Dammit if you all know about it, how can it be a secret?
I am sorry to say that if a few mistreated terrorists can save lives, I won't look to hard for these prisons. If you think that turning these prisoners over to the Iraqi's or the Afghanistan police will make their lives any better, get real.
There are some life styles and choices that have no good ending.
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Secret Prison - so says the liberal media
Secret Prison - so says the liberal mediaFollow
Gbaji wrote:
What we're really seeing is that some people don't agree with the current legal standards, and they're trying to change them by using rhetoric "We're *torturing* people", even though we're actually *not* torturing anyone by the legal definition.
As used in this chapter -
(1) "torture" means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;
(2) "severe mental pain or suffering" means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from -
(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;
(B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;
(C) the threat of imminent death; or
(D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality; and
(3) "United States" includes all areas under the jurisdiction of the United States including any of the places described in sections 5 and 7 of this title and section 46501(2) of title 49.
(U.S. Code, Title 18, Sect. 2340)
Potentially NWS photos of torture
What happened in Abu Gharib falls under the US legal definition of torture. Beating the fu[/i]ck out of people (in at least one instace, to death) is legally torture.. Threatening people with electrocution of their genitals is legally torture. Threatening people with unmuzzled attack dogs is legally torture. Allowing said dogs to "severely injure" (per the U.S. Report on Abuse) prisoners is legally torture. Which of those don't fall under "an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control"? Are you saying attacking bound prisoners with dogs is "incidental to lawful sanctions"? It's just one of those things that happens on accident in prisons?
I'm sorry anyone feels they need to keep pretending that it doesn't count just to avoid potential reforms in how we treat prisoners. Does every single thing reported in Abu Gharib and other places legally count as torture? Of course not. Many of which are still abhorrant and shameful but if it'll make some of you feel better, I'll admit they're not all legally torture. Was there acts committed that, under US Code, count as torture? Yes. Most definately. There's your definition. How hard is it to apply it universally for anyone in US custody regardless of whether it's the armed forces, CIA, FBI or country sherriff's office?
[i]Edited, Sat Nov 5 15:48:53 2005 by Jophiel
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
am sorry to say that if a few mistreated terrorists can save lives, I won't look to hard for these prisons. If you think that turning these prisoners over to the Iraqi's or the Afghanistan police will make their lives any better, get real.
-----------------------------------------------
thats because you think in checkers instead of chess.
it is about integrity and honor and justice. mabe the 20th person you torture gives up a bomber, mabe not and you keep going.
but the more you abuse the people you are in charge of, the more distrust you generate amoung the masses, the more hatred and opposition you breed, the more.......bombers......YOU create.
eventually, you may get oh, say 80 percent of the insurgents, comming from those very masses.
this is where we stand now because of the simple minded notion it is ok to torture someone if it saves someone else.
checkers mind set.
we are fighting mostly iraqi born insurgents because we have no honor, no integrity, and they see no justice comming from us. welcome to the world "W" created.
-----------------------------------------------
thats because you think in checkers instead of chess.
it is about integrity and honor and justice. mabe the 20th person you torture gives up a bomber, mabe not and you keep going.
but the more you abuse the people you are in charge of, the more distrust you generate amoung the masses, the more hatred and opposition you breed, the more.......bombers......YOU create.
eventually, you may get oh, say 80 percent of the insurgents, comming from those very masses.
this is where we stand now because of the simple minded notion it is ok to torture someone if it saves someone else.
checkers mind set.
we are fighting mostly iraqi born insurgents because we have no honor, no integrity, and they see no justice comming from us. welcome to the world "W" created.
Gbaji wrote:
What is "cruel treatment"? That's subject to vast interpretation. The UN rule on torture requires treatment that permanently damages the physical or mental health of the prisoner.
United Nations wrote:
PART I
Article 1
1. For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any
act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is
intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or
a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a
third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or
intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on
discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at
the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or
other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or
suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
Article 1
1. For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any
act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is
intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or
a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a
third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or
intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on
discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at
the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or
other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or
suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
Yeah. Um... "severe pain and suffering" usually requires some sort of permanent marks. Just saying. Even of the mental variety.
Yeah Joph. And I've said that the stuff that happened at Abu Ghraib were violations. They weren't actually "torture" though since they weren't officially condoned actions (yeah. we can get into a debate about that, but that was the finding).
They definately quality as prisoner abuse. Here's the deal though. Aside from the events at that prison, how many other instances since then have you heard of? So we're still measuring our military prisons by a single standard set by a group of enlisted soldiers during the first chaotic months after occupying Iraq?
Doesn't it mean something when you have to reach back a couple years to find an example? If you can't find any from today, or even this year, doesn't that mean that the problems that allowed the abuses at Abu Ghraib to occur have been fixed? Why continue with the assumptions to the contrary then?
What exactly is pushing this change in law *today*? That's the point.
Yeah Joph. And I've said that the stuff that happened at Abu Ghraib were violations. They weren't actually "torture" though since they weren't officially condoned actions (yeah. we can get into a debate about that, but that was the finding).
They definately quality as prisoner abuse. Here's the deal though. Aside from the events at that prison, how many other instances since then have you heard of? So we're still measuring our military prisons by a single standard set by a group of enlisted soldiers during the first chaotic months after occupying Iraq?
Doesn't it mean something when you have to reach back a couple years to find an example? If you can't find any from today, or even this year, doesn't that mean that the problems that allowed the abuses at Abu Ghraib to occur have been fixed? Why continue with the assumptions to the contrary then?
What exactly is pushing this change in law *today*? That's the point.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
Yeah. Um... "severe pain and suffering" usually requires some sort of permanent marks. Just saying. Even of the mental variety.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Yeah. Um... "severe pain and suffering" usually requires some sort of permanent marks. Just saying. Even of the mental variety.
Sure. Funny...
But how do you think they measure this? If his arm breaks, it was "severe". If it's just bruised, then it's not.
You do realize that when people are *actually* tortured, they end up with broken fingers, smashed bones in their hands and feet, scar tissue over their bodies, loss of several bodily functions that most people don't want to lose, etc...
Putting someone in an uncomfortable position while questioning him is *not* torture by any definition.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Quote:
Sure. Funny...
So beating beaten to death or severely mauled by attack dogs doesn't leave a mark? I'll be damned.
And tell me, Doctor, must one become catatonic or something for it to be mental? A "threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death" doesn't count unless the person in question is reduced to a permanently gibbering heap?
I see. Well, I guess you're probably an expert and all.
I don't remember saying "uncomfortable positions" but I guess it's easier to debate against things I never said than the things I actually listed as legally being torture.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Jophiel wrote:
I don't remember saying "uncomfortable positions" but I guess it's easier to debate against things I never said than the things I actually listed as legally being torture.
*cough* You're playing semantic games now Joph. You listed a set of things that occured at Abu Ghraib prison. Those things were not torture, not because they did not met the "severe pain and suffering" component, but because they were not carried out under official orders. They are therefore "abuse", not torture.
I aready said this, but you chose to ignore me and mix that up with the other issue about claims of torture that have occured since Abu Ghraib. But in those instances, we're looking at interrogation techniques where pain is inflicted (via putting the interogatee in an uncomfortable position), but nothing that comes close to the definition of torture.
So. I'll ask again. Why the sudden rush to "ban torture" at our prisons when the only confirmed incidents that come close to being torture is the Abu Ghraib stuff from 2 years ago. What's "new" that's sparking this Joph? It sounds more to me like someone's trying desperately to keep the "message" of torture at these facilities alive. Hmmm...
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
That's right... more (spooky voice) Liberal Conspiracies!! (/spooky voice)
I'm not sure what "sudden rush" you're talking about. Lawmakers have been trying to legislate curbs on abuse since the first scandals broke. The difference now is that they have massive GOP support for it. Why not ask your party why they suddenly had a change of heart? Or is that part of the (spooky voice) Liberal Conspiracy (/spooky voice)?
Fits you like a glove
I'm not sure what "sudden rush" you're talking about. Lawmakers have been trying to legislate curbs on abuse since the first scandals broke. The difference now is that they have massive GOP support for it. Why not ask your party why they suddenly had a change of heart? Or is that part of the (spooky voice) Liberal Conspiracy (/spooky voice)?
Fits you like a glove
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
gbaji wrote:
Jesus Christ guys, its not Torture its Abuse!! Can't you see that makes it less wrong, can't you see that we arent doing anything wrong.
So some soldiers made a dog pile out of some naked Iraqi prisoners and took pictures, so that teenager was drowned in the river by US soldiers, so the United States is under the international microscope for its treatment of GITMO detainees, so the Vice President is lobbying hard on behalf of the administration to allow for an exemption for torture laws for the CIA, so the President has promised to veto any bill (despite support in the house and senate by both republicans and democrats) that clarifies and puts down strict codes of conduct for the treatment of prisoners, so the administration has been busted for secretly using old soviet prisons to hide prisoners, so top aides for Colin Powell have come out to say that a cabal within the bush administration has been tacitly encouraging this type of behaviour.
Its all poppy ****, unless we see clear signs of torture it is absolutely clear that nothing is happening and that any public scrutiny into this issue is nothing more than liberal partisans trying to discredit our great nation.
