quote:

In the Frankfurt police headquarters, the atmosphere is tense. Deputy Police Chief Wolfgang Daschner is losing patience. On the previous day, his officers arrested one Magnus Gäfgen, a 27-year-old law student. Gäfgen is suspected of having kidnapped 11-year-old Jakob von Metzler, son of the banker Friedrich von Metzler. Two days earlier, Gäfgen had personally collected a 1-million-euro ransom payment. But there is no sign of the boy and Gäfgen has refused to give police interrogators accurate information about his whereabouts. A police psychologist, observing the questioning, describes Gäfgen’s responses as a “pack of lies” [Lügengebäude]. Deputy Police Chief Daschner fears that Jakob’s life may be in danger. In a memorandum, he writes: “We need to ascertain without delay where the boy is being held. While respecting the principle of proportionality, the police have an obligation to take all measures in their power to save the child’s life.”

...

In June 2005, the child-murderer and law student Magnus Gäfgen lodged a complaint against Germany with the European Court of Human Rights (echr). In his complaint, Gäfgen accused Germany of having violated his rights under the European Convention on Human Rights and, more specifically, of having violated the prohibition on torture contained in Article 3 of the Convention.

...

The Gäfgen ruling and the American “torture” debate

The decision of the European Court of Human Rights in the Gäfgen case was eagerly anticipated and widely discussed in the German media. In keeping with the importance attached to the case in Europe, the Court took the unusual step of broadcasting the announcement of its judgment on the Council of Europe website. But the ruling went almost entirely ignored by the American news media.7 In light of the spectacular nature of the case and, above all, the raging American debate on torture in connection with the Guantánamo Bay prison camp and the war on terror, on first glance this might seem odd.

quote:

But the ruling went almost entirely ignored by the American news media.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

Some extracts:

quote:



In June 2005, the child-murderer and law student Magnus Gäfgen lodged a complaint against Germany with the European Court of Human Rights (echr). In his complaint, Gäfgen accused Germany of having violated his rights under the European Convention on Human Rights and, more specifically, of having violated the prohibition on torture contained in Article 3 of the Convention.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

The ECHR found Germany not guilty of torture, but guilty of Inhuman treatment ( the threat of torture )  Hardly the same as waterboarding in my view.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


Wait. Waterboarding is the threat of drowning a suspect, it's not actually drowning them, so you're obviously mistaken.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterS

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


Wait. Waterboarding is the threat of drowning a suspect, it's not actually drowning them, so you're obviously mistaken.

You are mistaken. 
Waterboarding is holding someone underwater until they almost drown. 
Threatning to drown someone is verbal.  
Your post fails to grasp the difference and lacks a basic understanding of both grammar and logic.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

The German police reportedly got very physical with the suspect while specifically threatening him with torture, Hunter. If there are any differences they are insignificant, and that aspect of the discussion is beside the point anyway.

The point is, here we have a "crime" committed by European interrogators that is very similar to the supposed "crimes" committed by American interrogators... but when the Germans were tried and convicted by one of the the highest courts in Europe, all that they find warranted as punishment doesn't even amount to a slap on the wrist - and the American press is neglecting to cover this series of events.

It's a clear double standard - that's the point.

And it's not so much, little Johnny does it too (as another poster mentioned). It's more a matter of little Johnny having to do hard time for life for virtually the same thing that little Hans gets a wink and a nod for doing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterS

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


Wait. Waterboarding is the threat of drowning a suspect, it's not actually drowning them, so you're obviously mistaken.

You are mistaken. 
Waterboarding is holding someone underwater until they almost drown. 
Threatning to drown someone is verbal.  
Your post fails to grasp the difference and lacks a basic understanding of both grammar and logic.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


I addressed everything that you said, Hunter. And then I tried to get the discussion back on to the topic that I believe was intended...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

The German police reportedly got very physical with the suspect while specifically threatening him with torture, Hunter. If there are any differences they are insignificant, and that aspect of the discussion is beside the point anyway.

The point is, here we have a "crime" committed by European interrogators that is very similar to the supposed "crimes" committed by American interrogators... but when the Germans were tried and convicted by one of the the highest courts in Europe, all that they find warranted as punishment doesn't even amount to a slap on the wrist - and the American press is neglecting to cover this series of events.

It's a clear double standard - that's the point.

And it's not so much, little Johnny does it too (as another poster mentioned). It's more a matter of little Johnny having to do hard time for life for virtually the same thing that little Hans gets a wink and a nod for doing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterS

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


Wait. Waterboarding is the threat of drowning a suspect, it's not actually drowning them, so you're obviously mistaken.

You are mistaken. 
Waterboarding is holding someone underwater until they almost drown. 
Threatning to drown someone is verbal.  
Your post fails to grasp the difference and lacks a basic understanding of both grammar and logic.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


Wait. Waterboarding is the threat of drowning a suspect, it's not actually drowning them, so you're obviously mistaken. "Waterboarding" and what happened to that suspect in Germany are very closely related. 

They're at least similar enough for the German story and the ECHR ruling on it to be picked up and compared, to be thoroughly discussed in the American media, yet they weren't, which seems to be one of the main points of the OP.

Was there any mention in the British news media at all, that you know of?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

The ECHR found Germany not guilty of torture, but guilty of Inhuman treatment ( the threat of torture )  Hardly the same as waterboarding in my view.

quote:

  The Court would like to underline in this connection that in view of the absolute prohibition of treatment contrary to Article 3 irrespective of the conduct of the person concerned and even in the event of a public emergency threatening the life of the nation – or, a fortiori, of an individual – the prohibition on ill-treatment of a person in order to extract information from him applies irrespective of the reasons for which the authorities wish to extract a statement, be it to save a person's life or to further criminal investigations. Moreover, the applicant's treatment must be considered to have caused him considerable mental suffering, which is also illustrated by the fact that, having persistently refused to make correct statements until then, he confessed under the influence of such treatment where he had hidden J. Thus, the Court finds that the treatment the applicant was threatened with would, if carried out, amount to torture. However, the questioning lasted for some ten minutes only and, as was established in the criminal proceedings against the police officers (...), took place in an atmosphere of heightened tension and emotions owing to the fact that the police officers, who were completely exhausted and under extreme pressure, believed that they had only a few hours to save J.'s life, elements which can be regarded as mitigating factors (compare Egmez, cited above, § 78, and Krastanov v. Bulgaria, no. 50222/99, § 53, 30 September 2004). Furthermore, the threats of ill-treatment were not put into practice and have not been shown to have had any serious long-term consequences for the applicant's health.
70. In the light of the above, the Court considers that in the course of the questioning by E. on 1 October 2002 the applicant was subjected to inhuman treatment prohibited by Article 3 of the Convention.

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

Yup, you can do it in Europe but you can't do it in GTMO.

quote:

I dont think the threat of waterboarding and waterboarding are the same, even if waterboarding mimics drowning.

quote:


One is a threat and no more, one is physical. I dont think im obviously mistaken about that. Thats the crux of the issue here, a threat vs an action, or a simulated action ( waterboarding )

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

So let me understand this.

One small police team acting on its own account to make threats to gain pertinent information of immediate use to the prevention and detection of an identified crime over a period of ten minutes in a stressful situation in a single instance, is the same as the state sanctioned, premeditated, calm application of actual violence over extended periods and in multiple instances to gain information that will be out of date and so redundant to the prevention and detection of a possible but unknown crime?

Rubbish.

And of course the other key difference here is that the German police team faced legal proceedings because they acted on their own account and broke the constitutional law of the EU, whereas in the Guantanamo instance there is to date no hint of such proceedings despite the exact same breach having occurred.