09-06-2004 03:12									#91
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

The opinion I mentioned can be found here. The text of the lease agreement can be found here.

	09-06-2004 03:27									#92
	Inflate your Upload Space

So, if Cuba is sovereign in Gitmo, why doesn't the aforementioned Torture Statute prohibit torture?

	09-06-2004 03:33									#93
	Remove this text

Whether things like sleep deprivation qualifies as "torture" is morally irrelevant, isn't it? In either case, it's hurting someone to make them cooperate.

	09-06-2004 05:06									#94
	Get a bigger avatar today!

There was no lease agreement. It was forced upon Cuba.

	09-06-2004 05:40									#95
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Whatever.

	09-06-2004 08:08									#96
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Ramo So, if Cuba is sovereign in Gitmo, why doesn't the aforementioned Torture Statute prohibit torture?

Because it isn't within the "special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, and accordingly is not within the United States"[/smart arse answer]

	09-06-2004 08:24									#97
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

The point is that the Torture Statute applies outside of the US.

	09-06-2004 08:26									#98
	Support Apolyton

This is the first I've heard of the statute anyway.

	09-06-2004 08:28									#99
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

http://www.capdefnet.org/fdprc/cont...8_usc_2340A.htm

	09-06-2004 08:47									#100
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by SpencerH Anyone wanta actually address the question?

I did.

quote: Originally posted by Urban Ranger In that case, you can just follow the trail of radioactive isotopes.

	09-06-2004 09:34									#101
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Sounds like what DD is saying is that the U.N. Convention Against Torture is nullified wrt the U.S. due to court precedent, tho I don't buy that.

Also I believed that specific laws were signed into US law to meet with the UN Convention since it wasn't "self-executing" or some legalese along those lines.

quote: Gitmo seems to be outside the jurisdiction of US courts. And yes it actually is interesting.

If it's outside the jusisdiction of US courts then why were administration lawyers saying that laws meant for sitatuions in areas outside the jurisdiction of US courts wouldn't apply either? You can't have your cake and eat it too.

quote: So are you all saying that if we capture a terrorist who has planted a dirty nuclear device in an american city (we know he did because he is contaminated by radioactive isotopes) that we should just ask him politely where it is?

Yes but this memo is in responce to frustration in extracting information from Gitmo internees who (AFAIK) didn't have any bombs set up. You're comparing apples and bananas...

quote: Sleep deprevation, loud noise, and most nudity stuff (the parades are, in you cell alone nude isn't) has NEVER been considered torture and has been employed forever by everyone to right now.

Sleep deprivation isn't torture? So Chinese Water Torture isn't torture? I'd rather be zapped a bit than be kept awake for 96 hours straight.

quote: I dont support breaking the laws, I simply recognize that there are circumstances in which I would personally do so and where I would support such actions.

So you don't support breaking the law except for when you want to break the law. How enlightening.

quote: You seem to be confusing the torture of soldiers (as defined by the Geneva Convention; which doesnt cover the captives in Guantanamo and some in Iraq) with torturing a terrorist who had planted a nuclear device in a city (in the hope of getting critical info).

Which Gitmo and Iraqi detainees were planting nuclear devices?

quote: as defined by the Geneva Convention; which doesnt cover the captives in Guantanamo and some in Iraq

Why not?

quote: Because it isn't within the "special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, and accordingly is not within the United States"[/smart arse answer]

You're missing the point. Read the original quote from the article again:

quote: the Torture Statute applied to Afghanistan but not Guantanamo, because the latter lies within the "special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, and accordingly is within the United States"

So you basically said that Gitmo is outside "special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States" and thus you haven't responded to the original point I raised at all. Basically the Administration was having Gitmo count as inside the US to dodge one set of laws and count as outside the US to doge another set of laws. You can't have your banana and eat it too!

	09-06-2004 10:30									#102
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Boshko Also I believed that specific laws were signed into US law to meet with the UN Convention since it wasn't "self-executing" or some legalese along those lines.

Treaties also rank higher than run-of-the-mill laws.

	09-06-2004 12:06									#103
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Patroklos It appears that in all this hype we are making torture a much larger category. Sleep deprevation, loud noise, and most nudity stuff (the parades are, in you cell alone nude isn't) has NEVER been considered torture and has been employed forever by everyone to right now.