So some soldiers made a dog pile out of some naked Iraqi prisoners and took pictures, so that teenager was drowned in the river by US soldiers, so the United States is under the international microscope for its treatment of GITMO detainees, so the Vice President is lobbying hard on behalf of the administration to allow for an exemption for torture laws for the CIA, so the President has promised to veto any bill (despite support in the house and senate by both republicans and democrats) that clarifies and puts down strict codes of conduct for the treatment of prisoners, so the administration has been busted for secretly using old soviet prisons to hide prisoners, so top aides for Colin Powell have come out to say that a cabal within the bush administration has been tacitly encouraging this type of behaviour.
Its all poppy ****, unless we see clear signs of torture it is absolutely clear that nothing is happening and that any public scrutiny into this issue is nothing more than liberal partisans trying to discredit our great nation.
Edited, Mon Nov 7 21:22:55 2005 by bodhisattva
Bode - 100 Holy Paladin - Lightbringer
Jophiel wrote:
I'm not sure what "sudden rush" you're talking about. Lawmakers have been trying to legislate curbs on abuse since the first scandals broke. The difference now is that they have massive GOP support for it. Why not ask your party why they suddenly had a change of heart? Or is that part of the (spooky voice) Liberal Conspiracy (/spooky voice)?
Because of rhetoric? It's a hijack of the issue, and they're stuck in a position in which they are voting for or against torture. At least that's how it get's simplified down to in the media.
Here's the text of the amendment.
Note the wording.
No individual in the custody or under the physical control of the United States Government, regardless of nationality or physical location, shall be subject to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.
and
In this section, the term ''cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment'' means the cruel, unusual, and inhumane treatment or punishment prohibited by the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, as defined in the United States Reservations, Declarations and Understandings to the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Forms of Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment done at New York, December 10, 1984.
This does not *only* prevent torture. It requires that all prisoners, regardless of status, be treated with the same rights as US citizens in civilian custody within the US. That's the problem though. Whether you like it or not, the same rules regarding interrogation and treatment of prisoners does not apply in all cases. Changing the status level of every single prisoner is a far broader effect then just "banning torture". But that's exactly how it's referred to.
Do you want me to post link after link of news articles that simply say it's a "ban against torture"? Or should I restrict the list only to those who accuse Bush (Cheney really) of being "for" torture because he's opposed to this amendment?
You do know the logical fallacy involved here right? But that does not stop every single media report on this subject to refer to it as a ban on torture, leading the next obvious conclusion to be anyone opposed to it must be for torture, right?
But you know that's not right because you are a student of logic and would never fall for such a poor argument...
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Anyone notice how Gbaji refuses to respond to me now?
If you are interested in how I managed to work that out just send me a PM.
If you are interested in how I managed to work that out just send me a PM.
Bode - 100 Holy Paladin - Lightbringer
gbaji wrote:
Because of rhetoric? It's a hijack of the issue, and they're stuck in a position in which they are voting for or against torture. At least that's how it get's simplified down to in the media.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Quote:
thats because you think in checkers instead of chess.
it is about integrity and honor and justice. mabe the 20th person you torture gives up a bomber, mabe not and you keep going.
but the more you abuse the people you are in charge of, the more distrust you generate amoung the masses, the more hatred and opposition you breed, the more.......bombers......YOU create.
eventually, you may get oh, say 80 percent of the insurgents, comming from those very masses.
this is where we stand now because of the simple minded notion it is ok to torture someone if it saves someone else.
checkers mind set.
we are fighting mostly iraqi born insurgents because we have no honor, no integrity, and they see no justice comming from us. welcome to the world "W" created.
it is about integrity and honor and justice. mabe the 20th person you torture gives up a bomber, mabe not and you keep going.
but the more you abuse the people you are in charge of, the more distrust you generate amoung the masses, the more hatred and opposition you breed, the more.......bombers......YOU create.
eventually, you may get oh, say 80 percent of the insurgents, comming from those very masses.
this is where we stand now because of the simple minded notion it is ok to torture someone if it saves someone else.
checkers mind set.
we are fighting mostly iraqi born insurgents because we have no honor, no integrity, and they see no justice comming from us. welcome to the world "W" created.
Checkers or Chess, I think we are loosing because despite mistreatmnet of some prisoners we are not able to fight at the same level that the insurgents are. Our concern for colateral casualties give us a disadvantage that I am not sure we can overcome. Lest you think I am advocating for civilian casualties, I think we have to stay our course. We cannot drop to the level that the terrorists will sink. So yes, I think the torture of some prisonor's may be the price we pay to try and equalize the information playing field. But make no mistake, I think we are paying a heavy price for these actions now and in the future when americans are captured. Once the line is crossed, you can never go back. All future american prisoners will face the increased threat of torture.
All this talk of exit strategy is a joke, there is no strategy to exiting a war that will never be won, or finished.
Recent Visitors: 185
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (185)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Secret Prison - so says the liberal media
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC