The Torture Question
POSTED BY: canttakesky
UPDATED: Sunday, October 30, 2005 21:30
VIEWED: 10585
PAGE 15 of 16
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn Mac Cumhal:
There are only two kinds of combatants. Those protected by the law and those not. The Geneva Conventions spells out those who are protected; those who are not are unlawful combatants. It doesn’t take a brain surgeon to figure that out.
Why do you think civil law sets out what is unlawful rather what is lawful?
It's part of the Innocent until proven guilty stance.
Figure that out, Finn.
Quote:
Tell that to the servicemen who are now serving time for their unlawful treatment of detainees at Abu Ghraib. Sounds to me like you just want to blanket the US with the word torture, whether it’s true or not.
Yeah, and the torture, or tough love or whatever you want to call it to make it all warm and cuddly, just stopped all of a sudden.
Sounds like you want to blanket the US with the word 'innocent' and ignore any possible wrong doing.
Quote:
Possibly to protect them from people like you who want to accuse them of practicing torture simply because you’ve decided that the interrogation wasn’t “simple?” People who have a political axe to grind against the US or its actions in Iraq who want to impose or punish the US for perceived malfeasance or just political disagreement could use this court to attack the US.
Right Finn, people like me. How cunning of you, from my stance of seeing things being done to the detainees as 'stepping over the line' you have managed to deduce that I am really Onasty'Man Fredon-Hatin Bin-Bastard.
Of course I criticised an aspect of American policy, which proves I'm an evil freedom/America hating Commie-Nazi Terrorist.
Quote:
But mostly, it’s because I don’t think that Americans believe that our people should be tried under a court that is not sanctioned by a Constitution ratified by the People.
Please tell me you see the hypocrisy in your own words.
America expects the entire international community to be bound by international law, save Americans themselves, of course.
So why is it that this court is fine to try everyone, save Americans?
Are they better than the rest of us?
But you’re in good company with the other nations that have long histories of respecting Human rights and conducting fair trials who also don't recognise the ICCt.
I mean Pre-war Iraq, China, Libya... they probably declined for just the same reasons, no?
Oh BTW Finn, before that old tired accusation comes back up, criticising some of America's current foreign policies still isn't saying America is Nazi v2.0.
Neither is pointing out America’s faults. Something you seem to be incapable of seeing.
Yes, yes, I know, I can’t see anything but and so on…
*Wonders how many UN sponsored concentration camps there has been*
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you Beeeer Milkshakes!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Figure what out? That you seem to be confusing civil law with military law and law of war?
Originally posted by citizen:
Why do you think civil law sets out what is unlawful rather what is lawful?
It's part of the Innocent until proven guilty stance.
Figure that out, Finn.
Quote:Innocent until proven guilty for the detainees but not the US? The suspicious of someone illegally conducting torture is all that is needed to accuse a nation of sponsoring torture? Sounds like politics to me.
Originally posted by citizen:
Yeah, and the torture, or tough love or whatever you want to call it to make it all warm and cuddly, just stopped all of a sudden.
Sounds like you want to blanket the US with the word 'innocent' and ignore any possible wrong doing.
Quote:If you say so.
Originally posted by citizen:
Right Finn, people like me. How cunning of you, from my stance of seeing things being done to the detainees as 'stepping over the line' you have managed to deduce that I am really Onasty'Man Fredon-Hatin Bin-Bastard.
Of course I criticised an aspect of American policy, which proves I'm an evil freedom/America hating Commie-Nazi Terrorist.
Quote:Americans are bound by international law they agree to be, just like everyone else in the world. There’s no hypocrisy here. I don’t think this court is fine to try anyone, but the US can only speak for the US. If Britain wants to be bound by this loony court then go ahead, but just because you’ve decided that this court is legitimate doesn’t mean that Americans have to until and if the US ratifies the ICC Statute.
Originally posted by citizen:
Please tell me you see the hypocrisy in your own words.
America expects the entire international community to be bound by international law, save Americans themselves, of course.
So why is it that this court is fine to try everyone, save Americans?
Are they better than the rest of us?
Quote:No, but the ability to accuse American servicemen of war crimes based purely on suspicion of perceived supposed crimes might be. We can’t even decide on a definition of torture, and that’s pretty much the case for international law, but that still doesn’t prevent you from accusing the US of illegally sponsoring torture. What is to stop someone from making the same claim in the ICCt? Essentially, courts should provide protection under the law, but international law and the United Nations being what they are, it is unlikely in my assessment that this court will provide protection for the US.
