It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

WAR: New Allegations of US Torture

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 11 2005 @ 04:13 PM
link   
If you don't care about these tortures and are glad they happened, then congratulations - you are thinking like a terrorist! Do try to be as civil as you claim and not a downright hypocrite.




posted on Feb, 11 2005 @ 04:44 PM
link   
Whether or not the U.S. has broken any laws really depends on how it is interpreted. Alberto Gonzales was in no small way responsible for the revised interpretation of the Geneva Convention that allowed for prisoners that were not perceived to be members of any formally recognized state to be tortured--i.e. terrorists... al Qaeda... the Taliban.. residents of Afghanistan... counterfitters... graffitti artists... defense attorneys.. do you see where this is going?

As the definition of a terrorist is now so generally defined, anyone who is determined to be "an enemy of the state" (and that can be someone who is just taking a picture of the White House on the wrong day) can be subject to torture by the U.S. government, especially if you are not a U.S. citizen.

But the mystery is why the U.S. has embraced torture when it is not a proven course of action, information obtained via torture is highly suspect and those who are tortured cannot be tried in court. It is a rare occasion that torture has yielded any accurate information--it is not usual for prisioners to admit to anything after repeated torture sessions just to get the torture to stop. And let's face it, people who administer torture tactics are not exactly the most morally scrupulous individuals--coercing false confessions are not unheard of.

The reason why the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui—the only September 11th suspect to be tried in the U.S.--is delayed is because the defense wants to call as witnesses Al Qaeda members held in government custody, including Ramzi bin al-Shibh and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. One or both of these terrorists are thought to have been tortured, which is something that the U.S. certainly doesn't want to have on record in court.

Use of torture is nothing new. Rendition, which is a practice favored by the CIA to extradite foreign prisoners to countries that have strict interrogation methods (ie: torture) in an attempt to gain information, became more prevalent in the Clinton years as terrorism became more serious, but typically only confirmed (and usually convicted) terrorists were subject to rendering and torture. These terrorists typically would "disappear" or rot in prison forever, but because they were convicted already by a foreign government or known terrorists, the morality of the situation was less of an issue. After September 11th, however, the standards became much more loose and even people who had unconfirmed associations with suspected terrorists were rendered.

Because the U.S. is tossing out such a wide net under the guise of "fighting the war on terror", there are already several cases, most notably Maher Arar, where innocent people were sent to foreign countries by the U.S. government and tortured. Arar is a Canadian citizen that was picked up by the CIA as he switched planes returning from vacation with his family at JFK airport. He was then was sent to Syria on orders from the U.S., where he was brutally tortured for a year, but never charged with anything. It became obvious that he was innocent and he had to be released and returned home. He is attempting to sue the U.S., but the case may not even get to trial because the U.S. government has invoked the rare "state secrets privilege." The case may be dismissed.

It is ironic that the United States is claiming to be liberating other nations from regimes that endorse the torture and rape of innocents, and this is precisely what this policy is inflicting on other people. We are supposed to be the model of Democracy, yet pulling innocent people off the street and torturing them without giving them the benefit of a trial makes advocates of this policy just as bad as Saddam Hussein.

Does it make it justifiable to beat someone, sexually assault them, and shock their genitals with a car battery on a daily basis because years ago, you were employed by someone who knew someone else who might have been a terrorist?

What if this happened to you--would you be understanding as you were being tortured because you knew in your heart that the U.S. Government was acting in a manner that would serve to protect people?

Would you expect an innocent person who was brutally tortured for a year to not follow some kind of recourse after being tortured? Would you not expect his family, friends and fellow countrymen to not to hate the United States for what was done to him, especially when the government has the audacity to not offer even an apology? Would you not expect the rest of the world to look upon the United States as hypocrites when we claim to be the champions of Democracy, yet clearly don't care to extend those Democratic rights to foreigners unless it is for self-serving purposes?

There is an fascinating article in this months' New Yorker that discusses renditions in much more detail--

www.newyorker.com...


www.cbc.ca...
www.counterpunch.org...



posted on Feb, 11 2005 @ 05:17 PM
link   
ditto.... Welcome to the United States Of Comercial Nazism



posted on Feb, 11 2005 @ 05:37 PM
link   
Good line mfourl - and imgyn - you beat me to myt next post. (the new yorker piece) - cool and thanks.



Some people believe that the US is not breaking the law by using mercenaries. Raven said it was against the Geneva Convention. Here's the poop.








Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977.

Part III : Methods and means of warfare -- Combatant and prisoner-of-war status #Section II -- Combatant and prisoner-of-war status

Article 47 -- Mercenaries

1. A mercenary shall not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war.

2. A mercenary is any person who:

(a) is specially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict;

(b) does, in fact, take a direct part in the hostilities;

(c) is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a Party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party;

(d) is neither a national of a Party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a Party to the conflict;

(e) is not a member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict; and

(f) has not been sent by a State which is not a Party to the conflict on official duty as a member of its armed forces.

Geneva Conventions - Mercenaries





posted on Feb, 11 2005 @ 05:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kidfinger
You just contridicted yourself FF.

No I didn't. Not at all.

That in itself says you dont realy care about America.

blah blah blah.
You poor misguided kid.



posted on Feb, 11 2005 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow
Some people believe that the US is not breaking the law by using
mercenaries. Raven said it was against the Geneva Convention.
Here's the poop.


Good. Excellent work. It says what a Merc is, and that Mercs
are not entitled to POW status. It doesn't say anything
about if Mercs are held to the Geneva Convention. Considering
that they are not given POW status, and the fact that nothing
here discusses them having to abide by the Geneva Convention,
it looks like they are outside that legal document.

All this Merc talk is speculation. We don't know if the USA uses
them or not. If they do, it seems that the Mercs take a big chance.
If they are caught, they have no rights. However, If they do the
catching, they don't have to abide by the Geneva Convention.
I guess time will tell .. we will eventually find out if the USA is
using them or not.



posted on Feb, 11 2005 @ 06:21 PM
link   
What is a terrorist fom outside the country of combat.......a merc.

ANY terrorist caught in Afganistain or Iraq that is not a native of the country would be considered a MERC. Almost ALL of the inmates at Gitmo are from other countries and not from either Iraq or Afagnistain.

They have no legal standing according to the GC.

In fact if you check further you will find "combatants" that are out of uniform are considered spies and can be executed on site based on YOUR hallowed GC. These poor innocent terrorist don't were uniforms and could have be executed. Deal with that...............

[edit on 11-2-2005 by DrHoracid]



posted on Feb, 11 2005 @ 06:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow
...That is exactly what the terrorists are saying. ...They are also saying that if the US won't follow the rules and renew and sign international conventions - then they, too, refuse to be bound by the constraints.



Your reasoning is flawed soficrow. Since when are terrorists bound by any constrains? Do terrorists ask the governments of those people they kill or capture what they are about to do?.....

Terrorist follow their own rules soficrow.... They are not bound by the Geneva convention or any other rule except their own.

[edit on 11-2-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Feb, 11 2005 @ 06:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib

Originally posted by soficrow
...That is exactly what the terrorists are saying. ...They are also saying that if the US won't follow the rules and renew and sign international conventions - then they, too, refuse to be bound by the constraints.



Your reasoning is flawed soficrow. Since when are terrorists bound by any constrains? Do terrorists ask the governments of those people they kill or capture what they are about to do?.....

Terrorist follow their own rules soficrow.... They are not bound by the Geneva convention or any other rule except their own.

[edit on 11-2-2005 by Muaddib]




Terrorist are born of countries that do not feel they have the power to hold their own against hostile nations.

Terrorism is a military defense strategy, like guerilla warfare. It is the only way many peoples can stand up against economic colonization or take over.

...Colonization, to terrorism, to anti-terrorism, more colonization - it's a cycle that feeds on itself, proliferates and replicates. We have the power to prevent it from escalating - and stop it.

Fighting just escalates - gets worse and worse - til one day, boom. Game over. Personally, I don't want us to go there.



.



posted on Feb, 11 2005 @ 06:52 PM
link   
Sofi, you are very confused. You seem to have a romantic delusion that terrorist are freedom fighters. They are not.

A terrorist uses innocent humans to inflict political will in the most horrid way possible for maximum terror. Basically a terrorist is a coward of the worst kind.

Please take a step back here and think, you are an intelligent woman.



posted on Feb, 11 2005 @ 06:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow

Terrorist are born of countries that do not feel they have the power to hold their own against hostile nations.

Terrorism is a military defense strategy, like guerilla warfare. It is the only way many peoples can stand up against economic colonization or take over.


If that is so soficrow why so many terrorists turn against their own people? For example, Islamic extremists capture, or torture, and even kill moderate Muslims....Muslims which are not rich, or have any connections to any colonization.....

Terrorists in Colombia take people from the streets thinking they can make some money from the families of those they take hostages.... Many times the families of these people can't pay, so the terrorists kill them...

i know some people, in these same forums, call terrorists freedom fighters...... Yet the actions of these terrorists speak for themselves of what they really are....

In Fallujah two Muslims were found hostages in one of the slaughterhouses that the terrorists were using to keep hostages, torture them and kill them as they were being filmed.... One of them was an Iraqi, the other one an Iranian... They were both beaten and tortured, yet neither one was rich or had any big relations to those "evil capitalists" so many people talk about.......

---edited for errors and to add comment---

[edit on 11-2-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Feb, 11 2005 @ 06:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by DrHoracid
Sofi, you are very confused. You seem to have a romantic delusion that terrorist are freedom fighters. They are not.

A terrorist uses innocent humans to inflict political will in the most horrid way possible for maximum terror. Basically a terrorist is a coward of the worst kind.

Please take a step back here and think, you are an intelligent woman.



Okay. Done. You are right, partly.


A bunch of violent *whatevers* are manipulating down-trodden freedom fighters. If we solve the social-economic problems - the psycho-terrorists won't have fodder for their 'movements.'

Can we work with that one?


.



posted on Feb, 11 2005 @ 07:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib


If that is so soficrow why so many terrorists turn against their own people? For example, Islamic extremists capture, or torture, and even kill moderate Muslims....Muslims which are not rich, or have any connections to any colonization.....




...All you said is true Maudib. ...and I have seen the same thing in Canada and the USA - poor people become criminals and turn on their own - they rob elderly next door neighbors who are weak and vulnerable, instead of crossing town to pull a beanie on a mansion. Why? ....they are angry, and their anger is not directed. IMO - sometimes, someone comes along and puts that anger on a leash....



.



posted on Feb, 11 2005 @ 07:05 PM
link   
Torture is never pretty. War is never pretty. What are we supposed to do with prisoners that we need information from? Give them a pat on the hand and let them go? I don't think torture is the answer, but I think people need to guit second guessing our troops and President and start focusing on supporting them. Stop looking for our troops doing things wrong. Start praying for them to come home.
By the way, noone ever seems to mention the horrible things they do to our men and women. Non military targets at that.



posted on Feb, 11 2005 @ 07:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow


Okay. Done. You are right, partly.


A bunch of violent *whatevers* are manipulating down-trodden freedom fighters. If we solve the social-economic problems - the psycho-terrorists won't have fodder for their 'movements.'

Can we work with that one?


.


Socio-economic? OBL is one of the richest men in the wolrd. OIL and DRUGs is funding most of the terrorist on the planet. Suicide bombs were paid $25,000 each by Hamas funded by Saddam. Terrorisim is ideology not "down-trodden" anything.

Modern terrorism is about HATE. It is well funded and has little to do with freedom for anyone. It has everything to do with imposing anti-freedom, power, and control of the masses by a select elite few. Look at the Taliban and how they treated women.



[edit on 11-2-2005 by DrHoracid]



posted on Feb, 11 2005 @ 07:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by DrHoracid

Socio-economic? OBL is one of the richest men in the wolrd. OIL and DRUGs is funding most of the terrorist on the planet. Suicide bombs were paid $25,000 each by Hamas funded by Saddam. Terrorisim is ideology not "down-trodden" anything.

Modern terrorism is about HATE. It is well funded and has little to do with freedom for anyone. It has everything to do with imposing anti-freedom.



C'mon DrH - you know the difference between overlords and troops. ...OBL and Saddam have an agenda - they are using a bunch of ignorant people who have nothing left to lose to serve their own purpose.



.



posted on Feb, 11 2005 @ 07:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow

A bunch of violent *whatevers* are manipulating down-trodden freedom fighters.
................
Can we work with that one?


Down-trodden freedom fighters?......

Oh....I see what you mean..... How dare those people whose families could not pay for the demands of terrorists spray the poor down-trodden terrorist with blood when the terrorists blow their brains out......

You are so right.....those poor terrorists.....



posted on Feb, 11 2005 @ 07:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow
C'mon DrH - you know the difference between overlords and troops. ...OBL and Saddam have an agenda - they are using a bunch of ignorant people who have nothing left to lose to serve their own purpose.



.


OH, sofi, Saddam was a sadistic tyrant who terrorised his own people and neighbors like Kuwait and Iran. His "henchmen" were not unlike Hitlers.

OBL is using a false religion to delude impressionable zealots through false promises of heaven.

One promises death the other enternal life to impose their will.



posted on Feb, 11 2005 @ 07:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by DrHoracid

OH, sofi, Saddam was a sadistic tyrant who terrorised his own people and neighbors like Kuwait and Iran. His "henchmen" were not unlike Hitlers.

OBL is using a false religion to delude impressionable zealots through false promises of heaven.

One promises death the other enternal life to impose their will.



Precisely - this does not conflict with what I'm saying. ...Both are imposing their will on people who have no other options. ....If we create real alternatives for the "cannon-fodder" we remove the need.

...Before you get too excited here - I do not recognize the war in Iraq as fulfilling this function. IMO - it has made the situation worse.


.



posted on Feb, 11 2005 @ 10:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by lmgnyc
...Arar is a Canadian citizen that was picked up by the CIA as he switched planes returning from vacation with his family at JFK airport. He was then was sent to Syria on orders from the U.S., where he was brutally tortured for a year, but never charged with anything....-snip-


Excellent post Imgnyc! If you are interested in following the Canadian public inquiry into what happened go to this thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...


You know, at the end of the day, say what you will about Saddam, say what you will about the terrorists (who are guilty until proven innocent so it seems)... to me the U.S. was supposed to set the example. Instead it is the worst offender. This beacon of human rights...is the biggest bully around. My question to all of you who think this is okay in the name of fighting the WOT...when the middle east sees such treament of their fellow citizens, guilty or innocent...is it supposed to give them the warm fuzzies and make they grateful to the U.S.?

Unless your logic is impaired I think not.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join