G
gilliam
Guest
Why can’t you post it in the Secular News forum? It is about recent news. I don’t think there is a requirement that you have to have a news story, is there?
As Gitmo Hunger Strike Continues, Lawyers Step Up Fight for Access
- Status
K
koda
Guest
Here’s a story from “Forbes”
E-mail | Comments | E-Mail Newsletters | RSS
AFX News Limited
US acknowledges torture at Guantanamo; in Iraq, Afghanistan - UN
06.24.2005, 11:37 AM
GENEVA (AFX) - Washington has, for the first time, acknowledged to the United Nations that prisoners have been tortured at US detention centres in Guantanamo Bay, as well as Afghanistan and Iraq, a UN source said.
The acknowledgement was made in a report submitted to the UN Committee against Torture, said a member of the ten-person panel, speaking on on condition of anonymity.
‘They are no longer trying to duck this and have respected their obligation to inform the UN,’ the Committee member said.
‘They they will have to explain themselves (to the Committee). Nothing should be kept in the dark,’ he said.
UN sources said this is the first time the world body has received such a frank statement on torture from US authorities.
The Committee, which monitors respect for the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, is gathering information from the US ahead of hearings in May 2006.
Signatories of the convention are expected to submit to scrutiny of their implementation of the 1984 convention and to provide information to the Committee.
The document from Washington will not be formally made public until the hearings.
newsdesk@afxnews.com
/jag/bar/jwf/pac/ns/ims
COPYRIGHT
Again, this is not George himself speaking, but those who work for him. And while it doesn’t use the exact phrase “torture them all we want” that is the general impression given.
E-mail | Comments | E-Mail Newsletters | RSS
AFX News Limited
US acknowledges torture at Guantanamo; in Iraq, Afghanistan - UN
06.24.2005, 11:37 AM
GENEVA (AFX) - Washington has, for the first time, acknowledged to the United Nations that prisoners have been tortured at US detention centres in Guantanamo Bay, as well as Afghanistan and Iraq, a UN source said.
The acknowledgement was made in a report submitted to the UN Committee against Torture, said a member of the ten-person panel, speaking on on condition of anonymity.
‘They are no longer trying to duck this and have respected their obligation to inform the UN,’ the Committee member said.
‘They they will have to explain themselves (to the Committee). Nothing should be kept in the dark,’ he said.
UN sources said this is the first time the world body has received such a frank statement on torture from US authorities.
The Committee, which monitors respect for the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, is gathering information from the US ahead of hearings in May 2006.
Signatories of the convention are expected to submit to scrutiny of their implementation of the 1984 convention and to provide information to the Committee.
The document from Washington will not be formally made public until the hearings.
newsdesk@afxnews.com
/jag/bar/jwf/pac/ns/ims
COPYRIGHT
Again, this is not George himself speaking, but those who work for him. And while it doesn’t use the exact phrase “torture them all we want” that is the general impression given.
K
koda
Guest
hrw.org/english/docs/2005/08/05/usdom11610.htm
Here is a story from the Human Rights Watch website that was originally printed in “America” the Catholic weekly put out by the Jesuits. Again, a pertinent quote is below:
"When the first detainees arrived at Guantanamo Bay in January 2002, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld declared them all to be unlawful combatants who “do not have any rights” under the Geneva Conventions. The U.S., he said, would “for the most part, treat them in a manner that is reasonably consistent with the Geneva Conventions, to the extent they are appropriate.” Later that month, then White House counsel Alberto Gonzales wrote to President Bush that the Geneva Convention provisions on questioning enemy prisoners were “obsolete” and argued, among other things, that rejecting the applicability of the Geneva Convention “ubstantially reduces the threat of domestic criminal prosecution” of U.S. officials for war crimes.
Over the objections of then Secretary of State Colin Powell and military leaders, President Bush essentially adopted this line. On February 7, 2002, he announced that the Geneva Conventions did not apply in military operations against Al Qaeda.* Rumsfeld told journalists that day: “The reality is the set of facts that exist today with the Al Qaeda and the Taliban were not necessarily the set of facts that were considered when the Geneva Convention was fashioned.”
The administration’s rejection of the Geneva Conventions was unlawful, unnecessary and ultimately led to the abuses of prisoners in Afghanistan, Iraq and at Guantanamo Bay**. Under the Geneva Conventions, captured members of armed groups such as Al Qaeda are not entitled to prisoner-of-war status. They are nonetheless entitled to the basic protections afforded all persons picked up in a battle zone, including protection from torture and other ill treatment, a fair trial should they be charged with a crime, and, in the case of civilian detainees, the periodic review of the security rationale for their detention."
I think this validates my opinion. I do apologize, however, if you found my wording offensive. I should have been more specific and will be in the future.*
Here is a story from the Human Rights Watch website that was originally printed in “America” the Catholic weekly put out by the Jesuits. Again, a pertinent quote is below:
"When the first detainees arrived at Guantanamo Bay in January 2002, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld declared them all to be unlawful combatants who “do not have any rights” under the Geneva Conventions. The U.S., he said, would “for the most part, treat them in a manner that is reasonably consistent with the Geneva Conventions, to the extent they are appropriate.” Later that month, then White House counsel Alberto Gonzales wrote to President Bush that the Geneva Convention provisions on questioning enemy prisoners were “obsolete” and argued, among other things, that rejecting the applicability of the Geneva Convention “
Over the objections of then Secretary of State Colin Powell and military leaders, President Bush essentially adopted this line. On February 7, 2002, he announced that the Geneva Conventions did not apply in military operations against Al Qaeda.
The administration’s rejection of the Geneva Conventions was unlawful, unnecessary and ultimately led to the abuses of prisoners in Afghanistan, Iraq and at Guantanamo Bay**. Under the Geneva Conventions, captured members of armed groups such as Al Qaeda are not entitled to prisoner-of-war status. They are nonetheless entitled to the basic protections afforded all persons picked up in a battle zone, including protection from torture and other ill treatment, a fair trial should they be charged with a crime, and, in the case of civilian detainees, the periodic review of the security rationale for their detention."
I think this validates my opinion. I do apologize, however, if you found my wording offensive. I should have been more specific and will be in the future.*
M
MikeWM
Guest
I thought you did - there seems to have been a lot of threads closed for lack of a link to a related story.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=82990
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=82476
for a couple of recent examples.
I’ll try to dig something out of a blog or something - it shouldn’t be too hard
Mike
G
gilliam
Guest
koda said:
R
Robert_Bay
Guest
WARNING
Please keep quotes to 1-3 paragrahs.
Please keep quotes to 1-3 paragrahs.
R
Robert_Bay
Guest
Mike,I thought you did - there seems to have been a lot of threads closed for lack of a link to a related story.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=82990
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=82476
for a couple of recent examples.
I’ll try to dig something out of a blog or something - it shouldn’t be too hard
Mike
I did. The policy is that news articles need links. You can ask a question, as far as I know in the forum without violating any forum policy.
Rule of thumb, when you report news, or quote something: provide a link.
M
mjdonnelly
Guest
Yup, they will rotate, or just decide to be on a hunger strike for certain meals.
I know because I was there.
They are not POWs and are not afforded protection of the Geneva Convention. They are terrorists or are people found to be supporting a terrorist organization.
K
Karin
Guest
Well good for them then…if they want to randomly miss meals I say let them!
**Wonderful…it is nice to know that you can be jailed for years without a trial or access to an attorney just becuase you are suspected of doing something wrong…so when does the goverment have to PROVE that they actually are terrorists or HAVE ACTUALLY supported a terroristt organization? **
W
walstan
Guest
Now thats a very interersting statement, what does it mean?
