Torture of detainees by the US?

[Demerzel]

yeah it is interesting that America is so freely flouting the Geneva Convention yet would squeal to high heaven if any other country did it to its armed forces.

That'd be why America refused to join the ICC, so that their troops could do what they want and not be punished. Most other countries have signed up even though they might be targetted, guess we have nothing to hide.

[Demerzel]

Originally posted by Joseph
Jon these boys would kill you in a second if they had a chance and be happy that they did and you want to treat them as a good O'boys.

Oh forgot to respond to this.

So what if they would want to kill us? which hasn't proved by the way. To go to their "level" and torture them and others makes your country as bad as them. America always claims to be the good guys, yet somehow you think that means you can torture & kill and still retain the halo?

Oh I congratulate you for living without air for so long, HOWEVER try living in those conditions whilst wearing a hot body suit, which makes the heat far worst, and then I'll listen.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Jaakko
That's exceptionally low for you, DD.

**** you.

I'm sorry but I don't really see how being made to feel uncomfortable qualifies as torture under any meaningful definition of the word. I stand by the sentiments of my original post and say that you and red_jon either don't know the meaning of the term and or are trolling for cheap political points. You aren't even focusing on the questionable parts of the article except for passing acknowlegements in your quest to be overly hysterical.

[Ned]

DinoDoc, Read the highlighted portions of my post. The Geneva convention prohibits more than just torture. If prohibits any form of coercion, including "unpleasant" treatment.

So while you might be right on the issue of torture, we may still be violating the Geneva Convention.

[Edan]

The detainees aren't prisoners of war. I remember there were a number of reasons why, including not wearing uniforms, that they were not entitled to PoW status.

[Demerzel]

the question whether they are prisoners of war is tricky enough. whether the USA feels it has the right to torture anyone regardless whether they are POWs is worrying in itself.

[Edan]

Originally posted by Demerzel
the question whether they are prisoners of war is tricky enough.

No it isn't. By not wearing uniforms, they are not entitled to PoW status. It's as simple as that.

[Jaakko]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I'm sorry but I don't really see how being made to feel uncomfortable qualifies as torture under any meaningful definition of the word. I stand by the sentiments of my original post and say that you and red_jon either don't know the meaning of the term and or are trolling for cheap political points. You aren't even focusing on the questionable parts of the article except for passing acknowlegements in your quest to be overly hysterical.

I do believe the activities described go well beyond "made feel uncomfortable", and it's used in an attempt to break the will of the victim. Fits the definition of torture quite well.
If it's just "discomfort", then why are they doing it?

As for not focusing on the right things, why don't you stop beating around the bush and tell us which parts you mean?

[Zero-Tau]

Originally posted by Edan


No it isn't. By not wearing uniforms, they are not entitled to PoW status. It's as simple as that.

Well, it's not that simple, actually.

From the Geneva Convention on Prisoners of War:

Article 4

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

(All emphasis mine.)

All Taliban members fall within definition 1, as far as I can tell. Al-Qaeda, not being part of or commanded by the Taliban, does not. They might have fallen within definition 2, but they do not fulfill criteria 2.b and 2.c.

On the other hand, I would expect that Al-Qaeda members who haven't taken part in hostilities fall within the definition of civilians in the Geneva Convention. I doubt that any of those have been detained, though.

[Edan]

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

All Taliban members fall within definition 1, as far as I can tell.

Actually, I don't think the Taliban "get an out" for not meeting the standards of provison 2, as IIRC, the provisions of an armed forces includes uniforms, having a chain of command, etc. However, IIRC (though I could be wrong), the US government has said that it will be applying the Geneva convention with regards to those Taliban detainees, anyway (but not for Al Qaeda detainees) - although I don't think they actually gave them PoW status.

[Ned]

For those who contend that the Convention applies to the Al Qaeda, I would like see how you fit the Al Qaeda into the various criteria for soldiers under category 2.

[Gibsie]

I think the usual response is, "The US doesn't torture prisoners of war, even though they deserve it and they're not POW's anyway. You damn liberal namby-pansies make me sick".

[Sava]

I'm with Ned on this one... the US should be following the Geneva convention, it's not. Regardless of whether or not this could be defined as torture, it's wrong.

Boddington: You've proved through your statements that you're no better than the terrorists.

DD: Let's put you in that camp for an indefinite period and see whether or not you think it's torture.

It's just proof that the people at the helm of this war on terror are no better than the terrorists themselves. Regardless of whether or not Bush and co. are bound by the Geneva convention to treat them as POW's, they should still do it. It goes back to the age old question, if murder were legal, would you do it?

[Wernazuma III]

About the whether PoW or not issue:

If Al Quaeda fighters are not considered regular soldiers falling under the Geneva convention, and that's something you can make good arguments for, what are they?
If they're criminals, what entitles the US to keep them on a military base, judge them according to US military law, deprave them of lawyer and other legal rights that "normal" criminals have. I mean, Timothy McVeigh had a lawyer too - and that's the way it should be in a state claiming legal security.

If they are neither criminals nor PoWs, what are they and what justifies the US to do with them as they please?

[Edan]

Originally posted by Wernazuma III
About the whether PoW or not issue:

If Al Quaeda fighters are not considered regular soldiers falling under the Geneva convention, and that's something you can make good arguments for, what are they?

They are unlawful combatants. Meaning the only rights they have are human rights. They are not entitled to any other sets of rights that the US gives to everyone else or specialized rights that the US gives to US citizens.