will be sent to (Saudi Arabia, Yemen, etc), "torture" is of common use. DOH!

Remember: Al-Qaeda Terrorist Handbook stipulates and teaches that when captured the first and foremost thing to say and/or claimed: "I was tortured".





seekerof

Originally posted by jsobecky

Originally posted by 00PS
Uh...I think it was cleared by the upper officials first before publication, if they safeguarded the geneva convention they wouldn't have let them be shown publically, but they handed them over to the media..

Seems that I recall that a CD was created and shipped back home to a private individual that posted the pictures on a website. They were shown publicly before any involvement by the upper officials.

SEEMs that I recall Congress being in control of images that were then later shown to the public...

Originally posted by Seekerof
If that is so that "most" people will, devilwasp, then how does "most" equate to a 50/50 proposition?

You have a 50/50 chance of the guy breaking or just makeing something up.
I mean most of us are not trained in anti torture techniques....or was that a class I missed?

Seems to me that the word use of "torture" is becoming like when one tries to define insurgents and terrorists. Let me see, some people claim that the US is "torturing" those at Gitmo, and yet, when the US proposes to send those detained people back to their nation of origin', to be placed under the authority of their respective nation, the US gets berated over that. Why? Because where they will be sent to (Saudi Arabia, Yemen, etc), "torture" is of common use. DOH!

Fine thats your take on the situation....

Remember: Al-Qaeda Terrorist Handbook stipulates and teaches that when captured the first and foremost thing to say and/or claimed: "I was tortured".

Funny I havent seen a "terrorists hand book" in the news before....did penguin do some kind of secret deal?

Originally posted by devilwasp
You have a 50/50 chance of the guy breaking or just makeing something up.
I mean most of us are not trained in anti torture techniques....or was that a class I missed?

Where in the world are you getting your 50/50 numbers from?

I think many Americans are in deep denial about what their country is becoming.

There was a time not that long ago when almost the entire world looked to America as an ideal to aspire to, no longer.

It seems to me there are too many buying the lie that security can be guaranteed if only this right or that little bit of freedom or lawfull decency is sacrificed or that little bit or this......etc etc.

The fact that there is no total security and that the security (which by world standards is very very good for most) we actually have resides in the freedoms and decency we maintain seems to have passed these loons by.

There's not a police state that ever was that could guarantee the security of all the people all the time......

.....yet everyone of them came top be promising such garbage to the frightened and the gullible and the willing zealot.

as posted by devilwasp
Funny I havent seen a "terrorists hand book" in the news before....did penguin do some kind of secret deal?

Yeah, I guess I can see how you would miss such a mention as I have made before, devilwasp. It was in a forum you do not frequent very much.
Here:
posted on 23-2-2005 at 11:05 PM Post Number: 1193617 (post id: 1215510)

One example given, as stated in the Manual, was applied to trials and military tribunals, as indicated by my response given in the above link:

Lesson Eighteen: Prisons and Detention Centers

If an indictment is issued and the trial begins, the brother has to pay attention to the following:

1. At the beginning of the trial, once more the brothers must insist on proving that torture was inflicted on them by State Security [investigators] before the judge.

2. Complain [to the court] of mistreatment while in prison.

Al_Qaeda_Manual_TWELFTH_LESSON

More here:
UK/BM-84 Translation






seekerof

[edit on 15-3-2005 by Seekerof]

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
I think many Americans are in deep denial about what their country is becoming.

I believe the same could be said for those in the UK, sminkeypinkey?
The UK is becoming more of a police state than the US.
If your reference is to "denial" of torture, may I remind you your own UK version of Guantanamo Bay:
Belmarsh: Britain's Guantanamo Bay
torture at Belmarsh

Question:
If the US is in violation, is Britain likewise in violation of the Geneva Conventions, in relation to this topic?




seekerof

Originally posted by 00PS
SEEMs that I recall Congress being in control of images that were then later shown to the public...

Congress may have been in control of photos, but that was way after the fact, after CBS aired them on "60 Minutes II'.

Mid April
Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, asks CBS-TV to delay airing photographs it has obtained of abuse at Abu Ghraib. Myers says the photos would exacerbate an intense period of violence under way in Iraq. CBS delays its program for two weeks.
April 28

Rumsfeld meets with senators in a closed briefing on the war in Iraq. Rumsfeld neglects to mention the issue of prisoner abuse or the coming disclosure of photos.

CBS “60 Minutes II” airs the photos, setting off an international outcry. Bush first learns about these photos from the television report, his aides say.
Timeline

As this scandal widens--and America's image and credibility is further decimated--I can not help but ask myself, "What if there were no photos?" What if "60 Minutes II" and The New Yorker did not release the photographs and details of the abuse at Abu Ghraib prison? Would there have been such a loud and deafening cry of outrage here in America? No, there would not, because it is likely that we Americans would never have known about it.
Source

Originally posted by Seekerof
Yeah, I guess I can see how you would miss such a mention as I have made before, devilwasp. It was in a forum you do not frequent very much.
Here:
posted on 23-2-2005 at 11:05 PM Post Number: 1193617 (post id: 1215510)

Interesting....I didnt pay attention to that thread since almost everyone that say they are going to assasinate him gets a visit from U triple S, banned from america (Yes I have seen this first hand, happened to a guy where my aunt teaches at), gets imprisoned, gets put on the FBI website or is just some crazy guy.

Originally posted by COOL HAND
Where in the world are you getting your 50/50 numbers from?

Lets list what happens; tells you the information or gives you some BS.
Can you think of any others?
If so please post...

[edit on 26/02/2005 by devilwasp]

[edit on 26/02/2005 by devilwasp]