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 Judge: OK to extract confessions by threatening rape

page: 7
59
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 07:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Reaper2137
if I remember and I could be wrong. I'm sorry I don't have a site or source I read it in the news paper. here goes...

I thought that because he was not a united states citizen he isn't subject to us law he isn't able to sue he isn't able to do much any thing. while I don't think its right to do what they did to this kid. its not right but he isn't a u.s citizen he can't do anything..

side note the geneva convention is for warfare aginst others who have signed that thing. Iraq and afgan haven't signed it I could be wrong I know iraq hadden't so I don't see how its relivent to the con vo. just debating sorry for my bad spelling.. hope it helps..


your 100% right! thats why the judge made the right choice. the judge is to interprit the law and no laws were broken. facts are facts. please provide facts that this is unlawful and i will change my mind. You cant and you wont find anything!




posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 08:00 PM
link   
For one of the very few times in my 26 years I am at a loss of words.



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 08:02 PM
link   
This is one HUGE problem with law.

How did they argue the wrong topic?

Sex with a child is molestation. The charge should be threatening molestation.

Am I missing something?



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 08:04 PM
link   
thing is the us law applys only to us citizens he isn't one so child molesting doesn't work. while its wrong in a leagal sence they didn't do any thing wrong.



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 08:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by zroth

This is one HUGE problem with law.

How did they argue the wrong topic?

Sex with a child is molestation. The charge should be threatening molestation.

Am I missing something?


they did not do it so get over it. and it happend in cuba so no USA laws apply.



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 08:10 PM
link   
How long before this is ruled OK on you and me though? Five years? Ten?

And how many police officers, if using this tactic, would eventually do it, when A person refuses to cooperate?

This is a "slippery slope" if ever I saw one.

They already altered the Miranda rights while most people weren't looking.



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 08:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by camaro68ss

Originally posted by zroth

This is one HUGE problem with law.

How did they argue the wrong topic?

Sex with a child is molestation. The charge should be threatening molestation.

Am I missing something?


they did not do it so get over it. and it happend in cuba so no USA laws apply.


what part of "inalienable" is so difficult to understand?

We do not need law to GRANT them rights. We need law to WITH HOLD their rights. If no US laws apply to them, then what we did is obviously illegal, as we infringed on their rights illegally.

Our constitution is not there to GIVE you rights. It is there to limit the rights of government.

[edit on 12-8-2010 by bigfatfurrytexan]



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 08:23 PM
link   
the us is just fallowing suit with the UK's big brother system is it really that much to guess that's what were heading to in the us. the brits just bent over and took it. leaders and dictars have learned you don't take freedom over night you do it slowly like a million little deaths of freedom untill you wake up one morning and find out its agaisn't the law to post on ats..



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 08:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by name pending
 


While I support the war, and I support 99.9% of the troops, I feel we HAVE to maintain the moral high ground! Our pretext for the war was a human rights pretext. Our pretext for policing the world is a human rights pretext. Why on earth would we not pay the utmost attention to the treatment of our captives? It is imperative that we spread the same "inalienable, self-evident" rights to our enemies that we assign to ourselves. Anything less is abhorrant and counter-productive!


I mean no offense by this...but what planet are you from? Where have you been for the last 10 years?

What moral high ground do we really have to maintain? You support the war?? Really? What is this human rights pretext you speak of? We have admitted to torturing prisoners.. so where is the "human rights" part of that issue?

I was under the impression we were in Afghanistan, attacking the Taliban because they refused to turn over Osama Bin Laden. I thought we were in Iraq because they were making and stockpiling weapons of mass destruction that we could not wait to get evidence for because the evidence may "come on the form of a mushroom cloud". So please.. explain to me what this human rights pretext is? Was our reasons for occupying these countries redefined and I just simply missed the meeting?

Can you point out these "inalienable, self evident" rights that we have assigned ourselves? We no longer have those in the US. If we did, there would be no "free speech zones", there would be no gun control laws, and Americans would not be permitted to be charge under the Patriot Act, held indefinitely, without contact with family or an attorney. We would not have warrantless wiretapping, spying on our e-mails, and we would not have members of ATS whose post were added to some document listing them as potential domestic terrorist (which for the life of me I can not find anywhere on ATS anymore..can someone help me with it?)

Sorry.. but I do not support the wars. They are illegal. We have no right to be there. I do not support our troops. I used to, and I used to tell myself they are just following orders, but no more. They are following illegal orders from a rogue government, while they have an oath to uphold the Constitution. If that was an oath taken seriously, they are violating their own oath. It's really that simple now.

More on topic.... this ruling is absurd at best. I hope for the sake of that judge that his wife is not threatened with rape, or his child, or him self. Then again.... does anyone expect anything less from a Military Judge? This is brought to us by the same people who said it was ok to torture others.



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 08:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrWendal

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by name pending
 


While I support the war, and I support 99.9% of the troops, I feel we HAVE to maintain the moral high ground! Our pretext for the war was a human rights pretext. Our pretext for policing the world is a human rights pretext. Why on earth would we not pay the utmost attention to the treatment of our captives? It is imperative that we spread the same "inalienable, self-evident" rights to our enemies that we assign to ourselves. Anything less is abhorrant and counter-productive!


I mean no offense by this...but what planet are you from? Where have you been for the last 10 years?

What moral high ground do we really have to maintain? You support the war?? Really? What is this human rights pretext you speak of? We have admitted to torturing prisoners.. so where is the "human rights" part of that issue?

I was under the impression we were in Afghanistan, attacking the Taliban because they refused to turn over Osama Bin Laden. I thought we were in Iraq because they were making and stockpiling weapons of mass destruction that we could not wait to get evidence for because the evidence may "come on the form of a mushroom cloud". So please.. explain to me what this human rights pretext is? Was our reasons for occupying these countries redefined and I just simply missed the meeting?

Can you point out these "inalienable, self evident" rights that we have assigned ourselves? We no longer have those in the US. If we did, there would be no "free speech zones", there would be no gun control laws, and Americans would not be permitted to be charge under the Patriot Act, held indefinitely, without contact with family or an attorney. We would not have warrantless wiretapping, spying on our e-mails, and we would not have members of ATS whose post were added to some document listing them as potential domestic terrorist (which for the life of me I can not find anywhere on ATS anymore..can someone help me with it?)

Sorry.. but I do not support the wars. They are illegal. We have no right to be there. I do not support our troops. I used to, and I used to tell myself they are just following orders, but no more. They are following illegal orders from a rogue government, while they have an oath to uphold the Constitution. If that was an oath taken seriously, they are violating their own oath. It's really that simple now.

More on topic.... this ruling is absurd at best. I hope for the sake of that judge that his wife is not threatened with rape, or his child, or him self. Then again.... does anyone expect anything less from a Military Judge? This is brought to us by the same people who said it was ok to torture others.


you can talk about all the USA laws you want but it did not happen in the USA. so till you find me a law that said what they did illegal then no harm no faul



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 08:28 PM
link   
reply to post by camaro68ss
 


Gitmo should be considered US soil... as any other embassies in the world. To proclaim US laws are not in effect there would be like to say they do not control that land and should give it back.

Now international law is what it is... complicated!



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 08:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by camaro68ss

they did not do it so get over it.


and there you have it folks. this is why things will never change.

Iraq didn't have WMDs. Can we get over that?

Bin Laden didn't blow up the towers. Can we get over that?

Gulf of Tonkin was a false flag. Can we get over that?

The Fed was never ratified properly. Can we get over that?




[edit on 12-8-2010 by zroth]



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 08:56 PM
link   
gitmo is us soil... with that being said. they didn't break the law, the law is only apllyed to us citizens if they are not there don't have rights.. this is not leagly wrong. and screw you to who ever said the troops are wrong. we fallow orders by the prez. there is a system in place for that. we arn't fallowing a rouge empire its still the us while the leaders may be dumb as hell.. we still fallow orders we don't all rape and tourtcher that is some of us. and while I'd like to shoot them in the head for it. that doesn't make us all wrong. I was over there.. I helped support the schools by giving them things they needed I didn't have to fire a single shot and I did convoy sec. not all of us are bad. we build we teach we help. and While I don't agree why were over there. we are. its a fact obama said there would be change. I haven't seen it. I voted for him and now I feel a fool I would rather have clinton as the prez



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 09:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Reaper2137
gitmo is us soil... with that being said. they didn't break the law, the law is only apllyed to us citizens if they are not there don't have rights.. this is not leagly wrong. ...

You're probably right, it's not legally wrong. I'll leave that for the lawyers to argue.

It is lawfully wrong. It is just plain wrong. That is why we are all sick about it. And we cannot overcome the legal regime that does such things.



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 09:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Reaper2137
 


Here is the law, extracted from the Geneva Convention page on Wikipedia


Grave breaches

Not all violations of the treaty are treated equally. The most serious crimes are termed grave breaches, and provide a legal definition of a war crime. Grave breaches of the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions include the following acts if committed against a person protected by the convention:

* willful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments
* willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health
* compelling one to serve in the forces of a hostile power
* willfully depriving one of the right to a fair trial

Also considered grave breaches of the Fourth Geneva Convention are the following:

* taking of hostages
* extensive destruction and appropriation of property not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly
* unlawful deportation, transfer, or confinement.


Technically US officials and soldiers "just following orders" should be trailed in international courts, but the rest of the world is lacking "cohones" to do so.



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 09:19 PM
link   
once again we arn't fighting a geneva country so its doesn't apply



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 09:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Reaper2137
once again we arn't fighting a geneva country so its doesn't apply


we aren't fighting a country.

we are fighting the boogieman.

we are fighting the process of instilling fear but we are not attacking the MSM.



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 09:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Reaper2137
 


I know it's not the best source but still...


The President has determined that the Geneva Convention applies to
the Taliban detainees
, but not to the al-Qaida detainees. Al-Qaida is
not a state party to the Geneva Convention; it is a foreign terrorist
group. As such, its members are not entitled to POW status.

Source: answers.google.com...

Seems to me your country is playing on words and walking on a very thin line...



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 09:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by gagol
reply to post by Reaper2137
 


... not to the al-Qaida detainees. Al-Qaida is
not a state party to the Geneva Convention; it is a foreign terrorist
group...



For those supposedely exempt: Al Qaeda Itself Does Not Exist


There really is no relationship between Al Qaeda and the Afghan opium trade. That is because Al Qaeda itself does not exist, except in the fevered imaginations of neo-cons and Likudniks, some of whom, I suspect, also know it is a myth, but find it extremely useful as a bogeyman to spook the public and the politicians to acquiesce in otherwise unacceptable policy initiatives at home and abroad.

Source: www.twf.org...

And:

Two former CIA officials have admitted to creating a fake video in which intelligence officers dressed up as Osama Bin Laden and his cronies in an effort to defame the terrorist leader throughout the middle east.

Source: www.infowars.com...

[edit on 12-8-2010 by gagol]



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 09:30 PM
link   
So... There are actually people here arguing that “Everything is ok! Nothing to see here, he is not a US citizen so no laws were broken”. “Show me the law that has been broken!” they scream... As if we need a law to tell us that this is not OK.

Does it change anything if I told you he is Canadian? Or do you close your eyes and skip over that part? Plug yours ears maybe? Get angry because someone is trying to make you THINK?

Omar was born in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Visited the Toronto Zoo as a child. Probably enjoyed the occasional Dairy Queen treat. Most likely visited the park and played on the swings. I’m sure that makes him all too human, which is what people who would agree with this torture don’t want. They are the war and fear mongers, not Omar.

Go ahead. Threaten a 15 year old Canadian citizen with rape all you want in order to extract a confession. See how far it gets you. How long until you cannot look at the face staring back in the mirror because you are haunted by what you have done or condoned?

This "us versus them" mentality is primitive. Capital P.



new topics

top topics



 
59
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join