United States Before the Committee Against Torture

[Gumby]

For the first time since the Bush administration launched its global campaign against terrorism, the United States this week will answer internationally for its record on torture. On May 5 and May 8, the United Nationâ??s Committee Against Torture will question some 30 high-level officials from the Departments of State, Justice, Homeland Security, and Defense on U.S. compliance with the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. The U.S. officials will be speaking on the record about Washingtonâ??s human rights performance in the â??war on terror,â?� and this session in Geneva may offer a more comprehensive accounting than usual of the Bush administrationâ??s views on these issues.


http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/05/04/usdom13311.htm

uh, oh... wonder what they are gonna find out...

[Bong30]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture
Geneva Convention IV exemptions
GCIV provides an important exemption:

"Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention [ie GCIV] as would ... be prejudicial to the security of such State ... In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity" (GCIV article 5)
There are two further groups who are not protected by GCIV:

Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it.
Nationals of a neutral State in the territory of a combatant State, and nationals of a co-belligerent State, cannot claim the protection of GCIV if their home state has normal diplomatic representation in the State that holds them (article 4). Since nearly every state has diplomatic recognition of every other state, most citizens of neutral countries in a war zone are not able to claim any protection from GCIV.
In a conflict like the U.S. War on Terrorism many so-called "unlawful combatants" have controversially, and contrary to the analysis of International Human Rights organisations, been denied protection under the Geneva Conventions, because they are either excluded by their nationality (see below), or they are deemed to be so dangerous that Article 5 can be invoked, or because they allegedly do not fit the textual description of a lawful combatant (are not members of the armed forces of a Party, do not have uniforms, do not display a "fixed distinctive sign recognisable at a distance").

[xblackdogx]

no matter what EXCUSE you use for torture:
it is hurtin OUR SOLDIERS
by the US torturing,
it cannot seriously deem other countries with
prisoners of war NOT TO TORTURE

[Psycho4Bud]

no matter what EXCUSE you use for torture:
it is hurtin OUR SOLDIERS
by the US torturing,
it cannot seriously deem other countries with
prisoners of war NOT TO TORTURE

Yipper, since the beginning of our nation WE have been the only force on earth to EVER use torture on prisoners!:rolleyes:

[Bong30]

Yipper, since the beginning of our nation WE have been the only force on earth to EVER use torture on prisoners!:rolleyes:

it is nice to think that we are above it, but in reality we are human, and humans torture each other. (i learned that on the history channel)

especialy when they wear no uniform and come out from under rocks...

[Psycho4Bud]

it is nice to think that we are above it, but in reality we are human, and humans torture each other. (i learned that on the history channel)

especialy when they wear no uniform and come out from under rocks...

Your describing terrorists.....they don't exist you know......just check out prisonplanet/infowars.....they'll tell ya!:rolleyes:

That's of course your not Mexican...you see, being from Texas they do believe in Mexican terrorists, just not Muslim.:cool:

[xblackdogx]

"U.S. officials acknowledge mistakes had been made and that 29 detainees in American facilities in Iraq and Afghanistan had died of what appeared to be suspected abuse or other violations of U.S. law." - first time i've ever heard this, the "world law" committees are less lenient then our Congressmen at home, eh?

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/05/05/un.us.torture.ap/index.html

[Breukelen advocaat]

I posted this article last year - and it still applies.

The Case for Torture

By Michael Levin

It is generally assumed that torture is impermissible, a throwback to a more brutal age. Enlightened societies reject it outright, and regimes suspected of using it risk the wrath of the United States.

I believe this attitude is unwise. There are situations in which torture is not merely permissible but morally mandatory. Moreover, these situations are moving from the realm of imagination to fact.

Death: Suppose a terrorist has hidden an atomic bomb on Manhattan Island which will detonate at noon on July 4 unless ... here follow the usual demands for money and release of his friends from jail. Suppose, further, that he is caught at 10 a.m on the fateful day, but preferring death to failure, won't disclose where the bomb is. What do we do? If we follow due process, wait for his lawyer, arraign him, millions of people will die. If the only way to save those lives is to subject the terrorist to the most excruciating possible pain, what grounds can there be for not doing so? I suggest there are none. In any case, I ask you to face the question with an open mind.

Torturing the terrorist is unconstitutional? Probably. But millions of lives surely outweigh constitutionality. Torture is barbaric? Mass murder is far more barbaric. Indeed, letting millions of innocents die in deference to one who flaunts his guilt is moral cowardice, an unwillingness to dirty one's hands. If you caught the terrorist, could you sleep nights knowing that millions died because you couldn't bring yourself to apply the electrodes?

Once you concede that torture is justified in extreme cases, you have admitted that the decision to use torture is a matter of balancing innocent lives against the means needed to save them. You must now face more realistic cases involving more modest numbers. Someone plants a bomb on a jumbo jet. I He alone can disarm it, and his demands cannot be met (or they can, we refuse to set a precedent by yielding to his threats). Surely we can, we must, do anything to the extortionist to save the passengers. How can we tell 300, or 100, or 10 people who never asked to be put in danger, "I'm sorry you'll have to die in agony, we just couldn't bring ourselves to . . . "


Here are the results of an informal poll about a third, hypothetical, case. Suppose a terrorist group kidnapped a newborn baby from a hospital. I asked four mothers if they would approve of torturing kidnappers if that were necessary to get their own newborns back. All said yes, the most "liberal" adding that she would like to administer it herself.

I am not advocating torture as punishment. Punishment is addressed to deeds irrevocably past. Rather, I am advocating torture as an acceptable measure for preventing future evils. So understood, it is far less objectionable than many extant punishments. Opponents of the death penalty, for example, are forever insisting that executing a murderer will not bring back his victim (as if the purpose of capital punishment were supposed to be resurrection, not deterrence or retribution). But torture, in the cases described, is intended not to bring anyone back but to keep innocents from being dispatched. The most powerful argument against using torture as a punishment or to secure confessions is that such practices disregard the rights of the individual. Well, if the individual is all that important, and he is, it is correspondingly important to protect the rights of individuals threatened by terrorists. If life is so valuable that it must never be taken, the lives of the innocents must be saved even at the price of hurting the one who endangers them.

Better precedents for torture are assassination and pre-emptive attack. No Allied leader would have flinched at assassinating Hitler, had that been possible. (The Allies did assassinate Heydrich.) Americans would be angered to learn that Roosevelt could have had Hitler killed in 1943, thereby shortening the war and saving millions of lives, but refused on moral grounds. Similarly, if nation A learns that nation B is about to launch an unprovoked attack, A has a right to save itself by destroying B's military capability first. In the same way, if the police can by torture save those

Idealism:There is an important difference between terrorists and their victims that should mute talk of the terrorists' "rights." The terrorist's victims are at risk unintentionally, not having asked to be endangered. But the terrorist knowingly initiated his actions. Unlike his victims, he volunteered for the risks of his deed. By threatening to kill for profit or idealism, he renounces civilized standards, and he can have no complaint if civilization tries to thwart him by whatever means necessary.

Just as torture is justified only to save lives (not extort confessions or incantations), it is justifiably administered only to those known to hold innocent lives in their hands. Ah, but how call the authorities ever be sure they have the right malefactor? Isn't there a danger of error and abuse? won't "WE" turn into "THEM?" Questions like these are disingenuous in a world in which terrorists proclaim themselves and perform for television. The name of their game is public recognition. After all, you can't very well intimidate a government into releasing your freedom fighters unless you announce that it is your group that has seized its embassy. "Clear guilt" is difficult to define, but when 40 million people see a group of masked gunmen seize an airplane on the evening news, there is not much question about who the perpetrators are. There will be hard cases where the situation is murkier. Nonetheless, a line demarcating the legitimate use of torture can be drawn. Torture only the obviously guilty, and only for the sake of saving innocents, and the line between "US" and "THEM" will remain clear.


There is little danger that the Western democracies will lose their way if they choose to inflict pain as one way of preserving order. Paralysis in the face of evil is the greater danger. Some day soon a terrorist will threaten tens of thousands of lives, and torture will be the only way to save them. We had better start thinking about this.

About the Author:
Michael Levin is a Professor of Philosophy at the City College of New York and the Graduate center, City University of New York. He is well known in Libertarian circles and has written much about social issues in the US, especially feminism, race, crime, and other politically incorrect topics.

Levin:TheCaseForTorture (http://people.brandeis.edu/~teuber/torture.html)

[xblackdogx]

^^ the people detained are:
not given a trial
not given a lawyer
THESE PEOPLE WERE SCAVENGERED UP WHILE WE WERE INVADING AFGHANISTAN [mostly] AND IRAQ. Who wouldn't run when there are bombs upon bombs being dropped as if they were food supplies for those in Western Africa.
some cases they were interoggated for 20-22 hours a day for 30 days straight
get real. LOOK at the facts. SEE WHO IS GETTING DETAINED. 20 or so have been convicted of a crime OUT OF 500.
deaths upon deaths
whether it be maltreatment of "prisoners of war" by guards OR
committing suicide after being:
treated [literally] as dogs *with collers
being forced to sodomize themselves with a banana
forced naked with a group of men, with their heads placed by others cocks
chained like a monkey, with legs in the air to their beds, or cells
forced to remove religous items
and THESE ARE JUST THE PICTURES WE'VE SEEN:
the acts not "picture worthy", i assure you, are more DRAMATIC

[Great Spirit]

It won't matter. The US will get away with its crimes until the Earth changes take place in a few years.

[Breukelen advocaat]

Click here:
TERRORISM (http://www.thekidfrombrooklyn.com/video_disp.asp?videoid=1146)

[eg420ne]

On a side note and old news but fits right in----Two white teenagers severely beat and sodomized a 16-year-old Hispanic boy who they believed had tried to kiss a 12-year-old white girl at a party, authorities said.

At about 11:30 p.m. the victim allegedly tried to kiss the 12-year-old girl who lives at the home where the party was held, KHOU, a CBS affiliate reported. At that point, the attackers forced the boy out of the Saturday night house party, beat him and sodomized him with a metal pipe, shouting epithets "associated with being Hispanic," said Lt. John Martin with the Harris County Sheriff's Department. http://www.topix.net/content/cbs/2510783450217843082122265430941742441481

[pisshead]

On a side note and old news but fits right in----Two white teenagers severely beat and sodomized a 16-year-old Hispanic boy who they believed had tried to kiss a 12-year-old white girl at a party, authorities said.

At about 11:30 p.m. the victim allegedly tried to kiss the 12-year-old girl who lives at the home where the party was held, KHOU, a CBS affiliate reported. At that point, the attackers forced the boy out of the Saturday night house party, beat him and sodomized him with a metal pipe, shouting epithets "associated with being Hispanic," said Lt. John Martin with the Harris County Sheriff's Department. http://www.topix.net/content/cbs/2510783450217843082122265430941742441481

like rush says, they were just blowing a little steam. no harm done.

the army's own report said detainees were sodomized in the same way, except the object was covered in acid.

freedom.