Red Cross: Torture at Gitmo

[Dinner]

I'd say that even if we accept those difinitions then there is considerable latitude in determining what does or does not break those rules. Some people could claim that only allow one shower a day or not having cable tv breaks the coercing section. There is considerable room for reasonable people to disagree.

[DinoDoc]

Oh I think most international conventions define things poorly on a wide range of issues. However to prove it irrelevent you'd have to tell me how throwing a disruptive prisoner into solitary wouldn't be considered torture according to the defintion you posted.

[notyoueither]

That depends on how you define 'is', yer honor.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Ramo

detainees were subjected to "some beatings."

I'd like to see the context. If a prisoner is being violent and has to be restrained then some level of force is justified to regain control of the prisoner. Are they whining about that or do they have creditable proof that anything else has happened? My guess is that if they had a leg to stand on then they'd give explicit details.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by notyoueither
After AbuG, do you need photos of what 'humiliating acts' are?

Did someone redefine 'beating' while I wasn't paying attention?

Not one person as shown any creditable accussations that anything remotely similiar to Abu Gharib has occured at Gitmo. Further the US showed that once creditable claims surface they quickly deal with it in a legal manner.

As for beatings see my previous post.

[notyoueither]

I think, given the track record, the onus is on the US to demonstrate restraint and humane treatment of these prisoners, not the other way around.

Or do we think the Red Cross is another department of Old Europe now?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Oerdin


Not one person as shown any creditable accussations that anything remotely similiar to Abu Gharib has occured at Gitmo. Further the US showed that once creditable claims surface they quickly deal with it in a legal manner.

As for beatings see my previous post.

'Deal with it'? You mean that they prosecute a bunch of enlisted and other junior ranks, maybe sack a reservist brigadeer, and then ignore the role of intelligence officers in the proceedings and the responsibility of the rest of the chain of command?

Come on, Oerdin, you have your soon to be Attourney General writing memos on how to justify all this ****, and you think AbuG was an isolated incident?

[Imran Siddiqui]

It seems that Oerdin didn't read the OP .

Do you have a link which gives the whole text of the treaty and shows if and when the treaty was ratified?

Text:

http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cat.html

Oh, and before you ask, 'lawful sanctions' are those deemed lawful under international law.

Reagan signed the treaty in 1988 and the Senate finally approved it in 1994, with the proding of Clinton.

http://www.irct.org/usr/irct/home.nsf/unid/BKEN-5YPF3N

The US is among the list of ratifying countries.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by notyoueither
I think, given the track record, the onus is on the US to demonstrate restraint and humane treatment of these prisoners, not the other way around.

Or do we think the Red Cross is another department of Old Europe now?

I believe the US has a proven track record of punishing any and all people involved in tourture or illegal acts. Further, I believe that UN conventions are great for peace time but during war time we must be bound by the laws of war which are explicitly defined in the Geneva and Hague Conventions.

Under both of these conventions the methods used at Gitmo are legal and authorised.

[Imran Siddiqui]

However to prove it irrelevent you'd have to tell me how throwing a disruptive prisoner into solitary wouldn't be considered torture according to the defintion you posted.

I love this focusing on the singular incident. Why don't you take it in conjunction with temp extremes, use of forced positions, humiliating behavior, etc, which any international lawyer would agree creates severe mental suffering. Also it ain't solitary for 'disruptive' prisioners, but for those that won't talk (as the OP said the behavior was for breaking the will of the prisioners so they'd talk).

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Oerdin


I believe the US has a proven track record of punishing any and all people involved in tourture or illegal acts. Further, I believe that UN conventions are great for peace time but during war time we must be bound by the laws of war which are explicitly defined in the Geneva and Hague Conventions.

Under both of these conventions the methods used at Gitmo are legal and authorised.

And you know this because you know for a fact that no prisoners have been beaten or walked like dogs?

What about the reports from the Brits released from Gitmo before AbuG hit the news?

What are the chances they were making it up knowing what we know now?

[Imran Siddiqui]

I think, given the track record, the onus is on the US to demonstrate restraint and humane treatment of these prisoners, not the other way around.

Especially since the US has continually attempted to keep the Red Cross and Amnesty Int'l out of Gitmo for the longest time.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I believe that UN conventions are great for peace time but during war time we must be bound by the laws of war which are explicitly defined in the Geneva and Hague Conventions.

REALLY? And what legal argument do you have for this? Do the Convention on Torture specifically authorize it being suspended for warfare? I don't see any derogation provision in it.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I love this focusing on the singular incident.

I'm not really talking about Gitmo. So I don't really understand your insistance with focusing on it. That would be a completely different conversation than the one we are having now if I were. We're discussing the definition you posted and how overbroad it is.

[Imran Siddiqui]

We're discussing the definition you posted and how overbroad it is.

And the post still stands. When you take everything in conjunction it rises to severe. If you are just putting in disruptive prisoners in solitary it doesn't. If you are putting people in solitary for order or safety purposes it is part (inherant, incidental, or arising from) of a lawful sanction (Second sentance of Part 1, Article 1). If you do it to break their will to get them to confess, it isn't.

Secondly, severe mental pain has to be shown. If the person is in solitary for months, then it definetly is torturous.

And even if it were overbroad, it doesn't matter. People signed and ratified it. The language was agreed to. Thus that which violates it is torture.