Sherry Blair once said she understood the rational behind the Palestinian Inti fahda, does that mean she is “Supporting” a terrorist organisation.
In Afganistan of the 1970’s the Russians had invaded and were opposed by terrorists known as the Taliban and lead by one Osama Bin Laden. He was amply supported by the USA, does that mean that the USA is guilty of “Supporting” a terrorist organisation?
A number of years ago lots of people went onto the streets in support of Nelson Mandela and his opposition party in South Africa, they were banned as a terrorist organisation by the legitimate government of South Africa which was supported by the UK and USA at that time, where these people “Supporting” a terrorist organisation?
In the late 1940’s a number of Jewish organisations faught a terrorist war against the legitimate (at that time) occupying forces in Palestine, they were supported by America, does that mean that America was guilty of “Supporting” a terrorist organisation?
During the second world war many people in occupied Europe were members of the resistance, they blew up railways, killed Germans and generally created havoc, were they “Supporting” a terrorist organisation?
I would suggest that such wooly and indeterminate terms such as this are simply a cover because it saves the problem of having to try and prove some form of guilt in a court of law which, to be totally frank, would laugh such terms out of the door.
K
koda
Guest
Actually, the courts have not approved it - see the below link:
hrw.org/english/docs/2004/11/08/usdom9632.htm
*U.S.: Court Ruling Halts Commissions
Judge Insists Geneva Conventions Be Followed
(New York, November 8, 2004) – A U.S. court properly halted military commission proceedings for Guantanamo detainees until the Bush administration complies with the Geneva Conventions, Human Rights Watch said today. * continued - see link for full story.
As for an apology, I apologized for my rude wording - and I sent you a long heartfelt apology in a private message which you have not acknowledged. However, to me (and to many, many others not only in the U.S. but in the world) it is clear that the Bush Admins position on torture is that is it an acceptable technique. This fact is more than adequately demonstrated in the links I supplied in below posts. The very fact that Bush does not want to sign the military bill including Sen. McCain’s amendment prohibiting torture speaks volumes. I just heard on the news last night that the admin is trying to carve out an exception for the CIA. This is in the news today should you care to check. So why Bush may never have uttered the words “so we can torture them all we want” (which, BTW, I never claimed he did) I think actions speak louder than words.
So for the third time, I am sorry that I offended you. Yes, my wording was poor. I do not like the Bush Admin as I’m sure you can tell and at times I may go off half-cocked. However, the gist of my comment, which was that the Bush Admin is okay with using torture is, is more than well documented and the facts speak for themselves. I personally do not find torture to be an acceptable Christian practice, no matter what the crime is.
M
MikeWM
Guest
Probably yes, according to the terrorism bill going through the UK Parliament right now
While I think that is an absolute disgrace, at least we are making it a specific crime that will be tried in a court. Habeas Corpus is battered and bruised in Britain but is trying to hang on, thank goodness.
Mike
M
mjdonnelly
Guest
Shooting at us, transporting weapons, supplying them with food. For example.
M
mjdonnelly
Guest
Karin said:
Yeah, it’s great that we’ve moved beyond the instant execution stuff that we are still allowed to do. It isn’t very good for intelligence and enemies tend to fight to the death rather than surrender if we just shoot them on the spot.
K
Karin
Guest
:bigyikes: **…shoot people first than ask questions?? **
M
mjdonnelly
Guest
Karin said:
That’s always been the punishment for piracy.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
That question was asked in the 1940s. The answer was, “When the Germans and Japanese surrender.”
When the terrorists stop attacking us, the war will be over.
A
aimee
Guest
vern humphrey:
Exactly
S
SamCA
Guest
vern humphrey:
Terrorists are criminals operating at an individual or cell-based level. You can’t attack their infrastructure. Killing their leaders doesn’t stop attacks – in fact, it encourages more. Having a war on terror is like having a war on crime. It sounds good until you actually try to do it, and then you realize you’re approaching it wrong. No matter how many criminals you kill, you can’t stop crime. In order to decrease crime, you need to take a step back and find a way to prevent people from becoming criminals (or, since that’s impossible, prevent as many people as possible from becoming criminals) which requires first understanding why they become criminals and acting to alleviate those conditions.
We have killed a whole lot of insurgents in Iraq. In that time, the insurgency has grown. Really stop and think about that for a second. It’s as if we’re fighting a hydra. Every time we kill an insurgent, two more take his place, and the reason for that is that the means we’re using to kill them are themselves creating conditions conducive to turning people into terrorists.
You can’t fight terrorism like MacArthur. You have to fight it like Eliot Ness.
And you certainly can’t do it by treating your enemies like they’re subhuman. That will only increase the number of people who make themselves your enemies.
Put more simply: If we keep fighting the war on terror the way we have been, we simply garauntee that terrorists will continue to attack us. This has led certain paranoid types (and I’d be lying if I said I couldn’t be a bit of a paranoiac myself at times) to wonder if this isn’t exactly what our leaders want. It’s a whole lot easier to keep your people under control in wartime than in peace. And unlike every other war we’ve ever fought, the War on Terror in its current form all but garauntees a state of perpetual war.
Now, maybe it’s accidental that our leadership has brought us into an Orwellian forever war. Certainly, stranger things have happened. But that doesn’t mean we should go along with it.
Here’s the fundamental difference, though. Germany and Japan were nations. They had infrastructures that you could attack, governments that you could deal with. You could actually point to a tangible series of actions that could be taken to render Germany and Japan incapable of attacking us.
Terrorists are criminals operating at an individual or cell-based level. You can’t attack their infrastructure. Killing their leaders doesn’t stop attacks – in fact, it encourages more. Having a war on terror is like having a war on crime. It sounds good until you actually try to do it, and then you realize you’re approaching it wrong. No matter how many criminals you kill, you can’t stop crime. In order to decrease crime, you need to take a step back and find a way to prevent people from becoming criminals (or, since that’s impossible, prevent as many people as possible from becoming criminals) which requires first understanding why they become criminals and acting to alleviate those conditions.
We have killed a whole lot of insurgents in Iraq. In that time, the insurgency has grown. Really stop and think about that for a second. It’s as if we’re fighting a hydra. Every time we kill an insurgent, two more take his place, and the reason for that is that the means we’re using to kill them are themselves creating conditions conducive to turning people into terrorists.
You can’t fight terrorism like MacArthur. You have to fight it like Eliot Ness.
And you certainly can’t do it by treating your enemies like they’re subhuman. That will only increase the number of people who make themselves your enemies.
Put more simply: If we keep fighting the war on terror the way we have been, we simply garauntee that terrorists will continue to attack us. This has led certain paranoid types (and I’d be lying if I said I couldn’t be a bit of a paranoiac myself at times) to wonder if this isn’t exactly what our leaders want. It’s a whole lot easier to keep your people under control in wartime than in peace. And unlike every other war we’ve ever fought, the War on Terror in its current form all but garauntees a state of perpetual war.
Now, maybe it’s accidental that our leadership has brought us into an Orwellian forever war. Certainly, stranger things have happened. But that doesn’t mean we should go along with it.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Let that be a lesson to terrorists – if you’re not serving in the legitimate armed forces of a soverign nation, you’ll spend a long time in a cage.
Actually, you can – they need to eat, train, buy things, store things, transport things just like anyone else. Their infrastructure is not so extensive as that of, say New York City, but they do have one. And these days much of it is financial.
Is that what you learned at the Command and General Staff College?
How it looks and how it is are two different things.
Is that what they taught you at the Command and General Staff College?
And you have proof of that? Both in your accusation that we are treating our enemis “like they’re subhuman” and that it somehow creates more of them?
May I ask what military training and experience you have?
- Status