2
   

Guantanamo suicides confirmed

 
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Jul, 2006 10:42 pm
Walter Hinteler wrote:
oralloy wrote:
No, the declaration of war was something that came from Congress.


a) as far as I know, until now only heads of state could and had declared war,


I don't know about other countries, but with us it is Congress.

Once Congress declares war, the President is free to go fight it, but it is supposed to be Congress that decides whether we go to war.



Walter Hinteler wrote:
b) there was and is consensus that a declaration of war can only be against a country.


I don't share that consensus.

I think wars are declared against enemies. And if an enemy doesn't happen to be a country, we shouldn't pretend that there isn't a war.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Jul, 2006 10:59 am
Hold up - you mean an enemy like "global terrorism"?
pachelbel
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Jul, 2006 08:18 pm
Detainees
Terror-War Wackiness

The White House intends to comply with the Supreme Court decision on detainees by turning the truth upside down. Creativity means never having to say you're sorry.

Rosa Brooks is a professor at the Georgetown University Law Center.

© 2006 Los Angeles Times

The usual triple talking axis of feeble..... Cool
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Jul, 2006 02:06 pm
A conline), I fully agree with:

Quote:
The right way
Applying Geneva Conventions to terrorism detainees positions United States where it belongs


The Bush administration's decision to order the U.S. military to treat terrorism detainees in accord with the Geneva Conventions is smart, and it's the right thing to do. The war on terrorism presents circumstances unanticipated by conventional military and international law. The Geneva Conventions, for example, were written to ensure humane treatment of the captured uniformed combatants of nation-states, most of whom are signatories to the conventions.

But terrorists typically are not uniformed soldiers serving nationstates, and the clandestine organizations to which they belong are not signatories of the conventions.

But the conventions are more than simply a legal contract between states. They embody a set of principles about how a civilized society ought to treat people, especially in a time of war, when it is easy for a civilized society to give in to its worst impulses.

http://i2.tinypic.com/206jy40.jpg

Terrorists violate every standard of civilized conduct. Bombing, shooting, torturing and beheading civilian noncombatants is savage and barbaric. But the civilized way to oppose barbarians is to uphold civilized standards, not to abandon them.

That is the moral case for applying the Geneva Conventions to terrorism detainees. There is also a practical, political and public-relations argument for doing so. The prior refusal of the Pentagon to apply Geneva standards to detainees was a propaganda boon to terrorists and a wound to the image the United States worldwide. It also was an embarrassment to nations who are friendly to the United States.

Condemned for their uncivilized acts, terrorists could point to the U.S. refusal to abide by the Geneva Conventions as evidence that, at least philosophically, they were little worse. Those who hate the United States for its overwhelming economic and military influence in the world pointed to the rejection of the Geneva standards as evidence that the nation is a rogue superpower that considers itself unrestrained by international law.

The United States faces a related difficulty, and that is what legal processes to apply to terrorism detainees. Since the recent Supreme Court ruling that the Bush administration had no authority to set up military tribunals to try detainees, Congress must craft a legal process to accomplish this task. The solution will be subjected to global scrutiny for fairness and justice, meaning that it will have the same potential to help or harm the United States as the decision on the Geneva Conventions.

In the meantime, the Pentagon's formal application of the Geneva Conventions may not make a notable difference on the battlefields of Iraq or Afghanistan, but in defense of the moral high ground, it's an important decision for the United States.
0 Replies
 
BernardR
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Jul, 2006 02:45 am
When do you think the trials will begin, Mr. Hinteler? 2007? 2008?

I think that most of the Prisoners will still be in Guantanamo where the Administration thinks Terrorist should be held until after the next election.

Then, Hillary Rodham Clinton can release them all. It is hoped that none of them will get near the White House while she is in it.

The cartoon which shows the USA slipping from the High Moral Level is inaccurate. The chains which dragged us down were not, as the cartoon shows, Iraq and Guantanamo. No, what may have dragged us down was the strike on the WTC. People who feel aggrieved have a tendency to strike back at their attackers. You know, Mr. Walter Hinteler, strike back like Germany did at their economic oppressors like France because of the Treaty of Versailles!!
0 Replies
 
Wolf ODonnell
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Jul, 2006 06:51 am
BernardR wrote:
You know, Mr. Walter Hinteler, strike back like Germany did at their economic oppressors like France because of the Treaty of Versailles!!


Like how the UK bombed Ireland everytime the IRA bombed us?
0 Replies
 
BernardR
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Jul, 2006 03:03 am
You mean that they didn't? Oh,yes, I know what they did. They sent Elton John to Ireland to terrorize the Catholics. That is far more horrible than any bombing!!!
0 Replies
 
pachelbel
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Jul, 2006 01:07 pm
BernardR wrote:
When do you think the trials will begin, Mr. Hinteler? 2007? 2008?

I think that most of the Prisoners will still be in Guantanamo where the Administration thinks Terrorist should be held until after the next election.

Then, Hillary Rodham Clinton can release them all. It is hoped that none of them will get near the White House while she is in it.

The cartoon which shows the USA slipping from the High Moral Level is inaccurate. The chains which dragged us down were not, as the cartoon shows, Iraq and Guantanamo. No, what may have dragged us down was the strike on the WTC. People who feel aggrieved have a tendency to strike back at their attackers. You know, Mr. Walter Hinteler, strike back like Germany did at their economic oppressors like France because of the Treaty of Versailles!!


Do you mean to say that Iraq attacked the WTC?
America, in its hysteria induced by a corporate owned media, wrongly attacked Iraq.

99% of the attackers/pilots were from Saudi Arabia and 1 or 2 from Egypt and Lebanon. NONE WERE FROM IRAQ. If you need proof it is easily attainable. But, believe whatever nonsense you wish.
0 Replies
 
BernardR
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Jul, 2006 12:19 am
When do you think the trials will begin, Mr. Hinteler? 2007? 2008?

I think that most of the Prisoners will still be in Guantanamo where the Administration thinks Terrorist should be held until after the next election.

Then, Hillary Rodham Clinton can release them all. It is hoped that none of them will get near the White House while she is in it.

The cartoon which shows the USA slipping from the High Moral Level is inaccurate. The chains which dragged us down were not, as the cartoon shows, Iraq and Guantanamo. No, what may have dragged us down was the strike on the WTC. People who feel aggrieved have a tendency to strike back at their attackers. You know, Mr. Walter Hinteler, strike back like Germany did at their economic oppressors like France because of the Treaty of Versailles!!

THE STRIKE ON THE WTC WAS ACCOMPLISHED BY FANATIC ISLAMIC EXTREMISTS. There are many of them in the world. Some are in England. They are the ones who killed scores of Britons in the London bombings.
Some are in Spain. They are the ones who killed scores of Spaniards in the Madrid bombings. Some are in Bali. They are the ones who killed scores of people in Bali.

The Extremists do not, by any means, represent all of Islam. Scholars willl show that the FANATIC ISLAMIC EXTREMISTS repreaent only a small part of the Islamic world but they are higly dangerous because they believe, as does the current president of Iran, that the destiny of Islam will be fulfilled with the return of the Twelvth Imam who will, AFTER SOME HORRENDOUS KIND OF APOCALYPSE( nuclear?) will reestablish the caliphate to bring the ENTIRE WORLD UNDER THE RULE OF ALLAH.

Only people like Pachelbel, who may be ignorant of these facts, do not understand that this is a World War--The small sliver of fanatic Islaimists versus the civilized world!!!
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Aug, 2006 11:56 pm
Quote:
(Washington, D.C., July 28, 2006) - The Bush administration has proposed draft legislation that largely recreates the deeply flawed military commissions that the Supreme Court struck down last month in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, Human Rights Watch said today.

Worse, the administration's proposed legislation asks Congress to authorize its discredited policy of holding people indefinitely without charge. The draft legislation would authorize detaining people picked up anywhere in the world, including U.S. citizens, and holding them indefinitely without charge if the administration unilaterally deems them to be "associated with" or "part of" al-Qaeda or the Taliban.

"The White House seems tone-deaf to the concerns expressed by the Supreme Court, Congress, and its closest European allies," said Jennifer Daskal, advocacy director of the U.S. program at Human Rights Watch. "Instead of devising fair tribunals based on the court-martial rules, the administration wants Congress to belatedly adopt the whole Guantanamo package."

The draft legislation would also effectively rewrite the minimum, humane-treatment standards of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, undercutting key protections for soldiers and civilians worldwide, including Americans.

As a means of prosecuting persons for violations of war crimes, the administration's proposed legislation disregards existing laws requiring military commissions to be based as closely as is practicable on the established rules and procedures laid out in the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Manual for Courts Martial. The Judge Advocates General of each of the armed services, in hearings before the Senate Armed Services Committee two weeks ago, each endorsed the view that the court-martial system, with its deep reservoir of rules and precedents, should serve as the starting point for any military commissions authorized by Congress. The administration's proposal, in contrast, would create an entirely new court system - including a new appeals tribunal - which fails to guarantee even the barest minimum of due process. Those fair-trial shortcuts would inevitably lead to a whole new round of litigation over the legitimacy of the new commissions.

Of particular concern, the proposed commissions would allow the accused to be excluded from portions of his own trial; to be convicted based on evidence that he has never seen or had a chance to rebut; and to be convicted and executed based exclusively on second- or third-hand summaries of witness statements, without any chance to confront his accusers or fairly determine whether their statements were coerced.

"If the administration has its way, attention will remain focused on the deeply flawed military commissions, and not on the suspects and their alleged crimes," Daskal said.

Although the administration relies on wartime justifications to explain the justice system it proposes, the legislation would extend to cases that lie far beyond armed conflict situations. It would create a system under which the administration could detain virtually anyone, anytime, anywhere around the world, call him an enemy combatant, indefinitely detain him in military custody, and deprive him of his normal due process rights in favor of the compromised proceedings of the military commissions. This would extend congressional approval to cases such as the unlawful detention without charge of Jose Padilla, an American citizen who was arrested in Chicago and held in solitary confinement for three-and-a-half years.

Of particular concern, the legislation would also abandon the absolute standards of humane treatment required by Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions and replace them with a balancing test, under which the definition of inhumane treatment would vary according to the perceived need of the detaining power. The administration would achieve this by tying the definition of the relevant terms in Common Article 3 to the definition of "cruel, inhuman, and degrading" under the Detainee Treatment Act. This the administration has interpreted as imposing a relative, rather than absolute, standard of humane treatment, arguing that virtually any form of inhumane treatment might be acceptable if national security demands obtaining information from a detainee.

Common Article 3, on the other hand, has always been interpreted by the United States and the international community as establishing an absolute standard, providing a bright line rule that protects all combatants and civilians, including American soldiers. That effective rewriting of the Geneva Conventions would make the United States the first country in the world to attempt formally to limit this minimum standard of humane treatment. Given last month's Department of Defense directive - confirming that the military has long mandated the humane treatment standards of Common Article 3 - this proposed change appears to serve the sole purpose of protecting CIA officials who engage in cruel and inhumane interrogation techniques, at the expense of U.S. soldiers' safety.

This permissiveness toward inhumane treatment is also reflected in the administration's proposal for new military commissions. The proposal not only allows, but actually seems designed to facilitate, admission into evidence of statements taken under coercive interrogation. By allowing hearsay evidence and refusing to disallow statements taken under coercion short of torture, the proposal makes it virtually impossible for suspects to contest statements taken under many of the highly coercive interrogation techniques - including use of dogs, forced nudity and sexual humiliation, extended sleep deprivation and prolonged use of painful stress positions - that the administration has repeatedly approved.

"The administration's proposal seems intended to avoid embarrassing revelations about its torture and mistreatment of detainees," Daskal said. "Creating a travesty of a fair trial will only compound the injustice of the administration's unlawful interrogation practices."



http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/07/28/usdom13878.htm
0 Replies
 
BernardR
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Aug, 2006 12:59 am
Pachelbel is evidently suffering under the delusion that the fanatic and murderous branch of the Shiites in Saudi Arabia are ideologically different from the Shiites in Hezbollah or the Shiites in Sadr City Iraq or the Shiites in Southern Afghanistan. They are not!!!
0 Replies
 
Endymion
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Feb, 2009 02:18 am
Lawyer of alleged torture victim makes plea to MPs

* Richard Norton-Taylor
* The Guardian, Tuesday 10 February 2009

The British resident at the centre of a legal battle over alleged torture could leave Guantánamo Bay insane or in a coffin if the case continues to be dragged out, his [US] lawyer said yesterday.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/feb/10/binyam-mohamed-plea-guantanamo

*
*

Guantanamo on the Brink: Death Looms for Inmates Amid Hunger Strikes and Beatings

By Mark Townsend and Paul Harris, Independent UK. Posted February 9, 2009.

Dozens of hunger strikes, beatings, instances of forced feeding and other atrocities have reportedly reduced Guantanamo to near chaos.

http://www.alternet.org/rights/125947/guantanamo_on_the_brink%3A_death_looms_for_inmates_amid_hunger_strikes_and_beatings/

genoves
 
  0  
Reply Tue 10 Feb, 2009 02:47 am
@Endymion,
Suicides? I think it is reprehensible for the USA to maintain a facility of any kind which,because of the conditions within it, causes anyone to commit suicide.

That is why I am in favor of shutting down Guantanamo. The prisoners would be much more comfortable in Leavenworth.

Furthermore, I think that PresidentObama and the Congress should do a study on the large number of suicides in the US Armed Forces. Obviously, something is not right there. If a soldier is citing personal problems as asource for his malaise,the right thing to do is to release him with a good conduct discharge immediately.

