Bush Advisor : President Has Legal Power to Torture Children

blueflame wrote:

The Geneva Convention also " forbids activities which do not rise to the level of torture, but which constitute cruel or degrading treatment."

McGentrix wrote:

For POW's. [...] But not illegal combatants which do not fall under the provisions of the Geneva Conventions.

Setanta wrote:

Actually, the Geneva conventions do refer to paramilitary and un-uniformed fighters . . . before you post such crap, go get a link . . . you make an extraoridnary claim, but you don't back it up.

The Geneva Convention, addressing para-military groups, wrote:

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:

[...]

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.

Source

The terrorists and guerrilias in Afghanistan and Iraq may or may not comport with (a), but they violate (b), (c), and (d). This means that McGentrix is correct: Those illegal combatants are not "Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention". Its protections do not apply to them. Hence I disagree with Setanta when he evaluates McGentrix's assertion as "crap".

0 Replies

All fascist rulers have torturers doing their dirty work. No animal is as low as these dregs of humanity.
........................................
Argentine may face 17,000 years
Ex-naval captain Ricardo Cavallo

The Spanish public prosecutor's office says it will seek a prison term of up to 17,000 years for former Argentine junta officer Ricardo Cavallo.

The ex-naval captain is facing genocide and terrorism charges, which he denies.

Mr Cavallo was extradited to Spain from Mexico in June 2003 for alleged human rights abuses committed under Argentina's former military government.

Up to 30,000 people were killed or disappeared in Argentina during the "dirty war" of 1976-1983.

Many of the detainees passed through the notorious ESMA naval school - a secret torture centre.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4603030.stm

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

The terrorists and guerrilias in Afghanistan and Iraq may or may not comport with (a), but they violate (b), (c), and (d). This means that McGentrix is correct: Those illegal combatants are not "Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention". Its protections do not apply to them. Hence I disagree with Setanta when he evaluates McGentrix's assertion as "crap".

This is true with respect to the Geneva Conventions. However there is US law outlawing torture by or of US persons. I believe this is why they built Guantanamo in the hopes of skirting the definition of "in the US" of that law. Off to look it up now.

0 Replies

FD, Thomas also apparently only read far enough down the page to have seen something upon which to base his argument.

The Geneva Convention wrote:

Article 5

The present Convention shall apply to the persons referred to in Article 4 from the time they fall into the power of the enemy and until their final release and repatriation.

Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal. (emphasis added)

Unless and until McWhitey can demonstrate that he, pesonally, constitutes a competent tribunal, i still maintain that his contention is crap.

0 Replies

Ah, I didn't see that. Good point.

In the effort to educate myself on the legality of torture, I came across the Human Rights Watch site. They lay out all the ways in which torture is already outlawed. I don't know exactly what the latest legislation says but I'll track that down when I get the chance.

http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2004/05/24/usint8614.htm

It seems to me that there is just no way for the president to assert that he has the right to order torture, which is probably why he denies that we torture anyone. The only argument that he could have would be that neither the law nor international treaties can encroach on what he sees as his inherent constitutional powers to act as Commander in Chief. The Unitary Executive taken to its extreme, I suppose.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

This is true with respect to the Geneva Conventions. However there is US law outlawing torture by or of US persons. I believe this is why they built Guantanamo in the hopes of skirting the definition of "in the US" of that law. Off to look it up now.

The US is a signatory to the UN Convention Against Torture. As a treaty entered into by the US and confirmed by the senate, it has the force of federal law. Nothing in the convention restricts its scope to enemy combatants. In Art. 2, par. 2, it clearly states:

No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.It should be noted that the US, in its ratification of the convention, declared that the first sixteen articles were not self-executing, i.e. that positive domestic law must be enacted to put the guarantees of the convention into place. To comply with the convention, the US enacted 18 USC 2340 et seq., which prohibits US citizens from committing acts of torture outside the United States. Section 2340A states:

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.Again, the statute makes no distinction between enemy combatants and anyone else who is the victim of torture at the hands of an American citizen.

It is clear, then, that any US citizen who tortures anyone outside the boundaries of the US is subject to the punishments outlined in 18 USC 2340A, up to and including the death penalty.

0 Replies

18 USC 2340 is the one I was thinking of above. Thanks joe.

0 Replies

I should note that, under 18 USC 2340, the offender must be acting under color of law. Any US citizen who tortures people as a hobby would not be subject to this statute.

0 Replies

Calling enemy prisoners by another name is nothing new for the US. Even after WW2 German prisoners were called DEF.

During Vietnam, America tortured, raped and murdered thousands of Vietnamese. We classified these people as neutralists, insurgents, communists and unlawful combatants-anything but prisoners of war.

http://www.oz.net/~vvawai/sw/sw44/Tiger-Cages.html

http://hnn.us/articles/11001.html

0 Replies

Given that you are not an American, and frequently rail hysterically against the United States, DI, it's a bit much to see you using the pronoun "we"--and the more so as i strongly suspect you were not even alive then.

0 Replies

setanta, living in North America makes the 'we' almost automatic.
Railing is a strong word. If you can disprove facts, do so and make the other poster look silly.

Just calling names does not wipe away the truth.

We are discussing torture here.
Like you quote: It works the same way in any country.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

This is true with respect to the Geneva Conventions. However there is US law outlawing torture by or of US persons. I believe this is why they built Guantanamo in the hopes of skirting the definition of "in the US" of that law. Off to look it up now.

I agree. Even if the Geneva convention does not protect the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay, there are still other statutes and treaties prohibiting the torture of the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay. And even if there weren't any such statutes and treaties, torture would still not be okay. But that wasn't the claim blueflame had made and McGentrix had disputed in a post Setanta then attacked as being crap. McGentrix's assertion was that irregular combatants do not enjoy the protections of the Geneva conventions. And that statement was correct.

0 Replies

I realize that. The whole point of saying they don't have protection, though, was to indicate that it's legal to torture them. What I posted was the next step in the conversation, not a rebuttal.

0 Replies

DI, i did not call you any names. In another thread in which you posted some of the egregious drivel you like to link from Third World Traveler, i very distinctly and in detail demolished the incredibly absurd contention made that the United States had supported the Nazis.

You commonly post links to web pages which make outrageous charges against the United States without foundation. Pointing that out does not constitute name calling. From your very first post at this site, you have attacked the United States. I not only have not denied that the United States is guilty of many sins in the international arena, i have pointed out that no one at this site has been quicker to point that out than have i, and that i have in fact usually provided more information than the lame web sites you commonly link here. My objecion is the hysterical tone of the rhetoric peddled at the idiotic pages you link--they destroy their own case with the sheer stupidity of their contentions.

It does not constitute a personal attack to point this out. Given your penchant for making slurs against the United States, without having carefully examined the "evidence" you present, and given that you are not a citizen here, you have no business using the pronoun "we" in regard to the United States.

0 Replies

No, Thomas, McG's statement was not correct. I see you continue to ignore the portion of the Geneva Convention which is embarrassing to your proposition.

0 Replies

But no doubt is there. They were captured in the act and therefore were classified as illegal combatants and therefore do not fall under the protections of the Geneva Conventions.

0 Replies

But we're still not allowed to torture them.

0 Replies

That's true. We are allowed to interrogate them though. We are also allowed to use methods not allowed under the Geneva Conventions.

0 Replies

Oh fer chrissake . . .

Quote:

Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.

What is the competent tribunal which determined that detainees, either in Cuba or in Iraq, did not fit into the categories which Thomas posted?

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

That's true. We are allowed to interrogate them though. We are also allowed to use methods not allowed under the Geneva Conventions.

The Geneve Conventions don't specify which interrogation methods are not allowed.

0 Replies

Bush Advisor : President Has Legal Power to Torture Children

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know