2
   

Rumsfeld charged with Torture in France

 
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Oct, 2007 01:43 pm
The full text by the lawyers addressed to the senior prosecutor at the district court of Paris can be found HERE (PDF, and in French).

Quote:
Elles vous demandent par conséquent, au titre de l'article 6 de la Convention contre la torture
et autres traitements cruels, inhumains et dégradants, dont les dispositions sont intégrées en
droit interne français, de prendre toutes mesures conservatoires aux fins d'assurer la détention
de cette personne ou sa présence sur le territoire français.



That letter is online since more than 5 hours now - speculatns about what article they refer to could have been shortened :wink:
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Oct, 2007 01:49 pm
Walter Hinteler wrote:
The full text by the lawyers addressed to the senior prosecutor at the district court of Paris can be found HERE (PDF, and in French).

Quote:
Elles vous demandent par conséquent, au titre de l'article 6 de la Convention contre la torture
et autres traitements cruels, inhumains et dégradants, dont les dispositions sont intégrées en
droit interne français, de prendre toutes mesures conservatoires aux fins d'assurer la détention
de cette personne ou sa présence sur le territoire français.


Care to translate?
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Oct, 2007 01:54 pm
woiyo wrote:

Care to translate?


Well, since cjhsa yesterday told me that I don't understand Latin and have a bad grammar in English, I'm certainly not going to try such again.
0 Replies
 
Francis
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Oct, 2007 02:09 pm
woiyo wrote:
Care to translate?


"They require from you, consequently, on the grounds of the article 6 of Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, whose dispositions have been integrated in the French national law, to take any conservative measure to ensure the detention of this person, or his presence on the French territory."



Sorry, for my bad grammar and English language skills...
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Oct, 2007 02:14 pm
cjhsa wrote:
If you don't get it, then what point are you trying to make?

The world seems to have lost its collective mind over how to treat these islamofacist terrorists. ****, kill them all. Get info out of the ones still alive by any means possible. They are barely human. Maybe you want to go live 1000 years in the past, but I for one do not.


settle for a couple hundred will ya? :wink:
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Oct, 2007 02:29 pm
Merci, Walter.

As I suspected, the French criminal code sets up universal jurisdiction over torture claims.
    Article 689-1 En application des conventions internationales visées aux articles suivants, peut être poursuivie et jugée par les juridictions françaises, si elle se trouve en France, toute personne qui s'est rendue coupable hors du territoire de la République de l'une des infractions énumérées par ces articles. Les dispositions du présent article sont applicables à la tentative de ces infractions, chaque fois que celle-ci est punissable. Article 689-2 Pour l'application de la convention contre la torture et autres peines ou traitements cruels, inhumains ou dégradants, adoptée à New York le 10 décembre 1984, peut être poursuivie et jugée dans les conditions prévues à l'article 689-1 toute personne coupable de tortures au sens de l'article 1er de la convention.

Rough translation:
    Article 689-1 In applying the international conventions noted in the following articles, any person, outside the territory of the Republic, who is accused of one of the infractions enumerated in these articles, can be prosecuted and sentenced by a French jurisdiction if found in France. Article 689-2 For the application of the convention against torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishments and treatment, adopted in New York in December 1984, any person accused of torture in the sense of Article 1 of the convention, can be prosecuted and sentenced under the conditions set out in Article 689-1.

So Rumsfeld would be tried under French law.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Oct, 2007 02:35 pm
Francis wrote:
woiyo wrote:
Care to translate?


"They require from you, consequently, on the grounds of the article 6 of Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, whose dispositions have been integrated in the French national law, to take any conservative measure to ensure the detention of this person, or his presence on the French territory."



Sorry, for my bad grammar and English language skills...

No need to apologize, Francis, you did a fine job. Translating from one language to another is never easy, and translating legal jargon from one language to another is doubly difficult. I think the only change I would make is that "mesures conservatoires" would probably be better translated as "preventative measures" rather than "conservative measures."
0 Replies
 
Francis
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Oct, 2007 02:42 pm
Well, Joe, I thought so but as we have "mesures preventives" too I preferred to use "conservative measures".

Obviously, from a legal point of view, they are not exactly the same thing.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Oct, 2007 02:48 pm
Protective measures could be another possibilty.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Oct, 2007 02:54 pm
Francis wrote:
Well, Joe, I thought so but as we have "mesures preventives" too I preferred to use "conservative measures".

Obviously, from a legal point of view, they are not exactly the same thing.


Mesure compensatoire <> mesures preventives, I'd thought.
Mais, j'êtais à côté de la plaque à quoi ça ressemble :wink:
0 Replies
 
Francis
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Oct, 2007 02:58 pm
Ca arrive, Walter. :wink:
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Oct, 2007 02:59 pm
Francis wrote:
Well, Joe, I thought so but as we have "mesures preventives" too I preferred to use "conservative measures".

Obviously, from a legal point of view, they are not exactly the same thing.

I think "conservatoire," in this context, means to conserve or preserve, in the sense of keeping someone where they are. "Conservative" has an entirely different meaning in English, and "mesures preservatifs" would have an entirely different (and possibly ribald) double-meaning in French. I think an American would be more comfortable with "preventative measures."
0 Replies
 
Francis
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Oct, 2007 03:04 pm
Yes, Joe, your analysis makes perfect sense..

Especially for the ribald part.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Oct, 2007 03:16 pm
Francis wrote:

Especially for the ribald part.


Ah - that's why Cont(L)ex, Prot(L)ex etc lost the 'L'.
0 Replies
 
Francis
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Oct, 2007 03:20 pm
See how these Europeans are?

They derail a thread in no time...
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Oct, 2007 03:29 pm
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
cjhsa wrote:
If you don't get it, then what point are you trying to make?

The world seems to have lost its collective mind over how to treat these islamofacist terrorists. ****, kill them all. Get info out of the ones still alive by any means possible. They are barely human. Maybe you want to go live 1000 years in the past, but I for one do not.


settle for a couple hundred will ya? :wink:


Ok.. I guess the crusades were only 900 years ago.. So I can see why you don't want to live 1000 years in the past cj.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Oct, 2007 11:36 am
Quote:
Guantanamo military lawyer breaks ranks to condemn 'unconscionable' detention
By Leonard Doyle in Washington
Published: 27 October 2007

An American military lawyer and veteran of dozens of secret Guantanamo tribunals has made a devastating attack on the legal process for determining whether Guantanamo prisoners are "enemy combatants".

The whistleblower, an army major inside the military court system which the United States has established at Guantanamo Bay, has described the detention of one prisoner, a hospital administrator from Sudan, as "unconscionable".
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article3101949.ece
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Oct, 2007 08:06 pm
cjhsa wrote:
So should Japanese tourists be arrested when they visit Australia because they enjoy minke whale at their home sushi bar?

Very curious as to the response.


You may have attained the physical age of forty something but mentally, ...
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Oct, 2007 08:33 pm
tinygiraffe wrote:
zippo wrote:
http://www.safecom.org.au/images/torture-freedom.jpg


zippo, you're amazing sometimes. in more ways than one of course, heh.

i hate to say i think woiyo might be right about this, i would love to see rumsfeld brought to justice. on the other hand, i'm not so quick to think that treaties should be bent just to catch people we don't like.

the problem with that is that if we abuse them that way, others will too- and worse (since we know they will anyway) that we won't have a leg to stand on when we accuse them for it. this all assumes that woiyo has interpreted the agreement correctly, i can't tell. but he has a point. i don't have to like it, but he might be right about this all the same. prosecuting people under bent legal pretenses is a habit i'd rather see behind us, and at least not contributed to.


The US was responsible for orchestrating a complete sham in the Tokyo Trials after the second world war, TG. The USA is not in any position to hold themselves out as moral arbiters of what's right and wrong. At least not without a complete purge of all the war criminals that now reside, retired from government, in the USA.

The USA was responsible for terror attacks on Japanese civilians throughout WWII.

Quote:
0 Replies
 
Builder
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Oct, 2007 08:43 pm
But "terror-bombing" has been everyone's game since World War II.

The French are no exception.

Rainbow Warrior bombing.

As it emerged that the bombing was a deliberate act of sabotage, there was little doubt in Greenpeace minds who was responsible. Two days after the bombing the French Embassy in Wellington issued a statement echoing the flat denials emanating from Paris. 'In no way is France involved,' it declared. 'The French Government doesn't deal with its opponents in such ways.' But within a few days police had arrested French secret service agents Alain Mafart and Dominique Prieur as they tried to return their van to an Auckland hire company. While they were held in custody, the charter yacht Ouvea, carrying another team of agents implicated in the bombing, sailed to Norfolk Island and then disappeared a few days out to sea heading north for Tahiti. Her crew was reportedly picked up by the French nuclear submarine Rubis, which turned up in Tahiti on July 22 - the first time a French nuclear submarine had been known to enter the South Pacific.

The international outcry pressured the French Government into setting up its own inquiry. After less than three weeks the head of the inquiry, Bernard Tricot, a former Director-General of the Elysee Palace, announced, 'On the basis of the information available to me at this time, I do not believe there was any French responsibility.' The French agents caught in New Zealand were merely there to spy on Greenpeace, Tricot implied, not to bomb them.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/28/2024 at 01:14:47