GW Bu$h's Torture Chambers and Rape rooms ...!

"Morton Davis" wrote in message news:XGblc.11724$IG1.386923@attbi_s04...

In News Conferences spokesmen for the DOD admitted that prisoners at
Guatanomo Bay were being subjected to sleep deprivation and forced
into 'uncompfortable positions' for long periods of time. In the
same statements the same spokemen denied they were being tortured.


Not by accepted definitions of torture.


Accepted by whom?

Aside from which, you seem to be missing the point.

--

FF

"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote in message
m...
"Morton Davis" wrote in message
news:XGblc.11724$IG1.386923@attbi_s04...

In News Conferences spokesmen for the DOD admitted that prisoners at
Guatanomo Bay were being subjected to sleep deprivation and forced
into 'uncompfortable positions' for long periods of time. In the
same statements the same spokemen denied they were being tortured.


Not by accepted definitions of torture.


Accepted by whom?

Why, the USA, for one. The UN, apparently, for another. The World Court, or
whatever the hell they call trhemselves, for another. Unless you an show
where they have filed a protest.

Aside from which, you seem to be missing the point.

YOU HAVE NO POINT.

-*MORT*-

"Morton Davis" wrote in message news:zeqlc.16667$_41.1056281@attbi_s02...
"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote in message
m...
"Morton Davis" wrote in message
news:XGblc.11724$IG1.386923@attbi_s04...

In News Conferences spokesmen for the DOD admitted that prisoners at
Guatanomo Bay were being subjected to sleep deprivation and forced
into 'uncompfortable positions' for long periods of time. In the
same statements the same spokemen denied they were being tortured.


Not by accepted definitions of torture.


Accepted by whom?

Why, the USA, for one.

Wrong, see:

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu2/6/ca...ion-reserv.htm

Did you do ANY research before making your statement?

The UN, apparently, for another.

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/h_cat39.htm

PART I

Article 1

1. For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture"
means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether
physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person
for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person
information or a confession, punishing him for an act he
or a third person has committed or is suspected of having
committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person,
or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when
such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation
of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official
or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not
include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or
incidental to lawful sanctions.

Did you do ANY research before making your statement?


...
Unless you an show
where they have filed a protest.


You haven't shown that any mechanism exists for 'filing a protest'
nor am I under any obligation to accept any arbitrary standard of
proof dictated by yourself. You are free to do your own research.

However:

http://www.unhchr.ch/huricane/hurica...5?opendocument

As far as he could tell, Mr. El Masry said, the
detention regime in Guantanamo violated six or
seven articles of the Convention against Torture.
The Committee had an obligation to address this
problem, Mr. El Masry said, especially since the
second periodic report of the United States to
the Committee was a year and a half overdue.

http://www.salon.com/people/intervie...mary_robinson/

Mary Robinson, the outgoing high commissioner, whose term
ends on the now iconic date of Sept.11. It's common knowledge
that her defense of the Durban Conference against Racism,
which U.S. and Israeli representatives walked out of, her
views on the Israel-Palestine conflict and her condemnation
of the U.S. treatment of prisoners in Camp X-ray at Cuba's
Guantanamo Bay provoked the Bush administration to oppose
the extension of her term.

See also:

http://www.unhchr.ch/huricane/huricane.nsf/view01/C537C6D4657C7928C1256B43003E7D0B?opendocument

Aside from which, you seem to be missing the point.

YOU HAVE NO POINT.

My point is that our leaders have betrayed us by rejecting truth,
justice and the rule of law and attack the very core of the American
way of life.

--

FF

http://www.globalissuesgroup.com/gen...nvention3.html

Geneva conventions

Art. 4. A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention,
are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have
fallen into the power of the enemy:........

(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps,
including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a
Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory,
even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or
volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil
the following conditions:[ (a) that of being commanded by a person
responsible for his subordinates; (b) that of having a fixed
distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) that of carrying arms
openly; (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the
laws and customs of war.

On 3 May 2004 13:56:22 -0700, (Fred the Red
Shirt) wrote:

The UN, apparently, for another.

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/h_cat39.htm

PART I

Article 1

1. For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture"
means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether
physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person
for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person
information or a confession, punishing him for an act he
or a third person has committed or is suspected of having
committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person,
or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when
such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation
of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official
or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not
include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or
incidental to lawful sanctions.

Did you do ANY research before making your statement?


...
Unless you an show
where they have filed a protest.


You haven't shown that any mechanism exists for 'filing a protest'
nor am I under any obligation to accept any arbitrary standard of
proof dictated by yourself. You are free to do your own research.

However:

http://www.unhchr.ch/huricane/hurica...5?opendocument

As far as he could tell, Mr. El Masry said, the
detention regime in Guantanamo violated six or
seven articles of the Convention against Torture.
The Committee had an obligation to address this
problem, Mr. El Masry said, especially since the
second periodic report of the United States to
the Committee was a year and a half overdue.

http://www.salon.com/people/intervie...mary_robinson/

Mary Robinson, the outgoing high commissioner, whose term
ends on the now iconic date of Sept.11. It's common knowledge
that her defense of the Durban Conference against Racism,
which U.S. and Israeli representatives walked out of, her
views on the Israel-Palestine conflict and her condemnation
of the U.S. treatment of prisoners in Camp X-ray at Cuba's
Guantanamo Bay provoked the Bush administration to oppose
the extension of her term.

See also:

http://www.unhchr.ch/huricane/huricane.nsf/view01/C537C6D4657C7928C1256B43003E7D0B?opendocument

Aside from which, you seem to be missing the point.

YOU HAVE NO POINT.

My point is that our leaders have betrayed us by rejecting truth,
justice and the rule of law and attack the very core of the American
way of life.

On 3 May 2004 13:56:22 -0700, (Fred the Red
Shirt) wrote:

The UN, apparently, for another.

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/h_cat39.htm

PART I

Article 1

1. For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture"
means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether
physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person
for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person
information or a confession, punishing him for an act he
or a third person has committed or is suspected of having
committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person,
or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when
such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation
of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official
or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not
include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or
incidental to lawful sanctions.

Did you do ANY research before making your statement?


...
Unless you an show
where they have filed a protest.


You haven't shown that any mechanism exists for 'filing a protest'
nor am I under any obligation to accept any arbitrary standard of
proof dictated by yourself. You are free to do your own research.

However:

http://www.unhchr.ch/huricane/hurica...5?opendocument

As far as he could tell, Mr. El Masry said, the
detention regime in Guantanamo violated six or
seven articles of the Convention against Torture.
The Committee had an obligation to address this
problem, Mr. El Masry said, especially since the
second periodic report of the United States to
the Committee was a year and a half overdue.

http://www.salon.com/people/intervie...mary_robinson/

Mary Robinson, the outgoing high commissioner, whose term
ends on the now iconic date of Sept.11. It's common knowledge
that her defense of the Durban Conference against Racism,
which U.S. and Israeli representatives walked out of, her
views on the Israel-Palestine conflict and her condemnation
of the U.S. treatment of prisoners in Camp X-ray at Cuba's
Guantanamo Bay provoked the Bush administration to oppose
the extension of her term.

See also:

http://www.unhchr.ch/huricane/huricane.nsf/view01/C537C6D4657C7928C1256B43003E7D0B?opendocument

Aside from which, you seem to be missing the point.

YOU HAVE NO POINT.

My point is that our leaders have betrayed us by rejecting truth,
justice and the rule of law and attack the very core of the American
way of life.

Peter H Proctor addresses a different issue, that
of the status of the detainees ate Guantanamo Bay
. ..
http://www.globalissuesgroup.com/gen...nvention3.html

Geneva conventions

Art. 4. A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention,
are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have
fallen into the power of the enemy:........

(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps,
including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a
Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory,
even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or
volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil
the following conditions:[ (a) that of being commanded by a person
responsible for his subordinates; (b) that of having a fixed
distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) that of carrying arms
openly; (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the
laws and customs of war.


There are several other categories of POWs but the paragraph you
cite above does seem to be the most relevent to the AL Queda
fighters captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan. It would
appear that they qualify as POWs. The only sitcking point might
be the part about 'having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable
at a distance;' but given that our troops in camos do not, we
had better not push that point too hard.

Regardless, both the Geneva Conventions and the USCMJ require
that a battlefield captive be accorded POW status unless it
is determined the he or she does not, said determination to
be made by a competent court or tribunal. That determinination
must also be made on a case by case basis for each individual.

In any event, and this is a mjor point Mr *MORT* has missed,
torture is wrong.

--

FF

On 4 May 2004 08:59:06 -0700, (Fred the Red
Shirt) wrote:

Peter H Proctor addresses a different issue, that
of the status of the detainees ate Guantanamo Bay
...
http://www.globalissuesgroup.com/gen...nvention3.html

Geneva conventions

Art. 4. A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention,
are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have
fallen into the power of the enemy:........

(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps,
including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a
Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory,
even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or
volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil
the following conditions:[ (a) that of being commanded by a person
responsible for his subordinates; (b) that of having a fixed
distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) that of carrying arms
openly; (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the
laws and customs of war.


There are several other categories of POWs but the paragraph you
cite above does seem to be the most relevent to the AL Queda
fighters captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan.

No. It directly applies to "insurgents" Sic: "including those of
organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict
and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this
territory is occupied,....."

It would
appear that they qualify as POWs. The only sitcking point might
be the part about 'having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable
at a distance;' but given that our troops in camos do not, we
had better not push that point too hard.

A unifomed soldier in a formal military unit qualifies
automatically under section 1. Section 2 gives irregular forces POW
status, but only if they are identifiable as combatants.

In any event, and this is a major point Mr *MORT* has missed,
torture is wrong.

True, torture may be wrong, but unless the combatants qualify
as POW's, the Geneva conventions don't hold for them, although other
international conventions may. Thus, e.g., you can still shoot
spies. And yes, prisoners are supposed to get some sort of hearing
to determine their POW status.

PHP

Peter H Proctor wrote in message . ..

True, torture may be wrong, but unless the combatants qualify
as POW's, the Geneva conventions don't hold for them, although other
international conventions may. Thus, e.g., you can still shoot
spies.

Since torture is wrong, it doesn't matter if the Geneva Conventions
for POWs or civilians apply or not. Consider the Nurenberg trials--
criminals were executed for crimes which violated no statute
or treaty. Rightly so, IMHO, they were tried and executed under
common law.

I also support the doctrine of command responsibility. While there
are, as of yet, only rumors that the abuses in Iraq and Afghanistan
were ordered, there are accusations that the responsible officers
took no action to prevent the abuses, which leaves those officers
without a defense. Further, the public sentiments toward prisoners
expressed by Secretary Rumsfeld, clearly fostered the abuses that
have been publicised during the last two years.

Our leaders have failed to provide proper leadership. They are
rotten. They share the blame.

Summary execution of suspected spies has been explicitley outlawed
since at least the 1907 Hague conventions. It is also a violation
of the UCMJ--see 'murder'. Please don't make things up, or rely
on bad movie scripts for your information.

However, it would appear that convicted murderers are not punished,
they are rewarded with a free ticket home:

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.j...toryID=5038963

Army officials said the military had investigated the deaths
of 25 prisoners held by American forces in Iraq and Afghanistan
and determined that an Army soldier and a CIA contractor murdered
two prisoners. Most of the deaths occurred in Iraq.

An official said a soldier was convicted in the U.S. military
justice system of killing a prisoner by hitting him with a rock,
and was reduced in rank to private and thrown out of the service
but did not serve any jail time.

The official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said a private
contractor who worked for the CIA was found to have committed
the other homicide against a prisoner. [No information was
provided on the contractor's dispositon, perhaps he was reassigned
to Guantanamo Bay.]

I might be inclined to suppose that the soldier might not have
intended to kill the prisoner, but for now accept the use of
'murder' by Reuters.

Please note also that these were kept secret until now.


And yes, prisoners are supposed to get some sort of hearing
to determine their POW status.


More than 'some sort'. The word 'competent', a legal term of
art, is used. Tribunals established by Presidential decree
would fail the competency test since the US Constitution
empowers the Congress to establish courts not the President
and past USSC cases have held that the Congress cannot delegate
authority to the President, when that authority is original
to the Congress in the Constitution.

--

FF

"Morton Davis" wrote in message news:zeqlc.16667$_41.1056281@attbi_s02...
"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote in message
m...
"Morton Davis" wrote in message
news:XGblc.11724$IG1.386923@attbi_s04...

In News Conferences spokesmen for the DOD admitted that prisoners at
Guatanomo Bay were being subjected to sleep deprivation and forced
into 'uncompfortable positions' for long periods of time. In the
same statements the same spokemen denied they were being tortured.


Not by accepted definitions of torture.


Accepted by whom?

Why, the USA, for one. The UN, apparently, for another. The World Court, or
whatever the hell they call trhemselves, for another. Unless you an show
where they have filed a protest.


See also:

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/05/14/torture_at_abu_ghraib_followed_cias_manual/

--

FF

In article , (Fred the Red Shirt) wrote:
"Morton Davis" wrote in message
news:zeqlc.16667$_41.1056281@attbi_s02...
"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote in message
m...
"Morton Davis" wrote in message
news:XGblc.11724$IG1.386923@attbi_s04...

In News Conferences spokesmen for the DOD admitted that prisoners at
Guatanomo Bay were being subjected to sleep deprivation and forced
into 'uncompfortable positions' for long periods of time. In the
same statements the same spokemen denied they were being tortured.


Not by accepted definitions of torture.


Accepted by whom?

Why, the USA, for one. The UN, apparently, for another. The World Court, or
whatever the hell they call trhemselves, for another. Unless you an show
where they have filed a protest.


See also:

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/edi.../2004/05/14/to
rture_at_abu_ghraib_followed_cias_manual/

See the Boston Globe's retraction and admitting that the photo's were
fake. Did you just forget that part?

(GS) wrote in message ...
In article , (Fred the Red Shirt) wrote:
"Morton Davis" wrote in message
news:zeqlc.16667$_41.1056281@attbi_s02...
"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote in message
m...
"Morton Davis" wrote in message
news:XGblc.11724$IG1.386923@attbi_s04...

In News Conferences spokesmen for the DOD admitted that prisoners at
Guatanomo Bay were being subjected to sleep deprivation and forced
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
into 'uncompfortable positions' for long periods of time. In the
same statements the same spokemen denied they were being tortured.


Not by accepted definitions of torture.


Accepted by whom?

Why, the USA, for one. The UN, apparently, for another. The World Court, or
whatever the hell they call trhemselves, for another. Unless you an show
where they have filed a protest.


See also:

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/edi.../2004/05/14/to
rture_at_abu_ghraib_followed_cias_manual/

See the Boston Globe's retraction and admitting that the photo's were
fake. Did you just forget that part?

Don't change the subject.

What photos? The article only mentions photos in passing and no
part of the article is based on photos. To my knowledge very
few photos from camp X-Ray have been released. Which of those
do you think are fake?

--

FF