|
Thadius -> RE: Sean Hannity 2b waterbaorded 4 charity! (4/26/2009 10:16:18 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Raechard
quote:
ORIGINAL: Thadius
The reason we outsource those to Egypt, is because we do have limits on what is acceptable under our laws. Perm harm or damage is one of those things that crosses the line... hence no blowtorches.
Outsource?
That is a bit like me saying 'the reason Russia outsources nuclear technology to other countries is because it is bound by so many anti nuclear testing treaties, let us forget the anti proliferation ones (just as we are all forgetting the U.S. obligation to the U.N. convention against torture (ratified by the U.S. in 1994).
http://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%201465/volume-1465-I-24841-English.pdf
Here are some relevant sections the previous administration would struggle with.
quote:
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 3. 1. No State Party shall expel, return (refouler) or extradite a person
to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in
danger of being subjected to torture.
Article 5. 1. Each State Party shall take such measures as may be necessary to
establish its jurisdiction over the offences referred to in article 4 in the following cases:
(a) When the offences are committed in any territory under its jurisdiction or on board
a ship or aircraft registered in that State;
(b) When the alleged offender is a national of that State;
(c) When the victim is a national of that State if that State considers it appropriate
Article 15. Each State Party shall ensure that any statement which is established
to have been made as a result of torture shall not be invoked as evidence in any proceedings,
except against a person accused of torture as evidence that the statement was made.
How are those trials going for the terror suspects held without trial? The reason they aren’t going anywhere at all could be due to the fact U.S. courts can’t use evidence obtained from torture. So what is the prosecution going to bring as evidence?
Also from the above you’ll see that ‘exceptional rendition’ is a clear violation of this treaty, since not only is the U.S. knowing the person will be tortured but are also hoping to share intelligence from the torture process.
Something is either illegal under the law of the land in which case it can't be 'outsourced' outside of the land by any company, under any circumstances or it is legal. If government officials have been sending prisoners to other countries for torture (which they have admitted to) then they are not respecting the laws of your land i.e. the ones they vowed to uphold. Therefore they should be under investigation for these actions and facing the prospect of some punishment. It makes no difference where the crimes were committed they travel under U.S. documents and take a part of their soil with them (metaphorically), the U.S. embassy in various countries is bound by U.S. law, why the contradiction? There is no contradiction only people misinterpreting the law for their misdeeds.
If I said "Hello I've decided my company would be best served by outsourcing it's cyber crime division to eastern Europe" do you think a UK government agency would not raid the head office based in the UK? Crime is crime it has no borders and it should not be able to hide as something else.
quote:
Article 2. 1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction. 2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.
Now what jurisdiction do those camps in Cuba come under because to my mind they are run by the U.S. so regardless of where they are the answer is pretty obvious.
Bush Administration = Political instability or Public emergency
----------------------------------------
Regarding the Op it is pretty sick Hannity would play down the atrocity that has been committed through this PR gimmick. If waterboarding was a walk in the park it would not be used to get information now would it?
I am just lazy enough that I am not going to go in and break up this post with individual quotes, so let me get to the reply. [8|]
To the outsourcing portion of your post:
- We have been using Egyptians and Saudis to question high value enemies, as far back as I can remember (both Dem and Rep administrations).
- The practice will continue.
- Your point about Russia is moot, as they are receiving monies not paying them. (subtle but important difference).
You forgot to highlight that little bitty clause prior to the "physical or mental" ... you know that one that includes the word "SEVERE". While that word may seem subjective, as some folks may consider being put in a room with a milliion feathers to be severe mental torture and another person may consider being handcuffed to a clown to be the same; it is a very weighted word. I can assure you that waterboarding is far from severe, and most assuredly does not cause any perm damage or harm. With the inclusion of that clause it would seem that the drafters of the treaty allowed for some pain and suffering to be inflicted, both mental and physical, as long as it was not severe. As a side note, only 3 detainees in US custody have been subjected to such treatment, and all 3 provided very valuable information (one prevented an attack on L.A., one lead to the arrest of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed...)
Now on to the jurisdiction issue:
- For some reason no state seems to want to claim said detainees as citizens or even give them sanctuary (go figure)
- What crime or law should a prisoner of war be tried for? (think about the consequences of such proceedings)
- Enemy combatants (aka prisoners of war) are held until the end of hostilities (always have been and always should be).
The detainees that the military tribunals have cleared for release would be released if there was a country that would accept them. From what I have read there are about 75 or so that could be released immediately if they had some place to go. Their home nations are rejecting them, and the various countries that are complaining about the detentions, can't find it in their hearts to accept these people.
To answer your final question...
The Cuban holding facilities would fall under the same category as the internment camps and POW camps that existed during WW2, the same type of facilities that held German prisoners on US soil out in the SW states (like New Mexico, and Arizona).
Well that is just a few of my quick thoughts on your points.
I wish you well,
Thadius
|
|
|
|