Originally posted by citizen:
Oh BTW Finn, before that old tired accusation comes back up, criticising some of America's current foreign policies still isn't saying America is Nazi v2.0.
Neither is pointing out America’s faults. Something you seem to be incapable of seeing.
-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
In essence, no one is protected by the GC except for a few exceptions. It would have been better to extend protection from the GC to everyone, except certain exceptions. But that’s not the case.
Article 5 of the Third Geneva Convention (GCIII) says: "Should any doubt arise as to whether persons is a lawful combatant they will be treated as such until their status has been determined by a competent tribunal."
The Fourth Geneva Convention (GC IV) applies to "protected persons" (ie non-combatants), spies and saboteurs. In all cases, protected persons, spies, and saboteurs are given the same rights as POWs (except that spies and saboteurs cannot communicate directly with the outside world). Here is a detailed dicussion of the security concerns in dealing with spies, saboteurs, and memebers of underground resistance oragnizations: www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/COM/380-600008?OpenDocument
My problem with USA policy (as detailed by the memo that Geezer linked) is that is ASSUMES as FACT that all detainees are unlawful combatants= ahead of any tribunal, military or otherwise. In point of fact, most of the detainees at Gitmo have not had their chance at any sort of tribunal but are nonethless automatically treated as if they were unlawful combatants.
There are numerous- and I mean NUMEROUS- stories of people visiting other people's homes who were arrested, raped, and tortured (women as well as men). People in taxicabs who were picked up at checkpoints for reasons that even the military can't fathom- people who disappeared into Abu Ghraib never to return (even as a body). People who were turned in by a neighbor for reward or to settle a grudge. People who were "secret" detainees, invisible to the ICRC. My problem with our current approach is that the military isn't even BOTHERING to sort out the guilty from the innocent. Defenders of various USA military actions in Fallujah and elsewhere say over and over again how war is a confusing time that leads to split-second decisions or decisions under extreme stress that may look wrong in hindsight. But to then turn around and claim that all detentions (made under the same wartime circumstances that explain other apparent errors) are somehow true and valid... well, you can't have it both ways. That is the pint of the tribunals- to decide the status of persons under quieter and more reflective circumstances.
Treating detainees AS IF they were unlawful combatants without first determining their status itself is a war crime, not according to some "loony" ICC but according to the Geneva Convention of which the USA is a full signatory.
Please don't think they give a shit.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn Mac Cumhal:
Figure what out? That you seem to be confusing civil law with military law and law of war?
So Military law is guilty until proven innocent?
Quote:
Innocent until proven guilty for the detainees but not the US? The suspicious of someone illegally conducting torture is all that is needed to accuse a nation of sponsoring torture? Sounds like politics to me.
Guilty until proven innocent for the detainees but not for the US? I think there are some very big questions that need answers, which you've reiterated time and again in this thread we shouldn't be asking.
Sounds like politics to me too.
Quote:
If you say so.
Not really, but whatever.
Quote:
Americans are bound by international law they agree to be, just like everyone else in the world. There’s no hypocrisy here. I don’t think this court is fine to try anyone, but the US can only speak for the US. If Britain wants to be bound by this loony court then go ahead, but just because you’ve decided that this court is legitimate doesn’t mean that Americans have to until and if the US ratifies the ICC Statute.
I see what your saying. We had no right to try the Nazi war criminals, and the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda both had no rights to try anyone.
Seems like a case of "Do as we say, not as we do.".
Quote:
No, but the ability to accuse American servicemen of war crimes based purely on suspicion of perceived supposed crimes might be.
Yes, because there’s so many cases of the ICCt trying unfounded cases.
Your assuming the only place on Earth that one can get a fair trial is America. This isn’t only untrue but fairly insulting.
Have you ever stopped to think that an international court may also be safer for American service personnel? It's not beyond the realm of possibility that American servicemen wouldn't get a fair trial in an American court, whether they are given an unfair pardon or unfair conviction is entirely irrelevant.
Quote:
We can’t even decide on a definition of torture,
We can't agree Finn, there's a difference. So far the only person I've really heard say it's not torture happens to be you, Finn.
Quote:
doesn’t prevent you from accusing the US of illegal sponsoring torture.
The techniques are banned for use against everyone under civil and international law except Unlawful Combatants. If these techniques were being used against American servicemen you and the American Administration would be the first to be demanding their use cease.
I see people being tortured, you don't, and that’s, as you would say, your story, and you haven't made your case particularly well. Just because your definition of torture doesn't include anything outside of 'thumb screws' doesn't make it so.
I see what is being done in these camps as torture, I see that it's still happening, and I see that some of the techniques I define as torture also seem to be policy. Nothing you have posted is particularly compelling to the contrary. That doesn't make me irrationally anti-American; though I'm sure you'd like to label me as such in order to make it easier to throw away my opinion.
Quote:
What is to stop someone from making the same claim the ICCt?
What's to stop the American administration from either never bringing a legitimate case to court, or too convict an innocent party or 'low-level' offender as a 'sacrificial lamb'?
Signym:
My general point is that it would be better to define who is not entitled to protection by the GC, that way any 'gaps' in the definition would result in people being treated humanly rather than inhumanly.
In civil law we define what a crime is, not what it is not.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you Beeeer Milkshakes!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hey there. Actually, I would probably just say that ALL detainees under ALL circumstances are accorded protections. Once the law makes exceptions, then others (like Rummy, or Putin, or Karimov) will try to create loopholes.
Please don't think they give a shit.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Signym:
Yep, I entirely agree. It would be much more in keeping with the 'spirit' of the GC if there were no 'exceptions' to the rule.
Since there are I think it would be much better to define what the exceptions are, rather than what they are not, as it would be far more difficult to get loop holes if the definitions were set in stone, rather than simply being non existent.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you Beeeer Milkshakes!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm involved in rule-writing for our agency. One of the things I've noticed over the years is that ALL key words need to be defined. And furthermore, in order to determine whether a particular instance falls under one rule, another rule, or an exception, you must specify how that instance is to be "tested". (For example, is this particular liquid a high-peformance coating, a fireprood coating, or an architectural coating? In order to dtermine that, we need to look to ASTM Standards.) Unless you define your terms by "testable" criteria you're likely to wind up in a muddle.
Please don't think they give a shit.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The problem is that an Unlawful Combatant is, essentially undefined. The criteria and the definition of lawful combatants are set out in the GC, but unlawful combatants aren't even mentioned.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you Beeeer Milkshakes!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:No, but it is certainly not as lenient as civil law, I would think, but I’m not a lawyer.
Originally posted by citizen:
So Military law is guilty until proven innocent?
Quote:Nope that’s not what I said at all.
Originally posted by citizen:
I see what your saying. We had no right to try the Nazi war criminals, and the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda both had no rights to try anyone.
Quote:I’ve considered a lot of things, not the least of which is the way people like you and others talk about the US. One imagines that if you had your way there might be a lot of innocent US servicemen in international prisons for crimes they committed only in the minds of people who were upset over US policy. Of course I think the US would probably not allow that to happen, but that is beside the point. Trying war criminals in an ad hoc court for committed genocide is one thing. I’m sure the court would be quite successful in prosecuting real genocide, but what bothers me is what it does in-between the genocides. I think the US might end up being the victim of international barratry or blackmailed by a prosecutor who doesn’t like US policy, regardless of the legal issues.
Originally posted by citizen:
Yes, because there’s so many cases of the ICCt trying unfounded cases.
Your assuming the only place on Earth that one can get a fair trial is America. This isn’t only untrue but fairly insulting.
Have you ever stopped to think that an international court may also be safer for American service personnel? It's not beyond the realm of possibility that American servicemen wouldn't get a fair trial in an American court, whether they are given an unfair pardon or unfair conviction is entirely irrelevant.
On the other hand, if the ICCt practices a reasonable application of law in which US citizens are offered protection from barratry or people with political axes to grind, then I think it could be a very useful thing for the US. Unfortunately, I just don’t have a lot of confidence in it right now.
-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Citizen- I agree. As a sometime rule editor, having scanned the GCs there are a couple of things I noticed right away. The first is incomplete/ missing/ contradictory definitions. When is a person not an unlawful combatant but a saboteur? What is torture?
Even borrowing the international definition of "torture", how do you measure "severity" of pain or fear? Some people genetically just have more pain receptors in the brain than others. Othes, having been exposed to pain or stress when young, feel MORE pain and stress under the same circumstances than others. So, do you do a catecholamine saliva test? Measure heart rate?
Please don't think they give a shit.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME