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.

 

US Torture (warning, graphic)

page: 14
24
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 06:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alxandro
Question for you, how do you know they are 100% innocent?


One does not prove his innocence.
We hire judges and court systems to prove some ones guild.

Maybe not in your book, but in most western countries it works like that by law, even in the US, officialy.




posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 09:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by laiguana
reply to post by jaamaan
 


That's mild compared to the torture that exists in the dungeons of other countries. And much of the pictures you posted occurred from one incident, that being Abu Ghraib...so no you haven't convinced me thoroughly of your position. Not one bit.


Well i have to say that your post does not "convinced me thoroughly of your position".

The fact that other countries have torture dungeons does not justify torture in the US.
And i do not realy care what the exact location of the torture activities is/was.
What i do care about is that the US, and other allies, commit these torture activities while trying to sell it as freedom and democracy.
Most international agreements and laws state that these torture activities are illegal and when commited that the people responsible should be trailed for war crimes.



posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 09:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alxandro
Yes, I agree. WE ARE binded by international law, but you forget that some of these people would waste no time in spitting on this law. They wear civilian clothing, wear no official soldiers uniform and use innocent people as human shields, so why should Geneva even apply to them?


Well i firmly believe that this Geneva convention treaty applies to all people, no matter what clothes they wear.
That is why the Geneva convention is applying to them.

(edit to add)



Article 3 has been called a "Convention in miniature." It is the only article of the Geneva Conventions that applies in non-international conflicts.[2]

It describes minimal protections which must be adhered to by all individuals within a signatory's territory during an armed conflict not of an international character (regardless of citizenship or lack thereof): Noncombatants, combatants who have laid down their arms, and combatants who are hors de combat (out of the fight) due to wounds, detention, or any other cause shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, including prohibition of outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment. The passing of sentences must also be pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples. Article 3's protections exist even though no one is classified as a prisoner of war.
Geneva_Conventions


[edit on 29-4-2009 by jaamaan]



posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by 5thElement


Gitmo is IMO nothing more then glorified concentration camp.

Nobody is serving time there... Last time I checked, people serve time after they are sentenced on the court of law.

I do personally believe that some of them could be guilty, the thing is, none of us really know


[edit on 29-4-2009 by 5thElement]


I think a better term is a PoW camp. This means those there can be retained until the war ends, and further prosecuted for crimes.



posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by jaamaan
Could you please show me a document that actualy thates this ?
"illegal soldiers under international law."

Because i cannot find anything and i actualy doubt something like that exist in any "legal" document.
Just because the US government got away with torture by using smart termology does not make it legal.


You know what is interesting? when I google jaamaan I get 450,000 hits and I don't think too many have anything to do with you, so I kind of missed your point in your cross reference googling.

I would narrow your search in google to International Humanitarian Law under Article 43 and Protocol 1 to start....

The bottom line is just because there is a war zone doesn’t give everyone the right to take up arms. There are many responsibilities (pages and pages) for legal combatants to follow such as the wear of distinct uniforms. These combatants at Getmo and other place basically followed zero responsibilities of what is considered a legal combatant.


[edit on 29-4-2009 by Xtrozero]



posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by jaamaan

Originally posted by Alxandro
Yes, I agree. WE ARE binded by international law, but you forget that some of these people would waste no time in spitting on this law. They wear civilian clothing, wear no official soldiers uniform and use innocent people as human shields, so why should Geneva even apply to them?


Well i firmly believe that this Geneva convention treaty applies to all people, no matter what clothes they wear.
That is why the Geneva convention is applying to them.




Sooo, following international law can we treat them as spies since they do not wear a uniform? This would mean they have little protection and can be executed.



posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alxandro
reply to post by Malcram
 



Originally posted by Malcram

 


So I suppose if I break into your house tonight and subject you and your family to weeks of "humiliation, isolation, sleep-deprivation and sex acts", maybe followed by a bit of waterboarding, beatings, use of attack dogs etc, all done by force, that you will be happy to dismiss this as a "hazing" prank and wouldn't dare to call it "torture"?

No?



Weak analogy, nobody has broken into anyone's home, they were taken from their homeland and put in Gitmo.
Now they get three square meals a day.

Maybe you should contact Obama and tell him you are willing to Adopt a Detainee too.


Weak rebuttal. And predictably you completely avoided the question. The analogy is startlingly apt! The US invaded their "HOMEland" (your word) - in many cases by literally breaking into their homes in the middle of the night - and kidnapped them and tortured them. You are making no sense.

More "house raid footage"
Kill Everyone


[edit on 29-4-2009 by Malcram]



posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by jaamaan
Well i firmly believe that this Geneva convention treaty applies to all people, no matter what clothes they wear.
That is why the Geneva convention is applying to them.


Originally posted by Xtrozero
Sooo, following international law can we treat them as spies since they do not wear a uniform? This would mean they have little protection and can be executed.


Maybe you missed my post on this so i repost it here.
It has clear defined guideline on how to tread any one who gets captured.
Sooo no executions nor torture.




Article 3 has been called a "Convention in miniature." It is the only article of the Geneva Conventions that applies in non-international conflicts.[2]

It describes minimal protections which must be adhered to by all individuals within a signatory's territory during an armed conflict not of an international character (regardless of citizenship or lack thereof): Noncombatants, combatants who have laid down their arms, and combatants who are hors de combat (out of the fight) due to wounds, detention, or any other cause shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, including prohibition of outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment. The passing of sentences must also be pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples. Article 3's protections exist even though no one is classified as a prisoner of war.

Source




[edit on 29-4-2009 by jaamaan]

[edit on 29-4-2009 by jaamaan]

[edit on 29-4-2009 by jaamaan]



posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Originally posted by jaamaan
Could you please show me a document that actualy thates this ?
"illegal soldiers under international law."

Because i cannot find anything and i actualy doubt something like that exist in any "legal" document.
Just because the US government got away with torture by using smart termology does not make it legal.


You know what is interesting? when I google jaamaan I get 450,000 hits and I don't think too many have anything to do with you, so I kind of missed your point in your cross reference googling.

I would narrow your search in google to International Humanitarian Law under Article 43 and Protocol 1 to start....

The bottom line is just because there is a war zone doesn’t give everyone the right to take up arms. There are many responsibilities (pages and pages) for legal combatants to follow such as the wear of distinct uniforms. These combatants at Getmo and other place basically followed zero responsibilities of what is considered a legal combatant.


[edit on 29-4-2009 by Xtrozero]


If illegal soldiers exist, like you claim, than there should be documentation stating this.
I dont believe such a "legal" document exists.
Maybe you can prove me wrong.



posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by jaamaan
Maybe you missed my post on this so i repost it here.
It has clear defined guideline on how to tread any one who gets captured.
Sooo no executions nor torture.


So how do you explain the treatment of US troops captured in Iraq?

They were tortured and executed. No one following the GC then.



posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Malcram
- in many cases by literally breaking into their homes in the middle of the night - and kidnapped them and tortured them. You are making no sense.


Thank you for posting this, it is a horrific truth for a whole bunch of people in far away countries.
Thank you for posting those videos, i knew what it looked like, i have seen a lot of material, but it was a frightning refresher.



posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by jerico65

Originally posted by jaamaan
Maybe you missed my post on this so i repost it here.
It has clear defined guideline on how to tread any one who gets captured.
Sooo no executions nor torture.


So how do you explain the treatment of US troops captured in Iraq?

They were tortured and executed. No one following the GC then.


What do you want me to explain ?
That every one who commits war crimes like torture should be trailed likewise?

Or that this thread is called "US torture".



posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 06:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by jaamaan
What do you want me to explain ?
That every one who commits war crimes like torture should be trailed likewise?


Sorry to burst your bubble, but if you want to use the Geneva Conventions, it applies to everyone, not just the enemy.

Which means that the US Soldiers that were captured by Iraqis; tortured, mutilated, and executed should have been treated according to the GC, just like the Iraqis rolled up by US forces.



Originally posted by jaamaan
Or that this thread is called "US torture".


Big deal. A one sided discussion ("Oh, geez, the US is Soooooooo evil") isn't going to solve a thing.



posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 06:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Divinorumus
If these creeps had murdered your son or daughter in cold blood, would you still weep for these sacks of scum? Torture not only can extract information, it serves as a deterrent to those that are thinking about committing cold blooded murder in the future. Let those pictures serve as a warning to others that think they have nothing to fear or loose when they murder the innocent in the name of whatever b.s. they believe and feel justifies their acts and actions.

More pictures to be release, eh? GOOD!

[edit on 24-4-2009 by Divinorumus]


Ok heres the way to look at it i think. Yes i would be insanely angry at anyone, at killing anyone. because all life is sacred. We all know this yet somehow it always gets back burnered when a form of anger promotes retribution.

The way they handled this torture seems like a dare i say, not extremely violent, yet de-humanizing, as if they knew how to insult them but yet it seems in that it infuriates more rerligionists to react and become the dreaded fearorist(bad idea for both i think..) Yet yes, these people would by nature and belief be led to riots which always result in some form of angry mob revenge on someone, or at least an efigy.. which i term causal and reactional group think. There are differing gradients of these such as america for instance, we hold adult, civilised rallies, yet briutality by forces still persists unprovoked quite a few times it has happened in our past and present.

And thinking of the past, and psychological realities within culturaly perceived timelines..nothing america does makes sense but to its own paradigmical contrivances..so it all to me seems at this point, against a grain of vision upon the universe..misguided. Perhaps by design..or decadence.

[edit on 29-4-2009 by mastermind77]



posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by jerico65

Originally posted by jaamaan
What do you want me to explain ?
That every one who commits war crimes like torture should be trailed likewise?


Sorry to burst your bubble, but if you want to use the Geneva Conventions, it applies to everyone, not just the enemy.

Which means that the US Soldiers that were captured by Iraqis; tortured, mutilated, and executed should have been treated according to the GC, just like the Iraqis rolled up by US forces.



Originally posted by jaamaan
Or that this thread is called "US torture".


Big deal. A one sided discussion ("Oh, geez, the US is Soooooooo evil") isn't going to solve a thing.


Which is what makes the people who do such things to captured US soldiers criminals, for which they should be tried and punished.

But if the US tortures or otherwise breaks the Geneva Convention then it is also criminal.

You can't justify the US Administration's criminal acts by pointing to the criminal acts of others.

They signed the Geneva convention, which means they must abide by it.

[edit on 29-4-2009 by Malcram]



posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 06:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Malcram
They signed the Geneva convention, which means they must abide by it.


I agree with everything you said, but you do know that according to the GC, if you're captured fighting in civilian clothing, you really don't have any rights and the troops capturing you can quickly make you assume room temperture?



posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 06:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by jerico65

Originally posted by Malcram
They signed the Geneva convention, which means they must abide by it.


I agree with everything you said, but you do know that according to the GC, if you're captured fighting in civilian clothing, you really don't have any rights and the troops capturing you can quickly make you assume room temperture?


Not true.



War and the Law

In particular, press reports indicate that members of the Republican Guard, as well as Ba’athist Party “militia,” have discarded their uniforms, and fired upon Coalition forces wearing civilian clothing. This constitutes a violation of the laws of war, for which the individuals may be tried as war criminals.

Individuals who engage in hostilities wearing civilian clothing are unlawful combatants, they need not be accorded the rights and privileges of POWs under the Geneva Conventions (although they still must be treated humanely), and can be subject to prosecution and punishment for their hostile actions – even if they have violated no other provisions of the laws of war.


So they must still be treated humanely and given a fair trial, rather than having no rights and being subject to torture or even summary execution, as you wrongly suggest.

And by your reckoning, if the Iraqis or Afghans find any US soldiers fighting while not in proper uniform, then I suppose it's OK to "make them assume room temperature"?



Pentagon Defends Use of Civilian Clothes

The Pentagon on Friday defended the use of some civilian clothes by U.S. special operations forces, a tactic used to help them blend in with the local population.

Alleging war crimes, Bush administration officials complained bitterly last week that Iraqi paramilitary forces dressed as civilians, faked surrenders and used other battlefield ruses to kill American soldiers.

Asked at a Pentagon press conference why it is OK for American commando troops to take off their uniforms, but a crime when the Iraqis did it, Defense Department spokeswoman Victoria Clarke said she thought American forces wear something that distinguishes them from civilians, but deferred the question for a later answer.

The issue is a subject of disagreement among Pentagon legal advisers and policy makers. Some officials have said for some time that it is a gray area that needs to be settled as a policy, another defense official said on condition of anonymity.

Special operations forces are often allowed what the military calls "relaxed grooming standards."

In the fight against Taliban and al-Qaida in Afghanistan, for example, special forces wore long hair and beards to blend in with the local Muslim population.

Many wore only parts of their uniform - for instance camouflaged pants with a T-shirt and baseball cap or a camouflaged jacket with an Arab head wrap or scarf.


See also: Soldiers in Civvies

Fighting in Civvies: Didn't We Do That?

And I wonder, under the scenario I gave earlier - of Chinese troops on the streets of America - if American citizens would bother to wear uniforms before taking out their occupiers? Or if these American citizens would bother to adhere to the Geneva Convention then? I think not. What do you think US citizens would do to any occupying soldiers they captured? Anyone remember the LA riots? Yet you're surprised that Iraqis don't follow this code with regard to members of an occupying force in their country?

Of course what they do to captures US soldiers is abominable. But the US signed the Geneva Conventions, and the US military represents a State. It must abide by Law, no matter what. If the US Administration cannot abide by the Laws of War then perhaps it should not have invaded and occupied countries which had not attacked them in the first place. It has failed to do that and has lost credibility as a result.

[edit on 29-4-2009 by Malcram]



posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 07:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Malcram
So they must still be treated humanely and given a fair trial, rather than having no human rights and being subject to torture or even summary execution, as you wrongly imply.


You're right. They can't be executed, but they can be tried as war criminals.


Originally posted by Malcram
And by your reckoning, if the Iraqis or Afghans find any US soldiers fighting while not in proper uniform, then I suppose it's OK to "make them assume room temperature"?


Well, they capture US troops in full uniform and torture and execute them.....


And in Special Operations, we're pretty much told if you get captured, things aren't going to be going too well for you. And the guys I saw had on full uniforms, but long hair and beards, or they wore Arab scarves.


Originally posted by Malcram
Of course what they do to captures US soldiers is abominable. But the US signed the Geneva Conventions, and the US military represents a State. It must abide by Law, no matter what. It has failed to do that and has lost credibility as a result.


The US signed the GC, we have to follow every rule and finding. Yet, the terrorists are allowed to torture and execute US troops that are captured.

And you don't find that asinine at all?



posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 07:48 PM
link   
reply to post by jerico65
 


I just said it was abominable.

But you do realize that just because one person does something inhumane and illegal, that doesn't mean it's OK for you to do it too?

And you also realize that that US has attacked, invaded and is occupying other peoples countries, don't you? What did you think would happen? What would US citizens do in their position?


[edit on 29-4-2009 by Malcram]



posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 07:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Malcram
I just said it was abominable.

But you do realize that just because one person does something inhumane and illegal, that doesn't mean it's OK for you to do it too?


Do you honestly thing that all this crap about the torture memos is going to stop the terrorists from torturing and executing US troops that are captured?



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join