Guantanamo and the UK's government alleged complicity in the War on Terror

Remove all ads!

Link.

Opinions?

 

Yes, Never try to leave Pakistan with a false passport. You could end up in a world of ****.

 

Opinions?

You don't win wars by playing patty-cake with murderers.

 

opinion?

how about:

So?

 

Thanks guys, that's insightful.

 

What were you expecting? Some sort of moral outrage? Sorry, but I reserve my moral outrage for the victims of terrorism.

 

Yuck.

crucis,
the rule of law (mandating that suspects are not to be tortured because it is a crime to do that) is what makes the country that you have the comparable privilege to live in (as opposed to Haiti, Somalia, Iraq or other FUBAR states) reasonably safe and pleasant to live in. If you think that in order to be safe the US needs to torture terrorists you can't believe in your own country's legal system and constitution to keep you safe.

Terrorists can effectively be dealt with by law enforcement within existing laws. Terrorists are criminals. They commit criminal actions like murder, kidnapping, and arson, and countries have laws to punish criminals. So a major element of a counter terrorism strategy has to be to delegitimize terrorists, to get society to see them for what they are -- criminals -- and to use democracy’s most potent tool, the rule of law against them.

For your information, that by the way is not a radical liberal stance, but the stance of the administration of the conservative saint Ronald Reagan.

And because you likely do not know that either: It was Ronald Reagan who signed the Convention Against Torture (CAT) in 1988, and it was subsequently ratified to become law of the land in the US. That was after countless, horrific terrorist attacks, like the one directed at the Marine barracks in Beirut. The CAT signed by Reagan not only declared that there are "no exceptional circumstances whatsoever" justifying torture, but also required all signatory countries to "ensure that all acts of torture are offences under its criminal law": As Reagan put it the US were called on to either to prosecute torturers who are found in its territory or to extradite them to other countries for prosecution.

I personally find it implausible to argue that there are any loopholes offered by "no exceptional circumstances whatsoever justify torture" to support your (resoundingly false) view. But let us rather forget all that before we, heaven forbid, end up thinking.

So you're so afraid that in order to be 'safe' you are willing to sacrifice the rule of law? Well, suit yourself. Just don't come whining that America (under Obama or his predecessor Bush) is becoming a state with quasi fascist reach and government powers. Are you scared sh*tless? With your stance you are enabling politicians to get away with the expansion of government powers (horrors Big Government! ), like arresting without warrant and holding without trial suspects, or torturing them. The impression is unavoidable that your glorious constitution you don't understand. And you're not true to your own principles either it appears:

So the government can't be trusted to make correct decisions of deliberations? What about innocent until proven guilty? Details, schmetails? Whoever the government calls a terrorist obviously must be a terrorist? No problem, of course - the government is infallible when accusing a person of being a terrorist.

 

I do not need to read anything else you wrote here, because this is where you are, IMHO, completely wrong.

This is a WAR and wars should be fought by warriors, not lawyers!!!

 

It's been called a war, sure enough, but that doesn't make it such. It is certainly not a typical war; terrorists have no standing armies, do not necessarily need to be claim control of states, can move relatively freely through borders and tend to be more like secret societies than open threats. Terrorists, even international ones, operate much more like organized crime or foreign intelligence networks than armies. You use the military to do what is its job to do, not as a swiss army knife for everything in foreign and domestic policy. It is a tool designed to fight other militaries; if you start using it for things it was not intended to do you it will not be very efficient.

The whole "war on terrorism" phrase is just a bombastic soundbite, just like there was a war on poverty, war on drugs, and I don't know how many other "wars" declared by politicians to get a few more votes come next elections. People expect a "war" to be bigger than just "operations" "actions" or "measures", so it creates the impression that there's going to be more done. Yet terrorism existed long before 9/11; planes were hijacked, hostages taken, buildings bombed throughout the 20th century. They were handled by the police and, if important enough, by the intelligence services. The army was called to assist when the situation was dire enough (as in Northern Ireland), but even then, its job was to assist, not to do everything on its own.

By the way, I do not know this case so well, but let's not forget this: this guy has been suspected to have been a terrorist supporter, but he couldn't even be charged with anything, much less convicted. Yeah, I've been "suspected" to be a lot of things, last week iirc I was collectively called a retard on the Internet, which is about as much as we know about this guy. If you want to not play nice with murderers, it might help to prove them to be murderers first.

 

You write that as if that ... utterance trumps anything I said before. You haven't thought that through.

Your argument apparently rests on the exceedingly silly assumption that in war torture would be ok. I have news for you: It isn't. Torture in war is a war crime, just like torture in time of peace at the hands of law enforcement is an ordinary crime. If you're held captive in war you are either a civilian or a prisoner of war. In war torture of civilians is prohibited under Geneva IV Art. 3 (1) (a) and torture of prisoners of war is prohibited under Geneva III Art. 3 (1) (a). Simplified, if someone in a conflict is none of the former and partakes in violent acts, then the person is simply a criminal, and subject to criminal procedures - under which that person still must not be tortured.

I will spell it out to you clearly: War or not doesn't change sh*t about torture being not permitted 'under no exceptional circumstances whatsoever'

The US Code in § 2441. War crimes states under (c) (1) that violations of the Geneva Conventions are war crimes and it states in (a) that they are severe criminal offences

Further evidence calling into question your peculiar ideas about war justifying torture can be found in (b) that explicitly applies to torture being committed by US servicemen. Torture by US servicemen is prohibited under threat of death penalty or any life sentence.

Let's move on to your other assertion that terrorism is an act of war: Again, the law disagrees with you. § 2331 spells out that international terrorism is indeed about crimes

... and to give you an idea about what the law thinks of torture:

Curiouser and curiouser - death sentence, life terms - someone in the US must have considered war crimes and torture serious crimes.

Frankly, or franker, this is not a matter of your 'humble opinion' but one of of law and facts. The legal situation is clear beyond any reasonable doubt. Your 'humble opinion' runs counter to US laws and the US constitution (i.e. what you propose is criminal and illegal; a soldier relying on your sage 'humble opinion' would flirt with the noose). Your 'humble opinion' is extremist, to put it very charitably. The law is explicitly clear about the universal prohibition of torture, and as I posted before: What part of 'no exceptional circumstances whatsoever can justify torture' is it that is intellectually beyond your grasp?

Stop hiding behind your 'humble opinion'. Let's hear some attempts at arguments for a change.

 

Ragusa, excellent post. I'd rep you if I could.

 

Terrorism has always been a crime in America -- it has only recently become an act of war (even in doing so the Bush administration never took it off the criminal books). I think that decision was a mistake. Currently our forces in Afganistan are mainly fighting Taliban insurgents while attempting to locate and destroy al Qaida training bases and headquarters. Terrorists operating in other regions are still the jurisdiction of the appropriate law enforcement authorities.

Torture should never be acceptable. I've never heard of a case where torture succeeded in obtaining time critical information (I certainly don't count '24' in my list of references for that). We have allowed our unreasonable fears to control our foreign policy and have allowed the CIA a free hand in areas they should not be allowed to trespass. This is one of many cases where we allowed fear to override common sense -- I think there are hundreds of such cases in GITMO.

 

There is a fine line between interrogation and torture, many people claim to have been tortured when in fact the methods used are clarified as interrogation techniques, it all depends who's doing the interrogating and who's being interrogated.

as for MI5 knowing about his torture? so what, MI5 knows about alot of things going on in the world, that doesnt mean they have to do anything about any of it, dealing with this Ethiopians situation would have been pointless and a waste of resources - he got himself into this situation he suffers the consequences.

 

The interrogation/torture thing is interesting. What exactly is the dividing line? Are there set standards? Is denying someone sleep torture? What about playing offensive music loudly? Threatening to harm or kill them or their family, without actually doing it?

 

Geez, didn't we go there before? The standards have been set by the war crimes tribunals of the last and the current century, precedents if you so will. A listing in no particular order:

Stress positions like forced suspension, standing or cowering over extended periods do inflict severe pain. The same for exposure to cold and heat. It is part of the so called 'no touch torture' approach. It is analogous the the abusive husband beating his wife so she won't show bruises. It has by courts been found to not exactly constitute torture but either 'cruel treatment' under Art. 3 (1) (b) or 'outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment' under Art. 3 (1) (c) - which is for all practical purposes a distinction without a difference as it is also prohibited. These provisions have been included to prevent a circumvention of the ban on torture by other equivalent means.

Forced nudity easily meets the criteria for 'outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment' under Art. 3 (1) (c).

Playing white noise or music, offensive or not, loudly can be 'cruel treatment' if part of a sleep deprivation strategy, or can be so loud that it inflicts physical pain, in which case it could constitute torture.

Arguably, denial of medication, food or water also constitutes 'cruel treatment'.

Mock executions, or threatening family members is a borderline case; arguably fear that family members are to be raped, mutilated or murdered inflicts in sane persons 'severe mental pain and suffering' as the legal term of the US Code is phrased, and constitutes 'cruel treatment'. I'll leave it open to the reader whether the thought would torment them.

Water boarding is a clear cut case; it does constitute torture. In the Tokyo Trials the US ordered a Japanese soldier hung for water boarding one of the Doolittle Raiders. During the Reagan years a Texan Sheriff was sentenced to jail for torture because he had water boarded a prisoner.

It is and has always been a legal minefield the Bush morons have recklessly sent US servicemen and intelligence personnel into. It is unsurprising that the first CIA inspector general report that was instrumental in ending the practice at the CIA, had been triggered by complaints of CIA agents who clearly saw the criminality of the things they were ordered to do. If one looks at the penalties that can be imposed for torture or war crimes under US Code their concern is understandable. This is probably why the enhanced interrogation program was shelved in 2005 (under Bush, who, according to the torture apologist lore, then left America wide open to terrorist attack ).

The ongoing (and over the weekend intensifying as ol' man Cheney himself will again join the fray) attacks by the Cheneyites against Obama for being allegedly soft on terror for not torturing have nothing to do with the national security of the US, and everything to do with protecting Cheney and the other decision makers who ordered these crimes from prosecution, and for that they have hijacked the GOP. It is a disgusting and cynical spectacle. To paraphrase the German expressionist painter Max Liebermann: I can't eat as much as I want to puke.

 

Ok, I just asked because I wasn't sure. Thanks. I had completely forgotten about the 'severe mental pain and suffering' bit.