The torture thread!

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Oerdin
China, North Korea, Cuba, Loas, Vietnam?

Those are all Third World nations.

[chequita guevara]

Oh quite whinning, Oerdin. Imran mentioned the UN Convention on Tortore, to which the U.S. is a signatory. We ratified it, it is U.S. Law.

[MikeH]

So... basically your argument is that they aren't being tortured but if the US wanted to torture them it'd be perfectly legal? If that's true - and I won't bother disputing your definition of them as unlawful combatants in this thread - it's still pretty disgusting. Months on end in solitary? Beatings? With no trials, no representation? Keeping the Red Cross and other international aid groups out?

It's an absolute disgrace that it be allowed to continue and I'm disgusted at the UK governments seeming complicity in the interrogations.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Correct me if I'm wrong but the UN Commision on Human Rights falls under the definition of other "treaties, proclamations, agreements, or national laws" so the Geneva Convention should take precedence during times of war or armed conflict.

Incorrect. The UN Convention Against Torture also applies during wartime. It was ratified later and includes no provision for giving way totally to the GC. It acts concurrently with the GC.

UN Convention Against Torture, Part 1, Article 2:

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.

[MikeH]

Great convention. I was unaware of that. Thanks Imran.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Mike, yeah, most people think only the Geneva Conventions apply. They don't have any idea about the other Conventions which have been signed that deal with other things, such as Torture, Rights of Women, Rights of the Child (IIRC, US hasn't signed this one), etc, etc.

[Ramo]

There's also the Federal Anti-Torture Statute, as I posted in the other thread:

TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I - CRIMES
CHAPTER 113C - TORTURE



HEADING

Sec. 2340A. Torture



STATUTE

(a) Offense. - 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.
(b) Jurisdiction. - There is jurisdiction over the activity prohibited in subsection (a) if -

(1) the alleged offender is a national of the United States; or
(2) the alleged offender is present in the United States,
irrespective of the nationality of the victim or alleged
offender.

http://www.capdefnet.org/fdprc/contents/fed_cap_off/18_usc_2340A.htm

So, that's two laws.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Part 3 defines who is a prisoner of war and who is an unlawful combatant. It also expressly excludes all unlawful combatants from any and all protections afforded by the Geneva and Hague Conventions.

Not a troll:

Does that mean that if the US invasion were declared illegal its troops would not be protected by the Geneva Convention laws? And if not, why? How can there be legal combantants in an illegal war?

[MikeH]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Mike, yeah, most people think only the Geneva Conventions apply. They don't have any idea about the other Conventions which have been signed that deal with other things, such as Torture, Rights of Women, Rights of the Child (IIRC, US hasn't signed this one), etc, etc.

No, it'd stop you executing under 18s.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yep, that's exactly the reason why haven't even put pen to paper (as opposed to signing it and not ratifying it).

[Dinner]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Those are all Third World nations.

First world is defined as the industrialized democracies, the second world is the communist states, and the third world is everyone else.

[MikeH]

I know. Interestingly I was just reading at lunchtime something about new research into teen development and the ability of people (even up to 21...) to judge the consequences of their actions. And the reactions of a US judge who said after hearing it he was unsure of a couple of sentences he'd given after hearing it - although those were life with no parole not death.

[Ramo]

Yes, another torture article.

How the army treats whistle-blowers:

On June 15, 2002, Sgt. Frank "Greg" Ford, a counterintelligence agent in the California National Guard's 223rd Military Intelligence (M.I.) Battalion stationed in Samarra, Iraq, told his commanding officer, Capt. Victor Artiga, that he had witnessed five incidents of torture and abuse of Iraqi detainees at his base, and requested a formal investigation. Thirty-six hours later, Ford, a 49-year-old with over 30 years of military service in the Coast Guard, Army and Navy, was ordered by U.S. Army medical personnel to lie down on a gurney, was then strapped down, loaded onto a military plane and medevac'd to a military medical center outside the country.

[...]

Col. C. Tsai, a military doctor who examined Ford in Germany and found nothing wrong with him, told a film crew for Spiegel Television that he was "not surprised" at Ford's diagnosis. Tsai told Spiegel that he had treated "three or four" other U.S. soldiers from Iraq that were also sent to Landstuhl for psychological evaluations or "combat stress counseling" after they reported incidents of detainee abuse or other wrongdoing by American soldiers.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/12/08/coverup/

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Incorrect. The UN Convention Against Torture also applies during wartime. It was ratified later and includes no provision for giving way totally to the GC. It acts concurrently with the GC.

The Genevea Convention is very clear. It is the "supreme law of war" and when ever other "treaties, proclamations, agreements, or national laws" conflict with it the Geneva Convention wins during wars or armed conflicts. Everyone agreed to this and it is the recognized international law.

The UN Human convention was never "duly ratified" as was called for in the treaty so it is simply one of the other "treaties, proclamations, agreements, or national laws" which the Geneva Convention expressly says it is superior to when conflicts arise. That's simply international law not my wishful thinking.

[MikeH]

Well if that is true, and I think it isn't. Then that's a bad thing. The UN convention is very clear and clearly a much better rule.