Pages: 1

 

2006-09-14 15:13:02
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6972|SE London

I don't know much about this at the moment. I am currently watching Newsnight on BBC2. There is a report about the miltary tribunals that Bush is trying to get for terror suspects, who should as current law stands, be tried in civil courts. Senator John Maclane and Colin Powell along with a majority of the Senate oppose this idea.

There was an example of a terror suspect being flown out of the country to Morroco and having his "genitals slashed with a razor" (BBC). He then issued his statement. That is torture, plain and simple.

"Humiliating and degrading treatment" is forbidden under the third Geneva convention. Bush also seeks to alter US law to make this acceptable. The Whitehouse claim that degrading treatment is not torture and is acceptable.

Jimmy Carter has declared he thinks the military tribunals are a good idea. He supports them because he believes that it is good that the terror suspects will at least be getting some sort of offical trial. He also said on a BBC report:
"When we emulate the tactics of terrorists by denying people human rights, is when the terrorists can claim victories."

Which I agree with entirely.

What do you guys think about this military tribunals stuff and about using torture/degrading treatment on terror suspects?

*edit* You should be able to download tonights Newsnight from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/n … efault.stm

Not up yet (Thurs, 14th September), but the previous 3 broadcasts are, so I imagine it will be soon.

Last edited by Bertster7 (2006-09-14 15:36:13)

2006-09-14 15:24:18
M1-Lightning
Jeepers Creepers
+136|7122|Peoria, Illinois
Screw the trials. They should have shot them on the battlefield.

In fact, they should put them back on the battlefield, hand them a gun, and then shoot them.

Last edited by M1-Lightning (2006-09-14 15:25:12)

2006-09-14 15:34:11
dubbs
Member
+105|7022|Lexington, KY
I know here in the states that Fox was saying that some people think that playing the Red Hot Chili Peppers as torture is wrong.  If that is true then my entire generation has been tortured by the RIAA, and I want compensation for it.


Also the terrorist do not have rights under the third Geneva conventions.  Those are rights given to the members of a standing army for a defeated nation.  Terrorist are not an army.  Another thing, if the USA was to abide by the Geneva Conventions, then the terrorist can see it as a form of weakness.  They are killing our citizens, and soldiers that are protected under the conventions.
2006-09-14 15:35:19
Fancy_Pollux
Connoisseur of Fine Wine
+1,306|7037
Well, if we MUST torture them, I vote for sleep deprivation.
2006-09-14 15:37:04
stryyker
bad touch
+1,682|7111|California

They should get what they deserve.

A 20 second headstart in a jeep, followed by an Apache.
2006-09-14 15:45:20
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6972|SE London

dubbs wrote:

Also the terrorist do not have rights under the third Geneva conventions.  Those are rights given to the members of a standing army for a defeated nation.  Terrorist are not an army.  Another thing, if the USA was to abide by the Geneva Conventions, then the terrorist can see it as a form of weakness.  They are killing our citizens, and soldiers that are protected under the conventions.
Not true.

Geneva Convention III wrote:

Art 3. In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following
provisions:
(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria. To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) taking of hostages;
(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;
(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
(2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.
An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.
People keep commenting on the fact that the Geneva convention does not apply to terrorists. It does, as can clearly be seen by the text of the actual document, which I am sure few have bothered to read.

"In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following
provisions:"

Armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties (of which the US is one) - that covers terrorism perfectly.
2006-09-14 15:48:48
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6972|SE London

stryyker wrote:

They should get what they deserve.

A 20 second headstart in a jeep, followed by an Apache.
Maybe, if they're guilty. Their guilt should be properly ascertained using proper trials and not using evidence extracted under torture, which is notoriously unreliable.

If they are found guilty - do what ever you want to the cunts.
2006-09-14 15:54:54
M1-Lightning
Jeepers Creepers
+136|7122|Peoria, Illinois

Bertster7 wrote:

stryyker wrote:

They should get what they deserve.

A 20 second headstart in a jeep, followed by an Apache.
Maybe, if they're guilty. Their guilt should be properly ascertained using proper trials and not using evidence extracted under torture, which is notoriously unreliable.

If they are found guilty - do what ever you want to the cunts.
Torture isn't used to get them to confess there own guilt. It's used to get intel on thier cell's activity. The prisioners in Guantanamo were all caught red handed. They are prisoners of war per say, not criminals that someone pointed a finger at.
2006-09-14 16:01:10
Hellfire(Fish)
Your Favorite Whiny Liberal
+8|6896|Alabama, United States
But whats to stop them from calling any arab they grab a "terror suspect", drag them off, torture them, humiliate them, draw fake info/confessions out of them, and then kill them or detain them indeterminately?
2006-09-14 16:04:10
JahManRed
wank
+646|7019|IRELAND

M1-Lightning wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

stryyker wrote:

They should get what they deserve.

A 20 second headstart in a jeep, followed by an Apache.
Maybe, if they're guilty. Their guilt should be properly ascertained using proper trials and not using evidence extracted under torture, which is notoriously unreliable.

If they are found guilty - do what ever you want to the cunts.
Torture isn't used to get them to confess there own guilt. It's used to get intel on thier cell's activity. The prisioners in Guantanamo were all caught red handed. They are prisoners of war per say, not criminals that someone pointed a finger at.
Caught RED handed and being a prisoner of war usually happens on a battlefield in uniform, armed. Most of these ppl were snatched from the streets, unarmed and dressed as civilians. You need a Fair tribunal/trial to determine if they are guilty.
2006-09-14 16:08:48
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6972|SE London

M1-Lightning wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

stryyker wrote:

They should get what they deserve.

A 20 second headstart in a jeep, followed by an Apache.
Maybe, if they're guilty. Their guilt should be properly ascertained using proper trials and not using evidence extracted under torture, which is notoriously unreliable.

If they are found guilty - do what ever you want to the cunts.
Torture isn't used to get them to confess there own guilt. It's used to get intel on thier cell's activity. The prisioners in Guantanamo were all caught red handed. They are prisoners of war per say, not criminals that someone pointed a finger at.
That's not true either.

I think 3 prisoners (definately more than 1), who were being held in Guantanemo were sent back to the UK and released. Hardly the actions to take with terror suspects who were caught red handed. There have almost certainly be more that I don't know about.

They are prisoners of war per se, you are absolutely right. That is why the Geneva Convention III applies. Many of those in Guantanemo are guilty and have been caught red handed, but not all. Those who have been caught red handed it should not be difficult to convict, so give them proper trials. There are systems already in place for protecting sources in the US, they are used in big drugs trials for example, the same systems can be used in terrorist trials.
2006-09-14 16:12:58
dubbs
Member
+105|7022|Lexington, KY

Bertster7 wrote:

dubbs wrote:

Also the terrorist do not have rights under the third Geneva conventions.  Those are rights given to the members of a standing army for a defeated nation.  Terrorist are not an army.  Another thing, if the USA was to abide by the Geneva Conventions, then the terrorist can see it as a form of weakness.  They are killing our citizens, and soldiers that are protected under the conventions.
Not true.

Geneva Convention III wrote:

Art 3. In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following
provisions:
(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria. To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) taking of hostages;
(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;
(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
(2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.
An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.
People keep commenting on the fact that the Geneva convention does not apply to terrorists. It does, as can clearly be seen by the text of the actual document, which I am sure few have bothered to read.

"In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following
provisions:"

Armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties (of which the US is one) - that covers terrorism perfectly.
Once again, terrorist are not part of an armed forces, so therefore this does not apply to them.

Last edited by dubbs (2006-09-14 16:14:06)

2006-09-14 16:29:18
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6972|SE London

dubbs wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

dubbs wrote:

Also the terrorist do not have rights under the third Geneva conventions.  Those are rights given to the members of a standing army for a defeated nation.  Terrorist are not an army.  Another thing, if the USA was to abide by the Geneva Conventions, then the terrorist can see it as a form of weakness.  They are killing our citizens, and soldiers that are protected under the conventions.
Not true.

Geneva Convention III wrote:

Art 3. In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following
provisions:
(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria. To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) taking of hostages;
(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;
(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
(2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.
An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.
People keep commenting on the fact that the Geneva convention does not apply to terrorists. It does, as can clearly be seen by the text of the actual document, which I am sure few have bothered to read.

