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.

 

UN Report: US Is Abusing Captives

page: 6
2
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 18 2006 @ 07:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by rich23
One of the things that people forget is that Iraq had many engineers, builders, architects and so on of their own. Some of them have even been together enough to put in bids against US companies - which never seemed to get them anywhere, oddly enough... I read an account by Riversbend, the Iraqi blogger, in which the US company's estimate for repairing a bridge was about 10 times more than it would have cost an Iraqi company to do it. Of course the contract went to the American company.


I hear you. There's a thread started by IncognitoGhostman who just came back from serving in Iraq. In that thread even he acknowledges that there's some serious profiteering going on there here in this post.

Just follow the money. In my opinion these detainment facilities aren't actually meant to make America safer, but just there to line somebody's pockets. Well maybe during it's conception it was, but somewhere down the line the agenda got twisted.

Can you explain further what PSAs are? It's the first time I heard of such a thing.




posted on Feb, 18 2006 @ 09:43 AM
link   

Let's face it. An alien power is occupying your country. That power is asset-stripping the institutions of your native land and making it impossible even to grow your own food. Whole towns have been laid waste with chemical weapons. Trigger happy soldiers are everywhere. You want these people OUT of your country. Would YOU wear a little badge saying "I'm a member of the official resistance"? And perhaps a nice big bulls-eye target on your T-shirt?


You either have to, or forfeit your rights under the Geneva Conventions, you cant have it both ways. You cant car bomb people, perform suicide blasts in mosques and attack from civilian houses then claim you are protected under the Geneva Conventions when you’re caught.


But what makes it more interesting is that it makes it therefore more difficult to tell who's a genuine militiaman and who isn't. Which is why it's inevitable that some innocent people will be swept up in US military raids. What about them? Is it just 'tough luck, we're trying to win a war here'?


So wait, you blaming the US for the tactics of the insurgents? They are the ones who make it hard to distinguish between civilians and combatants and your blaming us for being confused? You have go to be kidding right?



posted on Feb, 18 2006 @ 10:12 AM
link   
The "U.N" should understand the situation that the world and America has become and "Anna" should be replaced with a more invisoned memeber

[edit on 18-2-2006 by Jamie6661986]



posted on Feb, 18 2006 @ 11:23 AM
link   


Originally posted by IAF101
From Top to Bottom this War on Terrorism was Nothing but LEGAL

You are absolutely correct, the War on Terror is nothing but Legal, completely bound by the rule of law and never deviating from the spirit of justice.

I Appologize for the Grammatic Error I made here: I tried to say, that War on Terrorism has been Everything else BUT LEGAL!



Well running around in the battle field and throwing grenades at Coalition troops or firing at US soldiers are not the acts of "suspected enemy combatants". All those who are caught were caught with due reason based on circumstance and their involvement.


From the Original UN Report

Many of the detainees held at Guantánamo Bay were captured in places where there was – at the time of their arrest – no armed conflict involving the United States. The case of the six men of Algerian origin detained in Bosnia and Herzegovina in October 2001 is a well-known and well-documented example, 24 but also numerous other detainees have been arrested under similar circumstances where international humanitarian law did not apply. The legal provision allowing the United States to hold belligerents without charges or access to counsel for the duration of hostilities can therefore not be invoked to justify their detention.

What about the Suspected Enemy Combatants, which were Not arrested - but more Kidnapped from their Home Country, where no Conflicts with the United States are present? How do they Apply then to Your Set of Laws? The Goverment of United States can therefore break a number of International Laws with these so-called Arrests of the suspected enemy combatants outside the so-called Zones of Conflict, such as Afganistan and Iraq.



As we know clearly, the Al-Qaeda do NOT follow subsection b) and d) of article 4A-2. That is they do NOT carry any distinctive sign recognizable at a distance and do NOT conduct their operation in accordance with the laws and customs of war. This is plain to see and easily discernable to all. Any contestation of these facts would be futile.

From the Original Report:


CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
  • International human rights law is applicable to the analysis of the situation of detainees in Guantánamo Bay. Indeed, human rights law applies at all times, even during situations of emergency and armed conflicts. The war on terror, as such, does not constitute an armed conflict for the purposes of the applicability of international humanitarian law. The United States of America has not notified to the Secretary-General of the United Nations or other States parties to the treaties any official derogation from the international Covenant on Civil and Political Rights or any other international human rights treaty to which it is a party.

  • The persons held at Guantánamo Bay are entitled to challenge the legality of their detention before a judicial body in accordance with article 9 of ICCPR, and to obtain release if detention is found to lack a proper legal basis. This right is currently being violated, and the continuing detention of all persons held at Guantánamo Bay amounts to arbitrary detention in violation of article 9 of ICCPR.

  • The executive branch of the United States Govenrment operates as judge, prosecutor and defence counsel of the Guantánamo Bay detainees: this constitutes serious violations of various guarantees of the right to a fair trial before an independent tribunal as provided for by article 14 of the ICCPR.

  • Attempts by the United States Administration to redefine “torture” in the framework of the struggle against terrorism in order to allow certain interrogation techniques that would not be permitted under the internationally accepted definition of torture are of utmost concern. The confusion with regard to authorized and unauthorized interrogation techniques over the last years is particularly alarming.

  • The practice of rendition of persons to countries where there is a substantial risk of torture, such as in the case of Mr. Al Qadasi, amounts to a violation of the principle of non-refoulement and is contrary to article 3 of the Convention against Torture and Article 7 of ICCPR.

  • The lack of any impartial investigation into allegations of torture and illtreatment and the resulting impunity of the perpetrators amount to a violation of articles 12 and 13 of the Convention against Torture.

Clear Enough for You?

Ofcourse not.

Anyway I really Apprechiate your Effort to try and make these detainees look like they are not protected by ANY laws, therefore the US goverment can and is doing with them, whatever they friggin' want, therefore you are basicly saying, that it is OKEY that they are tortured, since they are nothing but a bunch of terrorists.

As you can see in the Original Report from the UN (which I doubt you read at all), these Six Points Above show which Laws the US Goverment is breaking, by Redigining Torture, practising Rendition Flights, Holding the Detainees without any Trial for several Years, using methods of Abuse and Torture on them - even if United States are a signatory member of the international Covenant on Civil and Political Rights or any other international human rights treaties regarding War, Treatment of Prisoners of War and Conventions Against Torture.



posted on Feb, 18 2006 @ 11:35 AM
link   
What Else!


Rumsfeld says U.N. chief 'flat wrong' to advocate closing Guantanamo prison

The Pentagon will not close its Guantanamo Bay prison for terrorist suspects, despite U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan's call to shut it down, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Friday.

"He's just flat wrong," Rumsfeld said in response to a question about the controversial prison during an appearance at the Council on Foreign Relations. "We shouldn't close Guantanamo. We have several hundred terrorists - bad people, people that if let back out on the field would try to kill Americans. That's just a fact."

He said closing it would amount to pretending there is no problem with a terrorist threat to U.S. interests.

Rumsfeld also took a swipe at Annan, saying, "He's never been to Guantanamo Bay," whereas representatives of the International Committee of the Red Cross "stayed there, lived there 24 hours a day" to observe conditions.

"That place is being run as well as any detention facility can be run," he added, his voice rising. "It's absolutely beyond comprehension," he said, that calls for closing Guantanamo Bay can be based on allegations of mistreatment and torture by the prisoners, whom Rumsfeld said are trained to lie.

You know - there are several hundred BAD PEOPLE in those Prisons, and if they get out, all they would do is start killing more Americans!

Go Tell'em Rummy!


U.S. rejects U.N. report on detainees

The United States should close the prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, immediately and end violent treatment that amounts to torture, U.N. human-rights investigators said in a report released Thursday. The White House rejected the report.

The report recommended that the U.S. government either put the detainees on trial before an international tribunal or release them. Those facing trial should be transferred to detention facilities on U.S. soil, it said.

The report also found that excessive violence against detainees, including kicking and punching and force-feeding those on hunger strikes "must be assessed as amounting to torture" as defined in the international Convention Against Torture.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan dismissed the 54-page report as a "rehash of allegations" made by lawyers representing some detainees.


[edit on 18/2/06 by Souljah]



posted on Feb, 18 2006 @ 12:24 PM
link   
From the International Organisation Journalists Without Borders comes this Report:


Report calls for release of journalists held in Iraq and Guantanamo

Reporters Without Borders called today on the US government to free two journalists it said were being unjustly held at a US prison in Iraq, and at the US military base in Guantanamo, Cuba.

It said in a report that they and other journalists arrested in Iraq by the US, mainly on suspicion of collaborating with insurgents, had not been tried or even charged with anything after months of incarceration.

Abdel Amir Yunes Hussein, of CBS TV network’s program, CBS News, has been held at the Camp Bucca prison in Iraq since April last year, while Sami Al-Hajj, a cameraman for the pan-Arab satellite TV station Al-Jazeera, has been a prisoner in Guantanamo since 2002, after being arrested in Afghanistan in 2001.

“These journalists have been denied justice and not allowed to see family or lawyers,” the worldwide press freedom organization said. “This is unacceptable. We call on the US authorities to break their silence” [about their detention] and “reveal the evidence they claim to have of their involvement in illegal activities.”


Read the Full Report HERE!

Apparently Not just Suspected enemy Combatants end up in Gutananamo Detention Fascility - also the "Unwanted Journalists", who have been sniffing where they should not, end up arrested and without justice at all.

And I Agree - that is totally Unacceptable!



posted on Feb, 18 2006 @ 12:25 PM
link   
That's unusual Souljah, I didn't notice this picture in that article:




Why was it added to your external link?

Edt: Issue solve, pic removed.

[edit on 18-2-2006 by intrepid]



posted on Feb, 18 2006 @ 12:36 PM
link   
Oh, this just killed me, I find it so obviously contradictive that its hard to think a world organization would make such a dumb statement, especially one which claims to want to save people.

From Souljah’s post.

The report also found that excessive violence against detainees, including kicking and punching and force-feeding those on hunger strikes "must be assessed as amounting to torture" as defined in the international Convention Against Torture.


So we should let them die, but then we would get blamed for neglecting and allowing them to die. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. And all this from the life loving UN, but then again what can we expect when we consider who sits on he Human Rights Commission



posted on Feb, 18 2006 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
That's unusual Souljah, I didn't notice this picture in that article:

mod edit: edit solved, image removed

Why was it added to your external link?

I thought that the Photo really Fit the current Statement by mister Rumslfed, who basicly told the United Nations to go and edited censor circumventionthemselves.

Removed it.

[edit on 18-2-2006 by Thomas Crowne]

[edit on 18-2-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]



posted on Feb, 18 2006 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Oh, this just killed me, I find it so obviously contradictive that its hard to think a world organization would make such a dumb statement, especially one which claims to want to save people.

Save People?

How is that? Strapped to chairs for hours to force-feed them through tubes inserted in their Throats and Stomacks, sometimes in such a Manor, that this Force Feedings Caused Internal Bleedings and Throwing up of Blood?

How Humane and above all - Civilized.

With Present Medical Staff Ofcourse.


Ethical obligations of health professionals, including in relation to forcefeeding

The Special Rapporteur has received reports, many confirmed by investigations of the United States military,115 that health professionals in Guantánamo Bay have systematically violated widely accepted ethical standards set out in the United Nations Principles of Medical Ethics and the Declaration of Tokyo, in addition to well-established rules on medical confidentiality. Alleged violations include:

(a) breaching confidentiality by sharing medical records or otherwise disclosing health information for purposes of interrogation;

(b) participating in, providing advice for or being present during interrogations;

(c) being present during or engaging in non-consensual treatment, including drugging and force-feeding.

In sum, reports indicate that some health professionals have been complicit in abusive treatment of detainees detrimental to their health. Such unethical conduct violates the detainees’ right to health, as well as the duties of health professionals arising from the right to health.



posted on Feb, 18 2006 @ 09:46 PM
link   
Hi Beachcomba -

PSAs are Production Service Agreements and they're basically long and complex contracts that allow the oil companies to take oil out of the ground and charge the Iraqis for it.

Interesting what IncognitoGhostman had to say. Some of the money will have come from US taxpayers and some will have come from ripping off the Iraqis. An almost unreported fact - shortly after Dubya declared 'mission accomplished' (remember that rather expensive photo-op?) he signed an executive order giving himself access to the Oil For Food piggybank, and promptly emptied it of around $5bn.

The source for this is that well-known bunch of comsymps, the charity Christian Aid. It went completely unreported in the mainstream press.

As for SuperWesty:

"...you cant have it both ways. You cant car bomb people, perform suicide blasts in mosques and attack from civilian houses then claim you are protected under the Geneva Conventions when you’re caught. "

All these things you mention, then, are quite illegal and there will be extant laws under which the offenders can be tried as common criminals. My point is, you have to sort out the innocent from the guilty and the way to do that is a trial. If the US had nothing to hide about the legality of what they were up to they could do it in open court, surely?

"So wait, you blaming the US for the tactics of the insurgents? They are the ones who make it hard to distinguish between civilians and combatants and your blaming us for being confused? You have go to be kidding right?"

Just remind me... why is the US in Iraq? It was an unprovoked attack, which constitutes a war crime under the Geneva Conventions. (Why is it, by the way, that the US ALWAYS demands that its troops are given immunity from war crimes prosecutions whenever they move them anywhere, as has just happened in the Dominican Republic? A rhetorical question, I'll admit. But one I'd like answered, nonetheless.) Unprovoked war is, in the terms of the convention, the worst of all war crimes, "containing as it does the seeds of all the others". I'm quoting from memory, but I think I've got the sense of it.

So the strafing of innocent civilians and the use of chemical weapons (WP), both of which happened in Fallujah, is pretty inevitable.

So to return to your "point": what I'm saying, is that if your country were invaded by a foreign power, its cities bombed, chemical weapons used and the place liberally polluted for the next several million years with radioactive waste, would YOUR tactics be any different? That was my original point and you haven't answered it.

And PLEASE don't give me any of that 'liberation' hogwash. The Iraqis don't believe they've been liberated - that little illusion lasted barely a week. Recent opinion polls indicate that the US has made such a mess of the place that most of them actually think they were better off under Saddam - quite a formidable achievement, really.

Next stop Iran, though. More of the same. And the motive that ties it all together? Propping up the dollar...


link



posted on Feb, 18 2006 @ 09:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by rich23
An almost unreported fact - shortly after Dubya declared 'mission accomplished' (remember that rather expensive photo-op?) he signed an executive order giving himself access to the Oil For Food piggybank, and promptly emptied it of around $5bn.

The source for this is that well-known bunch of comsymps, the charity Christian Aid. It went completely unreported in the mainstream press.

Where did you hear about this information and can you find any supporting sources?



posted on Feb, 19 2006 @ 01:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by rich23
PSAs are Production Service Agreements and they're basically long and complex contracts that allow the oil companies to take oil out of the ground and charge the Iraqis for it.


Wait, how did that happen? That's like daylight robbery. Do you have any sources I could read up on this? It's quite unbelievable, and I'm a skeptic - I question everything.

Also if you could provide a link to the claim that the Iraqis think it was better under Saddam, it would be much appreciated. I'm hearing conflicting accounts here.

Thanks.



posted on Feb, 19 2006 @ 09:47 AM
link   
Hi Don'tTread,

I'm very sorry but I can't give you a link for the Christian Aid thing. I originally came across it through an article on www.informationclearinghouse.info, and there was a link to the original report, which I read. This was all at least 18 months ago. I can only suggest that you go to the Christian Aid site and search there. I am truly sorry not to be more helpful but my time is not unlimited.

Beachcomba,

Whoops! Having Googled the phrase, I got it slightly wrong - it's actually 'production SHARING agreements'. My apologies, but I can at least provide you with a link :

www.globalpolicy.org...

Googling the phrase 'production sharing agreements Iraq' will bring up a whole bunch of articles which you may also find useful.

But the stuff about the most recent opinion polls, sorry, I can't remember where I picked it up. It didn't surprise me in the least so I didn't fix on it too carefully. Enjoy "crude designs" though, it's a good read.

[edit on 19-2-2006 by rich23]



posted on Feb, 19 2006 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by rich23
But the stuff about the most recent opinion polls, sorry, I can't remember where I picked it up. It didn't surprise me in the least so I didn't fix on it too carefully. Enjoy "crude designs" though, it's a good read.


Thanks for the link, I'll be going over it later tonight.


As for the opinion polls, I wouldn't be suprised at that sort of results either, but I'd still like to save a link to it in my bookmarks. There are some people who would beg to differ. I doubt having a source that states otherwise would make much of a difference in changing their opinons, but it sure as hell would make them look silly



posted on Feb, 19 2006 @ 05:08 PM
link   
If I come across the link again, I'll try and save it. In the meantime, I find there's a lot of good information on

www.informationclearinghouse.info...



posted on Feb, 20 2006 @ 05:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by rich23
Well... when a DU shell impacts, it tends to vapourise, leaving an aerosol vapour of radioactive particles with a half-life in the millions of years. You probably haven't seen the pictures of babies born pretty much inside-out as a result of their mothers' exposure to this stuff, but I have.

Firstly, the radioactivity from DU is negligible when compared to other more ordinary sources of radiation like atmospheric radiation etc. In fact it acts as an excellent form of radiation protection. Secondly, DU decomposes through alpha decay and effects the epidermis only causing negligible damage to cell structure. The only concern from DU is its toxicity that is lethal. But once a shell explodes the chance of there being enough left to be consumed is unlikely to say the least. Apparently your knowledge on this topic is marginal at best and I suggest a through perusal of the Weaponry section before, you get carried away by gullible propaganda. I suggest you begin here :www.abovetopsecret.com...


From what I read of you as a person it wouldn't make much difference if you did: you'd find a way to rationalise this vileness.

Irrelevant & Unfounded.


You don't have to stand next to a pile of munitions to be affected. Plus DU, radioactivity aside, is massively toxic.

So proximity to; in your opinion- a concentrated source of radioactivity, plays a marginal role in getting radiation poisoning?? That is extremely illogical to say the least. The very nature of gamma decomposition and its distribution would suggest otherwise.


As for the "read up your source before you get cocky!" - the source TOLD you that the report had been suppressed by the WHO which had in turn been leant on by the US-driven IAEA.

The source has as I have mentioned marginalized the facts that contradict its viewpoint and instead highlighted the facts/opinions that suite its biased view. Also there is no conclusive proof to say that the IAEA is US driven. Also the major problems that the Europe and US had in referring Iran to the Security Council by the IAEA suggest the contrary to the "source's" insinuations.


The US has very pressing reasons for smothering debate on this issue and for covering up the scientific work surrounding it. Recently we've heard that one of NASA's leading climate scientists had his work suppressed when it revealed evidence of global warming actually being real.

The success of DU in War is undeniable. It has expedited the process exponentially, bringing the decisive result more quickly. This in turn has helped in preventing protracted conflicts like earlier wars, saving many more civilians than was possible before.

As for your aspersion on the White House's duplicity, that amounts to nothing more than slander. The role of DU poisoning is as much or a much greater issue to the US Military than to the Iraqi's especially, with the large amount of cases of Gulf War Illness and the large arsenal of DU that the Military employs.



Attempting to understand the world as it really is requires that one accepts that the people in power will lie to cover up their greed and errors.

That is perhaps the most fallacious piece of reasoning that I have come across. To claim to make such sweeping generalizations and refusing to accept the many compulsions and complexities of any policy decision typifies the naive and feckless propensity of a juvenile intellect.
Attempting to understand the world requires one to understand the compulsions and the complexities of any decision. The decision in employing DU is no different. The US is run not by some secretive demonic NWO cabal nor is it run by the Muppets, every decision that the administration takes, it is answerable to the US congress in full and any aberration by the Admin that is not the in the best interests of the US or its principles would see an impeachment. But that is another topic !



As for the Carlyle Group, it certainly seems to hoover up ex-premiers. The UK's very own John Major is on its board: not the most charismatic of prime ministers but one who seems to have been able to feather his own nest rather well.

That in no way is a crime by either John Major or the Carlyle Group. Neither is making profitable investments in investment companies.
As for the Qinetiq, the company under the British govt. ,was unable to get sufficient funding to properly utilize its potential and by deciding to sell a major stake in it not only has the British Govt. brought in the money, it has also raised the capital inflows to the company by allowing Carlyle to buy it. Now by floating the company in the markets it has brought the stock a huge profit. Does this mean Carlyle is to blame for good business sense or the British for lack of it ??
The deal was cleared by the Commission of European Communities as being acceptable to them. The report of this is below:
europa.eu.int...


I know for a fact that the French resistance certainly adhered to none of those ludicrous restrictions like 'carrying a fixed sign', 'openly bearing arms'.

The absurdity of the French resistance is immaterial here quite frankly. Had the Nazi's actually been around till 1949 they might have had a chance to sign the convention and might have tried the French Resistance as "terrorists"!


Let's face it. An alien power is occupying your country. That power is asset-stripping the institutions............
Would YOU wear a little badge saying "I'm a member of the official resistance"? And perhaps a nice big bulls-eye target on your T-shirt?

Obviously you are party to the popular delusion of chemical warfare, stealing oil, murdering US soldiers, etc propaganda. I don’t blame you; the truth is not always black and white. But nevertheless my proclivities and your prejudices are not on discussion here.
Any credible resistance must exhibit the same code of conduct that they expect to receive and must have the courage to fight war openly honoring its accepted traditions and code. Only the ability to do so will deem it as a credible resistance. It would be entitled to all the privileges that this entitles including POW's status.



But what makes it more interesting is that it makes it therefore more difficult to tell who's a genuine militiaman and who isn't. Which is why it's inevitable that some innocent people will be swept up in US military raids. What about them?

Generally, the capture and detention of suspects is done only after thorough intelligence but sometimes it is possible for an innocent person to be caught for terrorism. This may mean temporary detention but once a through check has been done to verify the person’s innocence, they are sent back to their country. This has happened to many in Camp X-ray who have been sent back to after their innocence has been confirmed. These are the risks of terrorism and sometimes the innocent get caught up due to the duplicity that the terrorists employ. But after due process and with co-operation from the captives unnecessary detention is minimized.
I think it is important to remeber that there are no nice people in war.




[edit on 20-2-2006 by IAF101]



posted on Feb, 20 2006 @ 06:18 PM
link   
Dear oh dear. You're going to have to do better than this, IAF.

"Firstly, the radioactivity from DU is negligible when compared to other more ordinary sources of radiation like atmospheric radiation etc. In fact it acts as an excellent form of radiation protection."

What you appear to be saying here - no, what the hell, what you ARE saying here whether you like it or not - is that DU actually protects people from nasty atmospheric radiation. It is, in fact, EXCELLENT at doing so, according to you. But (as if that were, in itself, not ridiculous enough) elsewhere you say

"As for the long term effects of DU, the most effect is on the people who stay for weeks on end a foot away from a pile of live DU rounds."

So it's not just MY opinion that DU is radioactive and has health effects, it's yours as well. I am shocked (and, indeed, awed) by your illogical attempt to have it both ways. Either DU protects us from nasty atmospheric radiation, or it's a contaminant. The two are mutually exclusive. Even you can see that, surely?

But oh, we're not done yet with shatteringly poor logic. You said:

"So proximity to; in your opinion- a concentrated source of radioactivity, plays a marginal role in getting radiation poisoning?? That is extremely illogical to say the least. The very nature of gamma decomposition and its distribution would suggest otherwise."

Two points here. Firstly, I actually said - now read it carefully this time, because even though you quoted it, you clearly didn't quite take it in -

"You don't have to stand next to a pile of munitions to be affected. Plus DU, radioactivity aside, is massively toxic."

Now, the point that I was making is that if you take a DU shell and vapourise it, as happens on impact, you spread the radioactivity around. This is not mutually exclusive with the idea that a pile of DU shells will be a more concentrated radiation source. Far from it. But wait - let's look at this again -

"The very nature of gamma decomposition and its distribution would suggest otherwise."

GAMMA decomposition? Yet earlier on, you say

"Secondly, DU decomposes through alpha decay and effects the epidermis only causing negligible damage to cell structure."

Gamma radiation or the altogether more healthful (no, I AM being sarcastic here) alpha? Please make up your mind. Also, DU vapour can be inhaled or absorbed through mucous membranes, not just the epidermis.

As for the stuff about 'reading up on your source', with similarly breathtaking inattention to logic, you're trying to use a source that says the US is altering data to suit itself to make the US' own argument.

"The success of DU in War is undeniable. It has expedited the process exponentially, bringing the decisive result more quickly. This in turn has helped in preventing protracted conflicts like earlier wars, saving many more civilians than was possible before."

Oh, RIGHT. The war in Iraq is OVER! Of COURSE! (Slaps forehead.)

Actually, the success of DU in 'War' (why the capital? Do you like 'War' so much that you feel it should have a capital letter, like 'God'?) is utterly open to debate. If you think a 'decisive result' has been obtained in Iraq... well, the US is building its billion-dollar armoured embassy and a whole BUNCH of bases in the deep desert... but peace is, IMHO, a loooooong way off.

And to argue that the purpose of using DU is to prevent civilian loss of life is truly twisted. But hey, par for the course.

"As for your aspersion on the White House's duplicity, that amounts to nothing more than slander. The role of DU poisoning is as much or a much greater issue to the US Military than to the Iraqi's especially, with the large amount of cases of Gulf War Illness and the large arsenal of DU that the Military employs."

Oh those poor brave boys... they signed up for the military. Don't get me wrong, I do have some sympathy. They're almost certainly misinformed as to the risks... but to some extent, they had a choice. Iraqi civilians don't. The US is there whether they like it or not. And they don't. And that's the problem.

Oh... slander. It's actually a matter of record (from people like Karen Kwiatkowski, among others) that the neocons slanted intel to suit their own purposes. They LIED. You and Anne Coulter must have such fun conversations together... you have similarly selective approaches to reality.

"The US is run not by some secretive demonic NWO cabal"

At no point did I use the term NWO. However, the junta currently in charge is more obsessively secretive than any administration, certainly since Nixon and arguably way before.

"Obviously you are party to the popular delusion of chemical warfare, stealing oil, murdering US soldiers, etc propaganda."

Um... not a terribly clear sentence, but I do think that one (just one among many) reasons for invading Iraq was to get control of the oil for the multinationals. That is, after all, why Qasim and Mossadegh were deposed (by the CIA, remember) all those years ago.

And the current deal that the Iraqis get on THEIR oil is quite a rip-off:

here's an article about production sharing agreements

" These are the risks of terrorism and sometimes the innocent get caught up due to the duplicity that the terrorists employ. But after due process and with co-operation from the captives unnecessary detention is minimized.
I think it is important to remeber that there are no nice people in war."

I think it would have been more accurate to say "these are the risks of STATE terrorism". After 'due process'? Oh no. There IS no due process. That's what the fuss is about. The LACK of due process. Plus, torture of innocent people. That's why many of the people there, after, what, going on five years being tortured, want to kill themselves. They've had enough of being tortured and now death is preferable.

There's a film coming out in the UK shortly about a few British lads going off to Afghanistan to see some relatives and attend a wedding. They got caught up in a US sweep, recognised as foreigners and whisked off to Camp X-ray for several years. They NEVER got due process. They got released, eventually, without apology or the chance to even know what it was they were supposed to have done, and it seems that the UK government (ever cravenly eager to back up the US war crims) was happy to arrest not only the lads themselves, but also the ACTORS WHO PLAYED THEM on their return from a European film festival. All the white people involved with the film sailed through Immigration unmolested.

That's the kind of world we're living in. A person with any kind of moral compass would feel disgusted by this kind of behaviour rather than be the apologist for those who display it.



posted on Feb, 20 2006 @ 09:32 PM
link   
John Pace retired recently as human rights chief for the human rights chief for the UN assistance mission in Iraq (not sure what that's about, but anyway):



www.timesofmalta.com...

US 'aware' of Iraq torture
Herman Grech

The US is "aware" of torture taking place in Iraqi prisons, according to the outgoing Maltese UN human rights chief in Iraq.

"Yes, torture is happening now, mainly in illegal detention places. Such centres are mostly being run by militia that have been absorbed by the police force," says John Pace, who retired last week as human rights chief for the UN assistance mission in Iraq.

In a frank interview with The Times, Dr Pace says photos and forensic records have proved that torture was rife inside detention centres. Though the process of release has been speeded up, there are an estimated 23,000 people in detention, of whom 80 to 90 per cent are innocent.

He says the Baghdad morgue received 1,100 bodies in July alone, about 900 of whom bore evidence of torture or summary execution. That continued throughout the year and last December there were 780 bodies, including 400 having gunshot wounds or wounds as those caused by electric drills.


Why does Saddam get to slam his shoe on the railing and act like a jackass in court?

Are the Iraqis getting justice? Seems to me like Saddam is being gladhanded, probably to appease Sunni interests as allies against Iran. Seems like ol' Saddam's got protectors, wouldn't you say? Ah, maybe he's just a lookalike anyway. He looks more "satanic" with much bigger eyebrows than the older saddam. This saddam's more "saddam" than old saddam.


Anyway, if good intel comes from torture, of course they will use it to find an IED or something. That's the point of war. Wait, are we at war with Iraq or just some bad guys in Iraq? I get so confused. The article says these are mostly innocent people being tortured.

What doesn't change is that this interview, if accurate, indicates a lack of US control. We're finding 1000 bodies a month from "illegal"(?) detention centers run by "militia"?


[edit on 20-2-2006 by smallpeeps]



posted on Feb, 21 2006 @ 08:15 AM
link   

Washington Post

The Navy's former general counsel warned Pentagon officials two years before the Abu Ghraib prison scandal that circumventing international agreements on torture and detainees' treatment would invite abuse, according to a published report.

Legal theories granting the president the right to authorize abuse in spite of the Geneva Conventions were unlawful, dangerous and erroneous, Alberto J. Mora advised officials in a secret memo.

The memo from July 7, 2004, recounted Mora's 2 1/2-year effort to halt a policy that he feared would authorize cruelty toward suspected terrorists.

Mora said Navy intelligence officers reported in 2002 that military-intelligence interrogators at the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, were engaging in escalating levels of physical and psychological abuse rumored to have been authorized at a high level in Washington.

Well I guess there you have it - the Memo that Allows US Goverment to be Above the International Laws and Conventions, a Memo that authorizes Torture, Abuse, and that is clearly contrary to everything we were ever taught about American values!

But thats O-KEY - these people are Terrorists, they are Evildoers and they Deserve it, right?



Well, let's just Spice it up a little bit:


One Thousand A Month Tortured To Death In Iraq



Proving that Abu Ghraib and Gitmo are the tip of the iceberg, the outgoing UN human rights chief dropped a bombshell when he told an obscure Maltese newspaper that as many as a thousand detainees a month are being tortured to death in Iraq.

Dr. John Pace told the obscure Times of Malta newspaper:
"The Baghdad morgue received 1,100 bodies in July alone, about 900 of whom bore evidence of torture or summary execution. That continued throughout the year and last December there were 780 bodies, including 400 having gunshot wounds or wounds as those caused by electric drills."

What is this? Democratic Iraq?

1000 People DIE of Torture every Month?

Are the US forces in Iraq Aware of that Fact?

Well - OFCOURSE THEY ARE!

Might as well bring Saddam back to Power!

Wait - he did not want to Privatize Iraqi Oil reserves to foreign (mostly Amerian) Corporations! Let's just leave it like it is, keep the oil pumping, and leave Iraqi people to kill and slaughter each other on Month-to-Month bases!



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join