On the other hand, interrogation that killed about 17 people has to be considered torture.

	09-06-2004 12:11									#104
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by SpencerH So are you all saying that if we capture a terrorist who has planted a dirty nuclear device in an american city (we know he did because he is contaminated by radioactive isotopes) that we should just ask him politely where it is?

You're postulating an extremely unlikely situation. However, in the unlikely event that (1) we know a catastrophic even is impending and (2) we capture someone we know can inform us about it and (3) the information can help us prevent it, then I would support breaking international law to prevent the catastrophe. I'd be willing to make the call and take the responsibility.

Now, will you admit that your question has practically nothing to do with torturing to death innocent civilian citizens of a country which we have invaded despite the complete lack of evidence that anyone in the country posed any significant threat to us?

	09-06-2004 13:21									#105
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

it is easy SpencerH

someone (hopefully) would break the law, torture the dude, than pay for it (with jail time or the DP or something of that sort)

there are lots of people willing to give their lives to save millions

still doesn't change the fact that torture should stay illegal (and is always wrong), even when it is the best option

Jon Miller

	09-06-2004 14:14									#106
	Increase Your PM Length

Even if you allow that it's reasonable to torture someone in such an extreme circumstance...

The problem is you can't be sure there is even anything to torture them for. If you knew, you wouldn't need to torture them for that information. You'd have proof.. the bomb is there... see?

You don't know if you're torturing the right person. If you knew, you wouldn't need to torture them. You'd have proof, they just planted the bomb over there.. see?

You don't know if you're going to get the necessary information through torture. He just said the bomb is in a stairwell on 53rd street. It'll take a couple minutes to get a bomb squad there. If it's not there... it'll be too late... so do we keep torturing? If you know what he has to say, which justifying the torture requires, you don't need to torture for the information.

You don't even know if there will be anything you can do about it even if you got the right guy and the right method to make him talk. Yah, he tells you were the bomb is, it's going off right now...

All you know is that you are torturing someone. That's a given. Everything else is guessing, and torturing someone on a guess isn't justifiable.

Once it's allowed in one situation, who's to say what exactly fits that situation... the person wanting to torture you? It's time critical, so only the person ready and willing to do the job could make the call. Doesn't seem like a very smart power to give to a sadist. To properly have it checked, you'd need a court order, and that would take more time than the scenario would allow for. If there's more time, you don't need to torture.

So it comes back down to torturing someone or not. Forget the scenarios, it's a moral thing. People who feel they have the right to inflict pain and suffering on others are the problem, and torturing them only makes you part of the problem too.

	09-06-2004 15:58									#107
	Put an end to popups!

here's an interesting comment from a Libertarian blog:

quote: The Fish Rots FROM the Head, but the Whole Fish Rots - What is the real import of yesterday's "torture memo" story, in which, to quote from Phil Carter's Intel Dump, An extremely learned reader of mine wrote to remind me that the U.S. Constitution isn't the only authority which rejects the idea of executive to set aside the law. This idea goes back even further, to the British legal tradition. Ironically, the power now claimed by the Defense Department (and by extension, the White House) was rejected for the King in the late 17th Century. Partly it's that we've gone straight past "Unamerican" to "Un-constitutional monarchy." So much for the notion of "benevolent hegemony" as conducing to national virtue. But the big thing is this: President Bush is absolutely responsible for everything that happens in his administration, and to the extent that the Pentagon memo conditioned policy, he is first in line for blame. HOWEVER. President Bush is no one's idea of a legal mind. He may have initiated the project that became the memo, but he didn't draft the thing. High-level government lawyers, most of them undoubtedly political appointees, did that. What that means is that there is systemic corruption in the Republican Party as an institution - "Bush's Willing Torturers" we might call them. These are people that came up with the idea that the Constitutional phrase "he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" meant authority to set aside the laws is "inherent in the president." They represent a deadly danger to the American system and they are multiple. It's not one guy somewhere, it's a movement. Until the Republican Party roots them out, that Party is the enemy, not just of libertarians, but of anyone who values individual freedom and republican government. From the standpoint of liberty, there can no longer be any justification for preferring the Republicans to the Democrats. UPDATE: To clarify, this isn't just another Unqualified Offerings anti-torture item. The issue now goes beyond torture to the very structure of American government. Torture is the symptom. The concept that the President is not just himself above the law, but a supralegal authority, is the malady.

	09-06-2004 16:13									#108
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Urban Ranger I did.

I thought you were joking.

Discovering that a terrorism suspect is contaminated with isotopes that could be used to make a dirty bomb does not mean you can follow a trail to it.

	09-06-2004 16:31									#109
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by debeest You're postulating an extremely unlikely situation. However, in the unlikely event that (1) we know a catastrophic even is impending and (2) we capture someone we know can inform us about it and (3) the information can help us prevent it, then I would support breaking international law to prevent the catastrophe. I'd be willing to make the call and take the responsibility.

quote: Now, will you admit that your question has practically nothing to do with torturing to death innocent civilian citizens of a country which we have invaded despite the complete lack of evidence that anyone in the country posed any significant threat to us?

Please provide ANY credible evidence that the US military have tortured anyone to death.

Without detention and questioning how do we seperate the innocent civilians from the 'freedom fighters' who plant explosive devices in public areas almost every day?

Obviously it would be wrong to torture to death innocent civilians and those responsible should be tried for genocide and executed if found guilty.

My question is relevant for this reason, their are no rationale definitions for torture. People seem to be pretending that psychological torture has a less profound effect on the victim than physical torture, and that is simply not the case. Even in a relatively short amount of time men have been reduced to nothing more than vegetables that can no longer control their bodily functions years after psychological torture. So either you accept that torture can be warranted or you dont. If you accept that the use of torture might be necessary, then we are only quibbling over details.

	09-06-2004 16:36									#110
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by SpencerH Without detention and questioning how do we seperate the innocent civilians from the 'freedom fighters' who plant explosive devices in public areas almost every day?

I don't know, and from the tone of your post you don't know either, so you cannot justify torture upon any of these people.

	09-06-2004 16:39									#111
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Jon Miller it is easy SpencerH someone (hopefully) would break the law, torture the dude, than pay for it (with jail time or the DP or something of that sort) there are lots of people willing to give their lives to save millions still doesn't change the fact that torture should stay illegal (and is always wrong), even when it is the best option Jon Miller

Exactly,

And that is essentially how it works in the democratic western countries. If you get caught, you are likely to pay the price. Using MP's in Iraq to take part in these interrogations should never have occured. What gets to me is the two-faced bullshit from both political parties pretending that their hands are clean. Merde!

	09-06-2004 16:43									#112
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Gibsie I don't know, and from the tone of your post you don't know either, so you cannot justify torture upon any of these people.

I'm not suggesting we emulate Saddam Hussein. Again, it comes back to a definition of torture. Simply locking someone in jail could be considered torture. Trying to get an answer from GePap certainly is.

	10-06-2004 11:46									#113
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by SpencerH Please provide ANY credible evidence that the US military have tortured anyone to death.

I'm sure you'll find a way to quibble with me semantically, but in the context of acknowledged torture, I consider these articles to provide credible evidence that the US military has tortured to death several Iraqi prisoners. Quibble away.

In addition, this link http://query.nytimes.com/search/que....x=5&submit.y=4 links to another article in the NYT about an American who was playing the role of an uncooperative Iraqi under interrogation, and American soldiers who didn't realize he was American or role-playing beat him until he suffered brain damage and had to be discharged. (I'm not at home so I can't readily access the link to the story itself.) It's not a case of "torturing to death," but I guess it's pretty relevant.

http://afr.com/articles/2004/05/05/1083635164242.html
(Australian Financial Times)

"25 deaths in custody in Iraq, Afghanistan
May 05 07:03

"Criminal investigations have been launched into 35 cases of alleged abuse in military prisons in Iraq and Afghanistan since December, including 25 deaths in custody, a senior army official said.

"Major General Donald Ryder, the army's chief law enforcement officer, said the deaths included two alleged homicides of inmates by soldiers, the killing of an inmate attempting to escape, and 10 other deaths that were still under investigation. "


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mi...ast/3684381.stm (BBC News)

"US army probes deaths in custody

"The US military says there have been investigations into 25 deaths in US custody in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"In two cases the dead men were found to have been murdered by Americans, according to a US army official. "


http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004...l?oneclick=true

"US admits 25 deaths in custody"

"The Pentagon has admitted that 25 prisoners have died in US military custody in Iraq and Afghanistan, at least two of them murders. Ten of the deaths are still under investigation, including one involving the CIA.

"The admissions came from General George Casey, who briefed Congress on the widening scandal over Abu Ghraib jail, where prisoners were sexually humiliated, abused and beaten as military police guards videotaped and photographed the scenes. "

	10-06-2004 12:13									#114
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by SpencerH Discovering that a terrorism suspect is contaminated with isotopes that could be used to make a dirty bomb does not mean you can follow a trail to it.

Start from where he was found.

If the suspect's got radioactive isotopes all over his body it is reasonable to assume that he was not particularly careful. If he was not careful it stands to reason that he left a trail.

	10-06-2004 12:15									#115
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

just when you think the Bush administration couldn't get any more despicable. This comes out.

What next?

	10-06-2004 12:21									#116
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by SpencerH Exactly, And that is essentially how it works in the democratic western countries. If you get caught, you are likely to pay the price. Using MP's in Iraq to take part in these interrogations should never have occured. What gets to me is the two-faced bullshit from both political parties pretending that their hands are clean. Merde!

But you're arguing that in a thread where the administration is reserving the right to torture to itself.

Doesn't that give you pause?

	10-06-2004 12:22									#117
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

And how then can you wonder how those MPs came to do what they did?

	10-06-2004 12:25									#118
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

What signals, or orders, did they receive?

Why did the administration decide that they should piss away the little credit that your nation still possesses for the sake of humiliating and perhaps torturing people who they had to kick because there was no reason to hold them in the first place (quite unlike a 'known' terrorist with isotope on his clothes found red handed in the US).

	10-06-2004 18:41									#119
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by debeest I'm sure you'll find a way to quibble with me semantically, but in the context of acknowledged torture, I consider these articles to provide credible evidence that the US military has tortured to death several Iraqi prisoners. Quibble away.

I hardly ever quibble semantically

quote: In addition, this link http://query.nytimes.com/search/que....x=5&submit.y=4 links to another article in the NYT about an American who was playing the role of an uncooperative Iraqi under interrogation, and American soldiers who didn't realize he was American or role-playing beat him until he suffered brain damage and had to be discharged. (I'm not at home so I can't readily access the link to the story itself.) It's not a case of "torturing to death," but I guess it's pretty relevant.

It may come as a shock to you but soldiers are injured (and sometimes killed) in training every day. I guess you've never taken part in prison or crowd control exercises but I can assure you that they are violent. In my experience, they are usually akin to a semi-controlled gang war. While you're not supposed to use a club on someones head (its bad for PR) those rules go out the window when you get punched in the mouth. Maybe thats what happened here since he was playing the role of an 'uncooperative detainee'? He may have overdone it and paid the price.

quote: "US admits 25 deaths in custody" "The Pentagon has admitted that 25 prisoners have died in US military custody in Iraq and Afghanistan, at least two of them murders. Ten of the deaths are still under investigation, including one involving the CIA. "The admissions came from General George Casey, who briefed Congress on the widening scandal over Abu Ghraib jail, where prisoners were sexually humiliated, abused and beaten as military police guards videotaped and photographed the scenes. "

The number now is 37

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast.../iraq.abuse.ap/

Of those, 9 are being investigated as possible homicides.

So is it likely that Iraqi's have died while being tortured (some may use the euphamism of 'during questioning", I dont bother) ?

Probably yes.

Is that the same as,

"torturing to death innocent civilian citizens of a country which we have invaded despite the complete lack of evidence that anyone in the country posed any significant threat to us? "

No.

	10-06-2004 19:00									#120
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by notyoueither But you're arguing that in a thread where the administration is reserving the right to torture to itself. Doesn't that give you pause?

Thats not what I see at all.

Put it in context, we are fighting an unconventional war against terrorists and guerrilla's who are not covered by the Geneva convention. In order to fight that war we must have information. Therefore, suspects must be questioned and that involves torture (of some type).

Eventually this becomes common knowledge and the governmant opponents start using this as a political club against the administration.

All that has happened here in these memos, is that a bunch of lawyers have commented on the legality of torture i.e. they have tried to codify the rules. The administration is trying to cover its ass in what is a no win situation. Politically they have to protect themselves from the two-faced bullshit from Kennedy and Biden while knowing that such repugnant behaviour (i.e. the torture) is necessary.