"In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following
provisions:"

Armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties (of which the US is one) - that covers terrorism perfectly.
Once again, terrorist are not part of an armed forces, so therefore this does not apply to them.
No terrorists are not part of any armed forces. They are however armed and involved in conflict within nations which are party to the Geneva convention, that is enough.

The majority of the US Senate agree with me (15 votes to 9). As do the supreme court.

CNN wrote:

In a decision earlier this summer, the Supreme Court ruled that the administration must meet Article III standards in its treatment of detainees.

Article III prohibits nations engaged in combat not of "an international character" from, among other things, "violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture" and "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment."
The article can be found here.

You have misinterpreted the text of the articles.

Last edited by Bertster7 (2006-09-14 17:04:05)

2006-09-15 05:03:45
IG-Calibre
comhalta
+226|7133|Tír Eoghan, Tuaisceart Éireann
Looks like Bush has been vetoed by the Senate, including by members of his own party - damn straight, I hope this is the turning against Bush and his Stasi like CIA -

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/5347564.stm

Last edited by IG-Calibre (2006-09-15 05:04:12)

2006-09-15 07:41:02
oug
Calmer than you are.
+380|6910|Πάϊ

M1-Lightning wrote:

Torture isn't used to get them to confess there own guilt. It's used to get intel on thier cell's activity. The prisioners in Guantanamo were all caught red handed. They are prisoners of war per say, not criminals that someone pointed a finger at.
Excuse my language here but how the fuck do you know? and how are you so sure of their guilt? Who made you judge?
ƒ³
2006-09-15 07:56:39
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6972|SE London

oug wrote:

M1-Lightning wrote:

Torture isn't used to get them to confess there own guilt. It's used to get intel on thier cell's activity. The prisioners in Guantanamo were all caught red handed. They are prisoners of war per say, not criminals that someone pointed a finger at.
Excuse my language here but how the fuck do you know? and how are you so sure of their guilt? Who made you judge?
They have said in the senate that evidence extracted under conditions that do not meet article 3 of the Geneva convention standards would have been used in the trials proposed by Bush. That is one reason why his bill was blocked.

BBC wrote:

The White House wants the new Guantanamo tribunals to maintain the right to use evidence obtained through coercion and to keep elements of prosecution cases secret from those accused.
There you go.

But luckily:

BBC wrote:

The US Supreme Court has ruled that Mr Bush does not have the authority to order such trials, but left the way open for the president to seek Congressional approval for their resumption.
Which he won't get.

Last edited by Bertster7 (2006-09-15 07:57:43)

2006-09-15 09:29:05
E1_ned
Member
+8|6885|netherlands
what is bush thinking.....

this sounds like a desperate plan

if this would have passed through congress, America would have slid down the hill of civilization and become a military regime.
i think it is a good thing it failed to pass. we should not lower ourselves to the standards of the terrorists.
2006-09-15 10:19:06
IRONCHEF
Member
+385|6881|Northern California

M1-Lightning wrote:

Screw the trials. They should have shot them on the battlefield.

In fact, they should put them back on the battlefield, hand them a gun, and then shoot them.
Ok, that may be a cool idea for you that applies to maybe 1% of the thousands of people our forces and government has abducted from foreign sovereign territory (which is illegal also)..but what of the thousands spread out all ove the world (abu graib and other iraqi prisons, gitmo, rendition camps around the world where we turn them over to expert info extractors therefore removing accountability)?  What of the thousands of young men just like YOU who were simply in the wrong place and wrong time?  What if you were yanked from your home, beaten while wearing a hood, not read your miranda rights or given any rights that you have because you are a human, then stuffed into a dank cell somewhere in the world and held there with NO communications with anyone for months and months?  Not even tortured but just "detained" and dealt with a year later and found to not be "that guy they were looking for."  Then dropped back in your yard.  How would that grab you?
2006-09-15 10:48:43
Fancy_Pollux
Connoisseur of Fine Wine
+1,306|7037

oug wrote:

Excuse my language here but how the fuck do you know? and how are you so sure of their guilt? Who made you judge?
I commend your debating skills. Teenage angst FTW!

Last edited by Fancy_Pollux (2006-09-15 10:49:03)

2006-09-15 10:55:43
Protecus
Prophet of Certain Certainties
+28|6912

M1-Lightning wrote:

Screw the trials. They should have shot them on the battlefield.

In fact, they should put them back on the battlefield, hand them a gun, and then shoot them.
If it were really that easy, it would have already been done.

There are only two kinds of Terrorists that are so painfully obvious they do not need a trial: The first are the ones that run into the middle of the street with an AK and start shooting. They don't get a trial because they get shot in the face. The second are the ones that jump in a truck, slap on a TNT scarf and haul ass to hell. Obviously they don't get a trial either because there isn't enough of them left to stand trial.

That leaves everyone else.

JahManRed wrote:

Caught RED handed and being a prisoner of war usually happens on a battlefield in uniform, armed. Most of these people were snatched from the streets, unarmed and dressed as civilians. You need a Fair tribunal/trial to determine if they are guilty.
Exactly.

As Bertster commented, there have been times where citizens from both other countries as well as in the United States have been detained as "Enemy Combatants" and held from months only to be released later. We need to make sure we do this right or things will only get worse.

While I agreed that these people need a trial, they do not need a Military Tribunal. In these trials, heresay is  admissible, the trial is completely secret and shrouded from public view, and there are no appeals what-so-ever. The best they can do it request a panel of review. Every panel of review inevitably ends up on the Presidents desk for approval. I'm sure Bush is more than willing to reverse a quilt verdict. Riiiiiiiiight.

As Powell said, these tribunals would do nothing but continue if not increase our dive bomb to the bottom of respectability.
2006-09-15 13:32:37
aardfrith
Δ > x > ¥
+145|7183

dubbs wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

dubbs wrote:

Also the terrorist do not have rights under the third Geneva conventions.  Those are rights given to the members of a standing army for a defeated nation.  Terrorist are not an army.  Another thing, if the USA was to abide by the Geneva Conventions, then the terrorist can see it as a form of weakness.  They are killing our citizens, and soldiers that are protected under the conventions.
Not true.

Geneva Convention III wrote:

Art 3. In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following
provisions:
(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria. To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) taking of hostages;
(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;
(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
(2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.
An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.
People keep commenting on the fact that the Geneva convention does not apply to terrorists. It does, as can clearly be seen by the text of the actual document, which I am sure few have bothered to read.

"In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following
provisions:"

Armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties (of which the US is one) - that covers terrorism perfectly.
Once again, terrorist are not part of an armed forces, so therefore this does not apply to them.
Where does it say it only applies to armed forces?  It says "Persons taking no active part in hostilities, including members of armed forces..."  It does not say "Only members of armed forces..."  Since they are in detention, they are currently taking no active part in the hostilities so it does apply to them.

As for whether a paramilitary organisation constitutes an armed force, your guess is as good as mine.  Since all the local citizens are armed, I would say that a group of them together would make up an armed force but lawyers could probably make millions out of arguing that one.
2006-09-15 13:52:09
paranoid101
Ambitious but Rubbish
+540|7130
Shame the terrorist don't abide by the Geneva Convention.
2006-09-15 13:54:48
IRONCHEF
Member
+385|6881|Northern California
Another note is that "terrorist" is not what our detainees are classified as.  They're detained and classified as "enemy combatants" which according to the circuit judge that knocked down Bush a month ago or so says that applies to them as being protected under article III.  The word "terrorist" is a title, not a classification as pertaining to war.

But what's more important is that EVERY SINGLE DETAINEE captured from Afghanistan or Iraq is actually protected by other international and national laws (illegal search and seizure) of kidnapping.  We have illegally entered both of those countries, killed, kidnapped, tortured, and violated pretty much every other civil right of every person.  Just because our leader called it "war," does not make it legal to enter a sovereign nation.  Further, Congress does not have the right to "yield" their constitutional duty to declare war (or not to) to the executive branch..but they did and therefore theyhave committed a huge breach of their constitutional oath to protect and serve it.  This "war" is nothing more than Bush illegally invading two sovereign nations without just cause and without provocation (said "terrorists" are without "nations").  But with that aside, simply taking people from their homes and detaining them indefinately is putting us back in the dark ages as pertaining to civil rights.

Last edited by IRONCHEF (2006-09-15 13:56:21)

 

Pages: 1

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard