Torture of detainees by the US?

[Demerzel]

yeah it is interesting that America is so freely flouting the Geneva Convention yet would squeal to high heaven if any other country did it to its armed forces.

That'd be why America refused to join the ICC, so that their troops could do what they want and not be punished. Most other countries have signed up even though they might be targetted, guess we have nothing to hide.

[Demerzel]

Originally posted by Joseph
Jon these boys would kill you in a second if they had a chance and be happy that they did and you want to treat them as a good O'boys.

Oh forgot to respond to this.

So what if they would want to kill us? which hasn't proved by the way. To go to their "level" and torture them and others makes your country as bad as them. America always claims to be the good guys, yet somehow you think that means you can torture & kill and still retain the halo?

Oh I congratulate you for living without air for so long, HOWEVER try living in those conditions whilst wearing a hot body suit, which makes the heat far worst, and then I'll listen.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Jaakko
That's exceptionally low for you, DD.

**** you.

I'm sorry but I don't really see how being made to feel uncomfortable qualifies as torture under any meaningful definition of the word. I stand by the sentiments of my original post and say that you and red_jon either don't know the meaning of the term and or are trolling for cheap political points. You aren't even focusing on the questionable parts of the article except for passing acknowlegements in your quest to be overly hysterical.

[Ned]

DinoDoc, Read the highlighted portions of my post. The Geneva convention prohibits more than just torture. If prohibits any form of coercion, including "unpleasant" treatment.

So while you might be right on the issue of torture, we may still be violating the Geneva Convention.

[Edan]

The detainees aren't prisoners of war. I remember there were a number of reasons why, including not wearing uniforms, that they were not entitled to PoW status.

[Demerzel]

the question whether they are prisoners of war is tricky enough. whether the USA feels it has the right to torture anyone regardless whether they are POWs is worrying in itself.

[Edan]

Originally posted by Demerzel
the question whether they are prisoners of war is tricky enough.

No it isn't. By not wearing uniforms, they are not entitled to PoW status. It's as simple as that.

[Jaakko]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I'm sorry but I don't really see how being made to feel uncomfortable qualifies as torture under any meaningful definition of the word. I stand by the sentiments of my original post and say that you and red_jon either don't know the meaning of the term and or are trolling for cheap political points. You aren't even focusing on the questionable parts of the article except for passing acknowlegements in your quest to be overly hysterical.

I do believe the activities described go well beyond "made feel uncomfortable", and it's used in an attempt to break the will of the victim. Fits the definition of torture quite well.
If it's just "discomfort", then why are they doing it?

As for not focusing on the right things, why don't you stop beating around the bush and tell us which parts you mean?

[Zero-Tau]

Originally posted by Edan


No it isn't. By not wearing uniforms, they are not entitled to PoW status. It's as simple as that.

Well, it's not that simple, actually.

From the Geneva Convention on Prisoners of War:

Article 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:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

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.

3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

(All emphasis mine.)

All Taliban members fall within definition 1, as far as I can tell. Al-Qaeda, not being part of or commanded by the Taliban, does not. They might have fallen within definition 2, but they do not fulfill criteria 2.b and 2.c.

On the other hand, I would expect that Al-Qaeda members who haven't taken part in hostilities fall within the definition of civilians in the Geneva Convention. I doubt that any of those have been detained, though.

[Edan]

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

All Taliban members fall within definition 1, as far as I can tell.

Actually, I don't think the Taliban "get an out" for not meeting the standards of provison 2, as IIRC, the provisions of an armed forces includes uniforms, having a chain of command, etc. However, IIRC (though I could be wrong), the US government has said that it will be applying the Geneva convention with regards to those Taliban detainees, anyway (but not for Al Qaeda detainees) - although I don't think they actually gave them PoW status.

[Ned]

For those who contend that the Convention applies to the Al Qaeda, I would like see how you fit the Al Qaeda into the various criteria for soldiers under category 2.

[Gibsie]

I think the usual response is, "The US doesn't torture prisoners of war, even though they deserve it and they're not POW's anyway. You damn liberal namby-pansies make me sick".

[Sava]

I'm with Ned on this one... the US should be following the Geneva convention, it's not. Regardless of whether or not this could be defined as torture, it's wrong.

Boddington: You've proved through your statements that you're no better than the terrorists.

DD: Let's put you in that camp for an indefinite period and see whether or not you think it's torture.

It's just proof that the people at the helm of this war on terror are no better than the terrorists themselves. Regardless of whether or not Bush and co. are bound by the Geneva convention to treat them as POW's, they should still do it. It goes back to the age old question, if murder were legal, would you do it?

[Wernazuma III]

About the whether PoW or not issue:

If Al Quaeda fighters are not considered regular soldiers falling under the Geneva convention, and that's something you can make good arguments for, what are they?
If they're criminals, what entitles the US to keep them on a military base, judge them according to US military law, deprave them of lawyer and other legal rights that "normal" criminals have. I mean, Timothy McVeigh had a lawyer too - and that's the way it should be in a state claiming legal security.

If they are neither criminals nor PoWs, what are they and what justifies the US to do with them as they please?

[Edan]

Originally posted by Wernazuma III
About the whether PoW or not issue:

If Al Quaeda fighters are not considered regular soldiers falling under the Geneva convention, and that's something you can make good arguments for, what are they?

They are unlawful combatants. Meaning the only rights they have are human rights. They are not entitled to any other sets of rights that the US gives to everyone else or specialized rights that the US gives to US citizens.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Sava
I'm with Ned on this one... the US should be following the Geneva convention, it's not. Regardless of whether or not this could be defined as torture, it's wrong.

Boddington: You've proved through your statements that you're no better than the terrorists.

DD: Let's put you in that camp for an indefinite period and see whether or not you think it's torture.

It's just proof that the people at the helm of this war on terror are no better than the terrorists themselves. Regardless of whether or not Bush and co. are bound by the Geneva convention to treat them as POW's, they should still do it. It goes back to the age old question, if murder were legal, would you do it?

Agreed.

[Edan]

Here is an article on the issue of PoW status and al Qaeda and the Taliban:
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20020123.html

[Ned]

Originally posted by Wernazuma III
About the whether PoW or not issue:

If Al Quaeda fighters are not considered regular soldiers falling under the Geneva convention, and that's something you can make good arguments for, what are they?
If they're criminals, what entitles the US to keep them on a military base, judge them according to US military law, deprave them of lawyer and other legal rights that "normal" criminals have. I mean, Timothy McVeigh had a lawyer too - and that's the way it should be in a state claiming legal security.

If they are neither criminals nor PoWs, what are they and what justifies the US to do with them as they please?

I think they should be treated as POWs. However, if they are only criminals, how did they get any rights under US law? They are protected, if at all, by international law. Is there any international law that prohibits questioning of criminals where it the information solicited is not intended to be used against them in any prosecution, but is instead intended to be used "defensively," to ward off further attacks by al Qaide?

[DanS]

Interesting articles. A couple of things to note:

(1) The whole point of interrogation in this context is coercion. They don't want to tell us anything about themselves. We want to know all about it. The Geneva Convention doesn't apply at all in this context.

(2) Real torture doesn't result in reliable information. So you can be sure that the US' policies will never advocate use of it. The touchiest issues come about when it appears that the US policies advocate use of torture or that it is the MO.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Static23
They utilize these methods because they leave very little in the way of physical evidence. I can imagine that putting someone in these suits is pretty much equivilent to locking them in a metal box in the hot sun, which is generally considered torture.

This was an interesting quote:

"If you don't violate someone's human rights some of the time, you probably aren't doing your job," said one official who has supervised the capture and transfer of accused terrorists. "I don't think we want to be promoting a view of zero tolerance on this. That was the whole problem for a long time with the CIA."


Anybody else ever felt this was a problem with the CIA?

I can think of some airline passangers and office workers as well as a few million interested spectators who felt that way on 11 SEP.

[Shi Huangdi]

The Al Qaeda and Taliban force are illegal combatants. They were not marked or in uniform, they were guerillas. They weren't even helping any legitimate army, at the time the international community recognized a Northern Alliance leader as President. In any case, under no circumstances should we allow any internaitonal treaty prevent us from getting information needed to save lives.

[Sikander]

This does appear to violate international law, which is regretable. However on a bilateral basis, this is acceptable, given that the other side is trying to kill as many Americans as it can, regardless of their status and regardless of the casualties caused to people of other nationalities. (See 11 Sep or the African Embassy bombings for examples.) The U.S. is using proxies to administer whatever heinous and overt tortures it may find necessary in an effort to avoid scrutiny and international legal sanctions, but this will only hold up for so long.

As for the effectiveness of torture, I agree with Dan S that it is generally considered ineffective at obtaining useful information in the short run. But it can have a large effect psychologically, even (or especially) if it is expected and used as a tactic to get a prisoner to talk without any actual torture taking place. I bet that a lot more of this psychological breaking is being used than actual physical torture. For instance, the U.S. has been known to tell prisoners that they are being turned over to the Mossad in order to get them to talk "before it's too late". To sell this line it is important to treat these prisoners harshly in order to make it seem that they are unimportant to the U.S. Many will fall for this technique, and attempt to show that they are indeed important by spilling information.

The U.S. goes to great lengths to get prisoners in this war, and takes risks with its own personnel as well as those of cooperating states in order to bring these folks in alive. If the U.S. felt that there was nothing to be gained by capturing prisoners (and taking the casualties and bad press that come with it) then there is no reason why the U.S. shouldn't simply kill these guys right off the bat, and not give them an opportunity to give themselves up. Would you rather see these guys dead, or roughed up and alive, perhaps having cooperated in the process? I'm ok with either course, but hopefully we are managing to save some innocent lives by doing what we are doing. I agree that it is unsettling, but International Law is as powerless to stop the terrorists as it is to stop the retribution and countermeasures. Until it can bring more to the table than ineffectual condemnation, it is going to be forced to sit on the sidelines while people fight for their lives.

[Zero-Tau]

Originally posted by Wernazuma III
If they're criminals, what entitles the US to keep them on a military base, judge them according to US military law, deprave them of lawyer and other legal rights that "normal" criminals have. I mean, Timothy McVeigh had a lawyer too - and that's the way it should be in a state claiming legal security.

I just thought I'd bring up this point. According to an American court, the bases in Guantanamo Bay are not part of USA. Instead, they are part of Cuba. Therefore, US law doesn't apply there.

This seems incredibly convenient to me. The prisoners have been detained by the US army, they will be judged by US military courts, but US law doesn't apply to them.

PS. I'm not sure whether this was mentioned in the other article. If so, my apologies for repeating something said earlier.

[My Wife Hates CIV]

Al Qaeda and Taliban force...

must be a b1tch to be one of these people. but hey, if they are walking out on their own when the US is done with them.... what do they have to complain about?

Maybe next time they will join the other side!

[Wernazuma III]

Originally posted by Ned


I think they should be treated as POWs. However, if they are only criminals, how did they get any rights under US law? They are protected, if at all, by international law. Is there any international law that prohibits questioning of criminals where it the information solicited is not intended to be used against them in any prosecution, but is instead intended to be used "defensively," to ward off further attacks by al Qaide?

I'm shocked - Non-American citizens don't have rights under US law? If I steal chewing gum over there, you can do as you please with me - oh no! If someone commits a crime against the US or one of its citizens, American courts are the accountable institutions where a trial has to be held according to American law. If no crime was commited against the US, US courts don't have anything to do with this.

I guess, anyway, that such treaties exist, but the US doesn't have to care becasue Guantanamo doesn't belong to the US... This is so cheap. The official responsibles should say "To hell with all treaties" like Shihuangdi, that's not making it better but at least honest

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Ned
So while you might be right on the issue of torture, we may still be violating the Geneva Convention.

If the Geneva Convention actually applied to them, you'd probably be correct.

Jaakko: The only questionable part of this affair that you and others seem to be ignoring in your obvious zeal to say that the US is personally torturing people in its custody (A ludicrous suggestion in and of itself given how unreliable information obtained through such methods is) is the prisoner transfers.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Wernazuma III


I'm shocked - Non-American citizens don't have rights under US law? If I steal chewing gum over there, you can do as you please with me - oh no! If someone commits a crime against the US or one of its citizens, American courts are the accountable institutions where a trial has to be held according to American law. If no crime was commited against the US, US courts don't have anything to do with this.

I guess, anyway, that such treaties exist, but the US doesn't have to care becasue Guantanamo doesn't belong to the US... This is so cheap. The official responsibles should say "To hell with all treaties" like Shihuangdi, that's not making it better but at least honest

I am no sure to what extent enemy combatants have any rights under US law. We seem to have given Walker a trial only because he is a citizen. However, I believe even this was not required by the constitution.

The US Supreme Court has been highly deferrential to the commander in chief concerning military matters in time of war. I doubt that the Supreme Court would intervene in the case of the al Qaida held in Cuba.

Again, the real issue is what treaty applies here. The POW treaty or the basic human rights treaty or what?

I think the proponents of "pin the blame on America" owe us some minimum legal analysis on this issue before they jump all the way to assuming America is guilty of violating internation treaties.

[St Leo]

the other side is trying to kill as many Americans as it can

No, not really. The goal of "terrorism" is terror, not casualties. If your supposed foes are after casualties, they are not terrorists.

[Arrian]

Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders
World Islamic Front Statement

23 February 1998

Shaykh Usamah Bin-Muhammad Bin-Ladin
Ayman al-Zawahiri, amir of the Jihad Group in Egypt
Abu-Yasir Rifa'i Ahmad Taha, Egyptian Islamic Group
Shaykh Mir Hamzah, secretary of the Jamiat-ul-Ulema-e-Pakistan
Fazlur Rahman, amir of the Jihad Movement in Bangladesh


Praise be to Allah, who revealed the Book, controls the clouds, defeats factionalism, and says in His Book: "But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war)"; and peace be upon our Prophet, Muhammad Bin-'Abdallah, who said: I have been sent with the sword between my hands to ensure that no one but Allah is worshipped, Allah who put my livelihood under the shadow of my spear and who inflicts humiliation and scorn on those who disobey my orders.

The Arabian Peninsula has never -- since Allah made it flat, created its desert, and encircled it with seas -- been stormed by any forces like the crusader armies spreading in it like locusts, eating its riches and wiping out its plantations. All this is happening at a time in which nations are attacking Muslims like people fighting over a plate of food. In the light of the grave situation and the lack of support, we and you are obliged to discuss current events, and we should all agree on how to settle the matter.

No one argues today about three facts that are known to everyone; we will list them, in order to remind everyone:

First, for over seven years the United States has been occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places, the Arabian Peninsula, plundering its riches, dictating to its rulers, humiliating its people, terrorizing its neighbors, and turning its bases in the Peninsula into a spearhead through which to fight the neighboring Muslim peoples.

If some people have in the past argued about the fact of the occupation, all the people of the Peninsula have now acknowledged it. The best proof of this is the Americans' continuing aggression against the Iraqi people using the Peninsula as a staging post, even though all its rulers are against their territories being used to that end, but they are helpless.

Second, despite the great devastation inflicted on the Iraqi people by the crusader-Zionist alliance, and despite the huge number of those killed, which has exceeded 1 million... despite all this, the Americans are once against trying to repeat the horrific massacres, as though they are not content with the protracted blockade imposed after the ferocious war or the fragmentation and devastation.

So here they come to annihilate what is left of this people and to humiliate their Muslim neighbors.

Third, if the Americans' aims behind these wars are religious and economic, the aim is also to serve the Jews' petty state and divert attention from its occupation of Jerusalem and murder of Muslims there. The best proof of this is their eagerness to destroy Iraq, the strongest neighboring Arab state, and their endeavor to fragment all the states of the region such as Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Sudan into paper statelets and through their disunion and weakness to guarantee Israel's survival and the continuation of the brutal crusade occupation of the Peninsula.

All these crimes and sins committed by the Americans are a clear declaration of war on Allah, his messenger, and Muslims. And ulema have throughout Islamic history unanimously agreed that the jihad is an individual duty if the enemy destroys the Muslim countries. This was revealed by Imam Bin-Qadamah in "Al- Mughni," Imam al-Kisa'i in "Al-Bada'i," al-Qurtubi in his interpretation, and the shaykh of al-Islam in his books, where he said: "As for the fighting to repulse [an enemy], it is aimed at defending sanctity and religion, and it is a duty as agreed [by the ulema]. Nothing is more sacred than belief except repulsing an enemy who is attacking religion and life."

On that basis, and in compliance with Allah's order, we issue the following fatwa to all Muslims:

The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies -- civilians and military -- is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque [Mecca] from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim. This is in accordance with the words of Almighty Allah, "and fight the pagans all together as they fight you all together," and "fight them until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah."

*snip*

Note the bolded part.

-Arrian

[Edan]

Originally posted by St Leo
The goal of "terrorism" is terror, not casualties.

These are hardly mutually exclusive.

If your supposed foes are after casualties, they are not terrorists.

Supposed foes? Did the towers only "supposedly" fall?