It is unconscionable for the US to encourage conditions which leads men to commit suicide. The rigidities encountered in the US Marine Corps must be studied by the Obama Administration. Perhaps, we need a newer,kinder, more emphatic kind of Marine in our country's future.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Feb, 2009 07:19 am
It is hard to figure out who is the guilty ones, the US or Britain in this latest known torture account; or both. I don't know if the following is the latest as I have been busy lately and haven't kept up with any news whatsoever, so I don't know how or if Obama has responded. I hope he does not disappoint me by continuing the practice of cover up with the practices of rendition and torture. Actually the story seems so twisted with twist and turns that I have a hard time making out the sequence of events of who did what and where.





On the trail of torture
genoves
 
  0  
Reply Wed 11 Feb, 2009 03:20 am
@revel,
Revel- If you read the information below,you will find that the Obama administration is not going to keep its promise to the left wing to punish the CIA miscreants. In fact, it appears that Obama will press for sending some of the Gitmo people back to countries other than thier own for interrogation.

Waterboarding may be horrific, but not ultimately disabling, but most in Gitmo would prefer it to having their nails ripped out in some Middle Eastern or Southern European torture chamber.

Note:

No Charges for CIA Interrogators in Barack Obama's Administration
By Mark Impomeni
Nov 17th 2008 7:00PM



Advisers to President-elect Barack Obama say that the incoming administration is not likely to pursue charges against terrorist interrogators from the CIA and other federal agencies for alleged instances of torturing terrorist detainees. The move by the Obama could be an early test of his support from radical anti-war activist groups like Moveon.org and civil-liberties groups like the ACLU which overwhelmingly supported Obama in the general election.

Robert Litt, of the liberal Brookings Institution, said that the move by the incoming administration, if confirmed, is a politically wise one. "Both for policy and political reasons, it would not be beneficial to spend a lot of time hauling people up before Congress or before grand juries and going over what went on," Litt said. "To as great of an extent we can say, the last eight years are over, now we can move forward - that would be beneficial both to the country and the president, politically." But Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, a far-left wing civil-liberties group, disagreed. Ratner wants the interrogators and members of the Bush Administration brought up on charges for alleged illegal activities in the interrogation of terrorist detainees.

"The only way to prevent this from happening again is to make sure that those who were responsible for the torture program pay the price for it. I don't see how we regain our moral stature by allowing those who were intimately involved in the torture programs to simply walk off the stage and lead lives where they are not held accountable."
At least one high profile supporter of Obama's, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Pat Leahy (D-VT) has said that charges for former administration officials are not in the offing. "In the United States, no," Leahy said. "These things are not going to happen."

Obama has said that he will name a commission, styled on the 9/11 Commission, to investigate the CIA's interrogation program. But the commission could unearth information embarrassing to Democrats as well as Bush Administration officials. The CIA has stated publicly that three terrorist detainees in its custody were subjected to waterboarding between 2002 and 2003, including the mastermind of the September 11th attacks, Khalid Sheikh Mohammad. The agency has said that it discontinued the practice, and has revealed that top Congressional Democrats, including Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, were briefed about the details of the interrogations program while they were occurring.

*****************************************************************
AND SATCHEL MOUTH PELOSI SAID NOTHING?
revel
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Feb, 2009 07:11 am
@genoves,
Actually I don't see why Obama would punish those in the CIA who were only following orders from the top. The thing is to shine a spot light on it, and correct the behavior. If you watched his press conference, he said to the extent any wrong doing was done, then someone was to pay a price for it because no one is above the law but for most part he is interested in getting it right and moving forward. (Paraphrased) So it seems like he is not going to stop anyone from looking at the past practices. Furthermore, Obama has not said he was going to release the detainees over to other countries to be tortured. That was a Bush policy.
Endymion
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Feb, 2009 09:57 pm
Who's Running Guantánamo?

By ANDY WORTHINGTON
http://www.counterpunch.org/worthington02112009.html
0 Replies
 
genoves
 
  0  
Reply Thu 12 Feb, 2009 02:49 am
@revel,
Revel _ I will wait to see what Obama does with people from Gitmo. If and when he sends them to other countries( some of their homelands won't take them) I will let you know.
revel
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Feb, 2009 07:53 am
@genoves,
Bear in mind merely releasing a detainee because there is not enough evidence to bring the detainee to trial or it is discovered the detainee is innocent is not the same as sending detainees into the custody of rulers of countries to be tortured.
genoves
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Feb, 2009 08:43 pm
@revel,
I will watch carefully to see the disposition of these prisoners:

Possibilities:

l. US Federal Prisons----Too dangerous for them and much much more rigorous than Gitmo.

2. Their home countries? In many cases their home countries will not accept them.

Where will they be sent?
 

Related Topics

The Story of Jumah al Dossari - Discussion by Diest TKO
Shame on Obama for not closing Gitmo - Discussion by Olivier5
9/11 Families Outraged - Discussion by H2O MAN
A Gitmo what if - Discussion by H2O MAN
Sigh, more lies about abuses - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 08/02/2021 at 10:51:45