Legalizing Torture

[Olivier]

two threads of mine have been edited of late, apparently by a moderator




the titles that have been altered are
"the real cause of the death of Arafat"

as been changed to
"Politicizing the Yasser Arafat's cause of death; or, what we don't know can hurt you.
http://www.israelforum.com/board/showpost.php?p=122881&postcount=70

I do not see what the added insinuation means... or what value added it brings




Bombing of French soldiers : Israelis involved

to

Bombing of French soldiers : Israelis involved, Satan unavailable for comment
http://www.israelforum.com/board/showpost.php?p=122938&postcount=126
I had not into of putting any satanic reference in the discussion

Overall, the objective of this person is harassment.
Arbitrary harassment because he does not share my opinions. Why leave intact threads which are either pure provocation of plain false and modify titles respecting forum rule? Why choose to distord the name of the threads I started?

let's see one example on naming a thread :

France: we will use the UN-mandate to continue the occupation of the Ivory Coast => this is plain lie, no french declaration was made about "occupating ivory coast".

and guess what, the guy who created the thread has been promoted moderator ! Now he can toy with what I say in total impunity...

Now If you want to see delirant threads titles just browse the forum..



Now what should I do ?
- I have first protested to the forum owner (newsguy), who answered that moderators are fully allowed change thread titles. This practice is discretionary and completely arbitrary. Any moderator can change a thread name to what he wants. Just because he feels like it.

Ok, now what do I do ? I can either
=========================
solution #1 - accept that the thread I start have a title perverting what the idea I defend.

solution #2 - stop posting and conceide victory to the harasser. This will also overjoy all here that do not share my opinions.


Now although it is certainly not good to give in to harassment, I have choose solution #2. As I wrote to the forum owner "you might as well have the guts to ask me to leave politely and I certainly would not insist".
But the idea that someone can pull strings and make me say what I do not want to say, just because he finds it fun is completely disgusting to me.

I do not know for you, maybe some of you find it fantastic to read a forum like this, but for me this is more than just hindering freedom of expression, this is plain pervert.

So bye all !


Overall I hope I have contributed adding value to the forum and interest to the reader.
I tried to start threads worthy of real debate and to documents my posts as well as I could! I tried not to answer provocation by avoiding the most aggressive of hateful posters.

On the statistic side, I started no less than 113 threads and wrote 1250 posts, which means I easily dedicated two hundred hours to the forum.

these are some of the threads I am the most proud of , Bush is elected, what can we expect in the next years?
• Good news for the Saudis and the iranians: Crude prices hit 21 year high
• Fight against Global warming : Kyoto Protocol becomes international treaty.
• teaching democracy (it's a picture !)
• If America were Iraq, What Would It be Like?
• Another legend down the drain : Iraq's Disappearing Elections (this one is likely to make a comeback)
• a no-win war against 1.3 billion Muslims
• Israel Has Long Spied on U.S alleges Counterpunch (I think this thread title has been manipulated as well)
• Moore's anti-Bush film wins top Cannes award
• Arab-Israeli Retaliation Tragic, Unhelpful
• Europe must not define itself against America
• about the dangers of blurring the lines between humanitarians workers and armies
• French troops deployed on Sudan border
• Military Draft in the US?
• Reaction in France on Sharon calling french jews to "leave immediately
• Torture by US forces is Iraq is not just isolated incidents (that thread is probably the one with the longuest debate : 481 posts)
• How can the damage of the torture photos be repaired? (with now a variant with the shooting of an unarmed wounded insurged in a mosque)
• Are we de-Baathifying or re-Baathifying this week? (that one was not a success, by it was fun)
• Rebirth at Ground Zero (don’t start optimistics threads here : no success)
• Real politics starting inside iraq? (ditto)
• U.S. Drops Effort to Gain Immunity for Its Troops
• 9/11 panel says there was ‘‘no credible evidence’’ that Saddam had ties with al-Qaida
• Big demonstration in Paris today against anti-Semitism
• europe grows : Israelis rush on europeans passport
• hostilities ending in Falluja? (lucky I put an interrogation mark on that one.. that was started in june)
• France to expel Muslim cleric over abuse

And it makes me extremely sad to realize all these titles can be perverted anytime…



…. So I have decided, that I prefer to remove some of my posts than to have what I mean manipulated against my will, it’s a bit sad, but it seems reasonable to withdraw from a debate when the debate turns out to be a fake. And of course I do not approve of the hatred shown by the people who manipulate this forum to their ends.

[Oh Jerusalem]

Torture saves lives.

Obviously that's only true in a small porportion of cases.

The problem is legislating such exceptions and making sure that there are no abuses of the permissions granted.

Then there's something else. Shockingly, some of us believe in right or wrong. For example, I believe the Allies in WWII were right and the Axis powers were wrong.

If Allied soldiers had to torture some Nazi to get life-saving information out of him that otherwise wouldn't have been forthcoming, that's fine by me.

If, on the other hand, some Nazi tortured an Allied soldier to get information out of him that would have protected German troops, I would like to see him tried and hung.

That's what happens when your on the wrong side of certain equations.

[David_in_NYC]

I guess that's a decision for Americans to make. To the French, it's already legal, provided you bribe the correct people in sufficient quantities.

[tandem]

in the arab world torture is prevalent (in violation of international law) and unfortunately it goes unnoticed by the international community (who instead opts to focus on israel "torturing" failed homicide bombers, senior terrorists, and traitors).

[Olivier]

Originally posted by tandem
in the arab world torture is prevalent (in violation of international law) and unfortunately it goes unnoticed by the international community (who instead opts to focus on israel "torturing" failed homicide bombers, senior terrorists, and traitors). I do not think so.

e.g. Amnesty international reports, documents torture in these countries (and organizes protest actions against them).


But yes countries that are democraties are held to higher standards: they are richer, have more educated citizens and these citizens are responsible of the practices held by their police / army / "other organizations". In the case of the USA, the first trial of abu graihb includes government agencies like the CIA and private companies.



But yes western democracies are held to higher standards regarding human rights.

I'm not sure you realize the extend of torture exercised by the US lately : the USA may very well have turned into the biggest torturer worldwide.




Secret World of U.S. Interrogation
Long History of Tactics in Overseas Prisons Is Coming to Light

By Dana Priest and Joe Stephens
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, May 11, 2004


In Afghanistan, the CIA's secret U.S. interrogation center in Kabul is known as "The Pit," named for its despairing conditions. In Iraq, the most important prisoners are kept in a huge hangar near the runway at Baghdad International Airport, say U.S. government officials, counterterrorism experts and others. In Qatar, U.S. forces have been ferrying some Iraqi prisoners to a remote jail on the gigantic U.S. air base in the desert.

The Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, where a unit of U.S. soldiers abused prisoners, is just the largest and suddenly most notorious in a worldwide constellation of detention centers -- many of them secret and all off-limits to public scrutiny -- that the U.S. military and CIA have operated in the name of counterterrorism or counterinsurgency operations since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

These prisons and jails are sometimes as small as shipping containers and as large as the sprawling Guantanamo Bay complex in Cuba. They are part of an elaborate CIA and military infrastructure whose purpose is to hold suspected terrorists or insurgents for interrogation and safekeeping while avoiding U.S. or international court systems, where proceedings and evidence against the accused would be aired in public. Some are even held by foreign governments at the informal request of the United States.

"The number of people who have been detained in the Arab world for the sake of America is much more than in Guantanamo Bay. Really, thousands," said Najeeb Nuaimi, a former justice minister of Qatar who is representing the families of dozens of prisoners.

The largely hidden array includes three systems that only rarely overlap: the Pentagon-run network of prisons, jails and holding facilities in Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantanamo and elsewhere; small and secret CIA-run facilities where top al Qaeda and other figures are kept; and interrogation rooms of foreign intelligence services -- some with documented records of torture -- to which the U.S. government delivers or "renders" mid- or low-level terrorism suspects for questioning.

All told, more than 9,000 people are held by U.S. authorities overseas, according to Pentagon figures and estimates by intelligence experts, the vast majority under military control. The detainees have no conventional legal rights: no access to a lawyer; no chance for an impartial hearing; and, at least in the case of prisoners held in cellblock 1A at Abu Ghraib, no apparent guarantee of humane treatment accorded prisoners of war under the Geneva Conventions or civilians in U.S. jails.

Although some of those held by the military in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo have had visits by the International Committee of the Red Cross, some of the CIA's detainees have, in effect, disappeared, according to interviews with former and current national security officials and to the Army's report of abuses at Abu Ghraib.

The CIA's "ghost detainees," as they were called by members of the 800th MP Brigade, were routinely held by the soldier-guards at Abu Ghraib "without accounting for them, knowing their identities, or even the reason for their detention," the report says. These phantom captives were "moved around within the facility to hide them" from Red Cross teams, a tactic that was "deceptive, contrary to Army doctrine, and in violation of international law."

CIA employees are under investigation by the Justice Department and the CIA inspector general's office in connection with the death of three captives in the past six months, two who died while under interrogation in Iraq, and a third who was being questioned by a CIA contract interrogator in Afghanistan. A CIA spokesman said the hiding of detainees was inappropriate. He declined to comment further.

None of the arrangements that permit U.S. personnel to kidnap, transport, interrogate and hold foreigners are ad hoc or unauthorized, including the so-called renditions. "People tend to regard it as an extra-judicial kidnapping; it's not," former CIA officer Peter Probst said. "There is a long history of this. It has been done for decades. It's absolutely legal."

In fact, every aspect of this new universe -- including maintenance of covert airlines to fly prisoners from place to place, interrogation rules and the legal justification for holding foreigners without due process afforded most U.S. citizens -- has been developed by military or CIA lawyers, vetted by Justice Department's office of legal counsel and, depending on the particular issue, approved by White House general counsel's office or the president himself.

(...)

Because most of the directives and guidelines on these issues are classified, former and current military and intelligence officials who described them to The Washington Post would do so only on the condition that they not be identified.

(..)

Military Jails and Prisons


Abu Ghraib -- where photographs were taken that have enraged the Arab world and rocked U.S. political and military leadership -- held 6,000 to 7,000 detainees at the time of the documented abuse. Today, it and other sites in Iraq hold more than 8,000 prisoners, U.S. and coalition officials said. They range from those believed to have played key roles in the insurgency to some who are held on suspicion of petty crimes.

(..)

Far better known has been the Defense Department's facility at Guantanamo Bay. The open-air camps there house about 600 detainees, flown in from around the world over the past two years. Secrecy there remains tight, with detainees and most of the facilities off-limits to visitors.

The U.S. Supreme Court is deciding whether detainees held there, whom the Pentagon has declared "enemy combatants" in the war against terrorism, should have access to U.S. courts.

Last week, the U.S. military acknowledged that two Guantanamo Bay guards had been disciplined in connection with use of excessive force against detainees. And U.S. defense officials confirmed the existence of a list of approved interrogation techniques, dating to April 2003, that included reversing sleep patterns, exposing prisoners to hot and cold, and "sensory assault," including use of bright lights and loud music.

The treatment of prisoners in Afghanistan has received less public attention.

The U.S. military holds 300 or so people at Bagram, north of the capital of Kabul, and in Kandahar, Jalalabad and Asadabad . Human Rights Watch estimates that at least 700 people had been released from those sites, most of them held a few weeks or less. Special Forces units also have holding centers at their firebases, including at Gardez and Khost.

In December 2002, two Afghans died in U.S. custody in Afghanistan. The U.S. military classified both as homicides. Another Afghan died in June 2003 at a detention site near Asadabad.

"Afghans detained at Bagram airbase in 2002 have described being held in detention for weeks, continuously shackled, intentionally kept awake for extended periods of time, and forced to kneel or stand in painful positions for extended periods," said a report in March by Human Rights Watch. "Some say they were kicked and beaten when arrested, or later as part of efforts to keep them awake. Some say they were doused with freezing water in the winter."

CIA Detention

NB I do not have permission to write more than one post in a row, so I send you a pm with information on CIA Detention, cooperation with syria and other details.

[Justcurious]

What is torture? I don't accept torture as we normally see it, but isn't keeping in solitary confinement, sometimes blind-folded, also torture? It might be acceptable.

[Olivier]

Originally posted by Justcurious
What is torture? I don't accept torture as we normally see it, but isn't keeping in solitary confinement, sometimes blind-folded, also torture? It might be acceptable. There were already some discussions here about that. This is not a simple question to "draw the line". Some say 'abuse' some say "it depends who you torture", in "what situation" ect...
obviously once you label someone as "a terrorist" it's easier to change you standards.


One of the latest definitions posted is the one given by US law here : http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php3?postid=100351#post100351 but arguably you could dedicate a whole thread to the question.

[Olivier]

a very interesting column about torture and law (and impeachment)




William Pfaff: When laws get in the way of torture

Saturday, June 12, 2004


The paper trail

PARIS People like to quote Karl Marx's comment on the two successive Napoleonic empires, that of Bonaparte himself, and, after 1848, the second empire of his nephew, Napoleon III. Marx said that it was a tragedy repeated as a farce.

The United States has reversed the sequence, so that a few years ago the nation, or at least Congress and the media, was obsessed by President Bill Clinton's disputed definition of what does or does not amount to sexual congress with a White House intern.

The tragedy that has followed the farce is torture as an instrument of American national policy in the cause of spreading democracy.

Documents recently obtained by the press reveal White House anxiety about how to protect President George W. Bush and members of his cabinet from going to prison for ordering, authorizing or deliberately permitting systematic torture of persons in their control, but technically outside formal American legal jurisdiction. The question put to lawyers was how the president and the others could commit war crimes and get away with it.

Thus, according to these reports, the president last year obtained from his lawyers an opinion that he is not bound by U.S. laws or by international engagements prohibiting torture and that Americans committing torture under his authority cannot be prosecuted by the Justice Department.

This opinion rests on the argument that national security considerations override both U.S. law and international treaties. As one of the military lawyers who took part in these discussions has said, it was an assertion of "presidential power at its absolute apex."

It deliberately overrode the norms the military had previously been trained to regard as mandated by the Geneva Conventions. The world now knows how overriding the norms at the top overrides them all down the line.

The Bush administration's civilians had been complaining about how law, international treaties and conventions, and military norms and inhibitions, were interfering with their determination to seize and hold anyone they pleased in secret prisons, declare them without legal rights even when they were American citizens, torture them whenever they wanted and keep them forever, if they liked (a totalitarian ambition, obviously). They wanted these obstructions removed.

Their complaints sounded like the complaints of Adolf Eichmann, when he described during his trial in Israel the irksome bureaucratic and legal obstacles he ran into in wartime Germany in carrying out his genocidal responsibilities.

High U.S. administration figures reportedly lingered - with delectation? - over what exactly was to be done to the unfortunate prisoners - for how long, in what position, with what pain inflicted.

(There was also - whoops! - the problem of what to do when things went wrong, and the torturers had a dead man, or woman, on their hands.)

And when all this began to come out, what did the administration have to say? The president said on May 24 that "a few American troops ... disregarded our values." Civilians in the Pentagon, speaking informally to the press, blamed the Abu Ghraib scandals on "a few hillbillies."

The American operation in Iraq, and apparently in Afghanistan before, has been haphazard, planned and run by people mostly without serious knowledge of these countries and their societies. The administration has gone in for wholesale arrests and interrogations, sweeping people up virtually at random, because it doesn't know what else to do.

This has been futile and irrational, as well as evil. The nearly universal uselessness of torture is well-known in intelligence and special warfare circles. Even if you have a key figure who does possess useful information, and you eventually get him (or her) to tell you what you want, what actual good is it?

Is it really true? Is it merely what the torturer has inadvertently conveyed to the victim that he wants to hear? Even if true, is it any longer useful? Every resistance or underground organization works with a system of cut-outs that limits what any one individual knows, and signals everyone else to scatter when a prisoner is taken.

A network doesn't have to be organized to do that. Any band of armed insurgents in Iraq knows that when one of them is taken the rest don't wait around.

The vast majority of those in Iraqi prisons have turned out to be people who were at the wrong place at the wrong time, or had a name resembling someone else's name, or were related to someone whose name was on a U.S. list. They were tortured because that had become the practice. They might know something. When higher commanders complained that they weren't getting enough intelligence, the same prisoners were tortured again.

All of this is a ghastly scandal, one of the worst in American history. It is evident cause for impeachment of this president, if Congress has the courage to do it, and for prosecution of cabinet figures and certain commanders. However in view of the partisan alignment in Congress, quite possibly nothing will happen before the November election.

What then? It also is quite possible that George W. Bush will be elected to a second term. In that case, the American electorate will have made these practices its own. Now that is something for our children to think about.

[Mira~]

I think it's only torture when you get caught.

Cameroon: Franco-African Summit must take prompt action to end torture and ill-treatment


On the occasion of the Franco-African heads of States' Summit in Yaoundé (17-19 January 2001), Amnesty International calls on participating political leaders to seize the opportunity to make a joint public commitment to end torture and ill-treatment in custody.

"Strong action taken by the political leaders attending the summit is needed to send a clear message to the perpetrators that torture will not be tolerated and that those responsible will be brought to justice" Amnesty International said today.

The torture of detainees by government agents persists with impunity in the majority of countries represented at the summit. The following cases from France , Burundi, Kenya, Cameroon, and Guinea illustrate that these human rights violations are occurring in France as well as in the African countries.

France: On 28 July 1999 in France was found by the European Court of Human Rights to have violated international standards prohibiting torture as well as those guaranteeing fair trial within a reasonable time. Ahmed Selmouni, a national both of Morocco and the Netherlands was arrested by police in November 1991 and subject to ''repeated and sustained assaults over a number of days in questioning'' including being beaten with a baseball bat and truncheons, being urinated on, and threatened with a syringe and a blow-torch. More than seven years passed between the acts of violence against Ahmed Selmouni and the first trial in February 1999 of the police officers responsible. In spite of convictions all five officers remained in or resumed service, pending appeal before the Court of Cassation. The prosecutor in this case had reportedly called for an amnesty should the officers be convicted.

Burundi: On 13 February 2000 Diomède Buyoya was killed in the cells of the Brigade spéciale de recherche (BSR), the Gendarmerie Special Investigation Unit, in Burundi's capital Bujumbura. Buyoya reportedly insulted the wife of a BSR officer working in his household. This officer beat him to death. After initially being arrested, all charges were, however, dropped against him, and the officer returned to work a month later.

Kenya: Six prisoners, Peter Loyara Lomukunyi, Peter Kolini, John Nyoro Njuguna, Julius Mungania, Peter Ngurushanaon, and James Irungu Ndugo, all on death row in King'ong'o prison, Nyeri Central Province, died during an attempt to escape in September 2000. Prison officers alleged they had died as a result of falling from an eight metre high perimeter fence. However, medical evidence obtained suggests that they were beaten to death. An inquest is currently being undertaken. To date no prison officers have been suspended from duty pending investigations.

Cameroon: In his report dated 11 November 1999 the United Nations Special Rapporteur on torture, Sir Nigel Rodley, described the practice of torture in Cameroon as ''widespread and systematic''. After undergoing beatings before and during his arrest Guy Simon Ngakam, a student's leader, was released at the end of January 2000 in a precarious state of health. Cases of torture and ill-treatment in police and gendarmerie cells throughout the country continue to be reported.

Guinea: In December 1998 a woman was arrested while taking part in a demonstration calling for the release of Alpha Condé, President of the political opposition Rassemblement du peuple de Guinée (RPG), Guinean People's Rally. With many others she was beaten, flogged and raped, ''until I lost all sense of where I was'', she said. She was later released without charge. No steps have been taken to investigate the allegations of torture, including rape, and no one has been brought to justice for these crimes. In one court case, a 17-year old woman defendant made allegations of rape in detention. The president of the court told her to ''turn a new page'' and prevented her from speaking again, while the prosecutor said that he could ''not accept the Guinean army being discredited.''

Amnesty International is calling for the signature, ratification and above all, consistent application of the relevant international conventions aimed at preventing torture and ill-treatment in custody. The organization also calls for all states to take note of, and implement the recommendations aimed at preventing torture made by the Human Rights Committee and the Special Rapporteur on torture.

Background

The United Nations Committee against Torture which regularly reviews states' implementation of their obligations under the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment has recommended specific provisions for the prevention of torture. In November 2000, when scrutinizing for example Cameroon' s record, it included in its recommendations provisions for the inadmissibility of evidence obtained through torture, for prompt and impartial inquiries into allegations of human rights violations, maintenance and public accessibility of a registry of detained persons, and mechanisms for the fullest possible compensation and rehabilitation of the victims of torture.

In spite of progress towards wider ratification of the Convention against Torture, very few African states have fully implemented the Convention or have explicitly recognized the competence of the United Nations Committee against Torture to consider inter-state or individual complaints by making a declaration under the respective Articles 21 and 22 of the Convention.

http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAFR010022001?open&of=ENG-FRA





Makes you wonder if they do this in their own country what they are doing or allowing to happen in the Ivory Coast. We already know that France was guilty of some of the worst human rights crimes in Algeria, with torture and summary executions. Interestingly, Chriac's regime has never issued a public apology for them or faced up to its judicial obligations.
http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGEUR210022001?open&of=ENG-FRA



So it appears to me that torture is ok if:

1. Nobody finds out, or

2. You have third parties and rouge regimes carry out the actual torture while you slip them some cash and/or look away, or

3. You wait long enough that no formal apology or administrative justice seems necessary.

[David_in_NYC]

Torture is torture when it gives transnational socialists a tool with which to bash conservatives.

The hypocrisy is stunning and jaw-dropping... Oliver spends all his time defending the deposed Hussein regime and complaining about his removal, yet he was reknowned worldwide for the magnitude and cruelty of his torture regime.

I work with real people who have experienced real torture. They get hung from hooks and beaten, or raped. They get chili powder thrown in their face and their heads shoved into bags of petrol. They are burned with cigarettes, cut with knives, beaten with lead pipes. No person who has ever experienced real torture would hesitate for a moment to trade experiences with the panty-wearing thugs of Abu Ghraib.

[Olivier]

Originally posted by Mira
Makes you wonder if they do this in their own country what they are doing or allowing to happen in the Ivory Coast. We already know that France was guilty of some of the worst human rights crimes in Algeria, with torture and summary executions. I do not know your standards for the US, but as for me i do not consider my country to have any right to commit torture. And as you point out there have been breaches in the past and today too. AFAIK mostly in police precincts since forty year.

I condemn all torture acts and I think trials should be held and the person responsible judged.

I support the setting up of an international criminal court to prosecute war crimes when the country who should judge them does not take care of it.

And you Mira?




Originally posted by Mira
So it appears to me that torture is ok if:

1. Nobody finds out, or

2. You have third parties and rouge regimes carry out the actual torture while you slip them some cash and/or look away, or

3. You wait long enough that no formal apology or administrative justice seems necessary. Torture is never OK and must be outlawed totally.

[Mira~]

Originally posted by Olivier
I do not know your standards for the US, but as for me i do not consider my country to have any right to commit torture. And as you point out there have been breaches in the past and today too. AFAIK mostly in police precincts since forty year.

I condemn all torture acts and I think trials should be held and the person responsible judged.

No you don't! Show me the French forums where you post countless threads on French crimes the way you do here.

I support the setting up of an international criminal court to prosecute war crimes when the country who should judge them does not take care of it.

Then you know that Chirac would be one of the first to be sent there, don't you?


And you Mira?

I already posted SEVERAL TIMES that I am against torture. I'm against it for the same reasons that were cited in th article you posted. According to that analysis, French nationals should expect to be subject to repeated and sustained assaults over a number of days while being questioned, beaten with baseball bats and truncheons,urinated on, and threatened with a syringe and a blow-torch when traveling outside the country. And they shouldn't expect a trial for eight years. That's a lot of time to rot in a foreign prison.


The reality is, however, that democracies don't fight other democracies. So more likely than not, if our soldiers are caught by our enemies, they will be tortured and if they can't be used as bargining chips, they will be killed. So ultimately, it really is for our own sense of civilization and moral standrads that we conform to the treaties that we sign. If we want other countries to emulate us, then we need to at least try to live up to the perception that we want to convey of ourselves. The idea is to actually try and live by example.

Now I think the US is doing a pretty good job with that. Last night, I watched Senator Byrd lay into John Ashcroft in a world televised hearing. Ashcroft is at the top of the food chain! And there he is was being pummeled with questions and invective by US senators for all the world to see. Our media has been ruthless in their attacks and pursued their own investigation alongside the real hearing for American voters. I think our system is working perfectly fine if you really want to know.

France, however, appears to need some serious work. The prosecutor in the case I posted called for amnesty for the police officers if their convictions withstand their appeals. But how far up the food chain does this kind of abuse go in France?

Torture is never OK and must be outlawed totally.

So get on it! Point me to those French forums where you post about French crimes. You must be the change you want to see, Oliver. Then I might actually respect you for once.

[MichaelC]

Originally posted by Mira
No you don't! Show me the French forums where you post countless threads on French crimes the way you do here.



Then you know that Chirac would be one of the first to be sent there, don't you?




I already posted SEVERAL TIMES that I am against torture. I'm against it for the same reasons that were cited in th article you posted. According to that analysis, French nationals should expect to be subject to repeated and sustained assaults over a number of days while being questioned, beaten with baseball bats and truncheons,urinated on, and threatened with a syringe and a blow-torch when traveling outside the country. And they shouldn't expect a trial for eight years. That's a lot of time to rot in a foreign prison.


The reality is, however, that democracies don't fight other democracies. So more likely than not, if our soldiers are caught by our enemies, they will be tortured and if they can't be used as bargining chips, they will be killed. So ultimately, it really is for our own sense of civilization and moral standrads that we conform to the treaties that we sign. If we want other countries to emulate us, then we need to at least try to live up to the perception that we want to convey of ourselves. The idea is to actually try and live by example.

Now I think the US is doing a pretty good job with that. Last night, I watched Senator Byrd lay into John Ashcroft in a world televised hearing. Ashcroft is at the top of the food chain! And there he is was being pummeled with questions and invective by US senators for all the world to see. Our media has been ruthless in their attacks and pursued their own investigation alongside the real hearing for American voters. I think our system is working perfectly fine if you really want to know.

France, however, appears to need some serious work. The prosecutor in the case I posted called for amnesty for the police officers if their convictions withstand their appeals. But how far up the food chain does this kind of abuse go in France?



So get on it! Point me to those French forums where you post about French crimes. You must be the change you want to see, Oliver. Then I might actually respect you for once.
I always admire the workings of your mind, not to mention your sense of syntax. I doubt oliver will understand a word you say or, more likely, will simply ignore your points as usual.

[Binyamin]

Olivier, you missed this post by someone on your ignore list, so I'm posting it again for your edification.

Originally posted by David_in_NYC
Torture is torture when it gives transnational socialists a tool with which to bash conservatives.

The hypocrisy is stunning and jaw-dropping... Oliver spends all his time defending the deposed Hussein regime and complaining about his removal, yet he was reknowned worldwide for the magnitude and cruelty of his torture regime.

I work with real people who have experienced real torture. They get hung from hooks and beaten, or raped. They get chili powder thrown in their face and their heads shoved into bags of petrol. They are burned with cigarettes, cut with knives, beaten with lead pipes. No person who has ever experienced real torture would hesitate for a moment to trade experiences with the panty-wearing thugs of Abu Ghraib.


I'm sure you also realize that the abuse in Abu-Ghraib dos not qualify as torture according to the U.S. rules that you linked to above.

I think torture (real torture, not just abuse) should be legal with known criminals and terrorists, when they can provide useful information. They can always cooperate if they do not like it.

The issue of torture should definately not be used to advance one's political agenda, which is what's happening here. No one cares about the abuses, they just care about getting Bush out.

[tandem]

e.g. Amnesty international reports, documents torture in these countries (and organizes protest actions against them).
amnesty international is a politically motivated organization. they try to portray themselves as a neutral humanitarian group but it's well-known that amnesty often refuses to (rightfully) scold arab states for their poor human rights record and obvious use of torture on prisoners. there was a recent case here in canada about a syrian national who was deported because canadian and american officials believed he was involved in terrorism. he was held in detention and tortured in a syrian prison for a year without being charged with anything before he was released out of the blue by the syrian government. instead of suing syria for torturing him and bringing the country's despicable human rights record to the public, this idiot is suing the governments of canada and the US for deporting him there.

[Olivier]

Originally posted by Mira
Then you know that Chirac would be one of the first to be sent there, don't you?no. But I have already answered this baseless affirmation and it seems you didn't take my answer into account. Le pen is one thing, Chirac didn't torture anyone, he was not in the paratroopers. And at least we have a president who knows what war is.





Originally posted by Mira
I already posted SEVERAL TIMES that I am against torture. sure, but that's not what i was asking.

You know the best project we have to punish international war crimes is the international penal tribunal. You know that all democracies in the world support it and only the US block the advent of this court.

So while it's important complaining about french war crimes forty years ago, do you or not support the international tribunal NOW?




Originally posted by Mira
Now I think the US is doing a pretty good job with that. Last night, I watched Senator Byrd lay into John Ashcroft in a world televised hearing. Ashcroft is at the top of the food chain! I certainly think the US today are doing better on torture in iraq than the US did on torture in vietnam. And the US did better than the french did on torture in algeria. And the french did better than what was done before....

That's called progress and if you do not work for it - and that includes stopping the US from blocking the international criminal court - you can cry about the past forever.

But while you cry about the past you don't act to prevent the tortures which are carried out today.

[Olivier]

Originally posted by tandem
amnesty international is a politically motivated organization. they try to portray themselves as a neutral humanitarian group but it's well-known that amnesty often refuses to (rightfully) scold arab states for their poor human rights record and obvious use of torture on prisoners. there was a recent case here in canada about a syrian national who was deported because canadian and american officials believed he was involved in terrorism. he was held in detention and tortured in a syrian prison for a year without being charged with anything before he was released out of the blue by the syrian government. instead of suing syria for torturing him and bringing the country's despicable human rights record to the public, this idiot is suing the governments of canada and the US for deporting him there. This is right! here is more



Secret World of U.S. Interrogation
Long History of Tactics in Overseas Prisons Is Coming to Light


By Dana Priest and Joe Stephens
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, May 11, 2004; Page A01

(…)

'Renditions'

Much larger than the group of prisoners held by the CIA are those who have been captured and transported around the world by the CIA and other agencies of the U.S. government for interrogation by foreign intelligence services. This transnational transfer of people is a key tactic in U.S. counterterrorism operations on five continents, one that often raises the ire of foreign publics when individual cases come to light.

For example, on Jan. 17, 2002, a few hours before Bosnia's Human Rights Chamber was to order the release of five Algerians and a Yemeni for lack of evidence, Bosnian police handed them over to U.S. authorities, who flew them to Guantanamo Bay.
The Bosnian government, faced with public outcry, said it would compensate the families of the men, who were suspected of making threats to the U.S. and British embassies in Bosnia.
The same month, in Indonesia, Muhammad Saad Iqbal Madni, suspected of helping Richard C. Reid, the Briton charged with trying to detonate explosives in his shoe on an American Airlines flight, was detained by Indonesian intelligence agents based on information the CIA provided them. On Jan. 11, without a court hearing or a lawyer, he was hustled aboard an unmarked U.S.-registered Gulfstream V jet parked at a military airport in Jakarta and flown to Egypt.

It was no coincidence Madni ended up in Egypt. Egypt, Morocco, Jordan and Saudi Arabia are well-known destinations for suspected terrorists.

"A lot of people they [the U.S.] are taking to Jordan, third-country nationals," a senior Saudi official said. "They can do anything they want with them, and the U.S. can say, 'We don't have them.' "
In the past year, an unusual country joined that list of destinations: Syria.

Last year U.S. immigration authorities, with the approval of then-acting Attorney General Larry Thompson, authorized the expedited removal of Maher Arar to Syria, a country the U.S. government has long condemned as a chronic human rights abuser. Maher, a Syrian-born Canadian citizen, was detained at JFK International Airport in New York as he was transferring to the final leg of his flight home to Canada.

U.S. authorities say Arar has links to al Qaeda. Not wanting to return him to Canada for fear he would not be adequately followed, immigration officials took him, in chains and shackles, to a New Jersey airfield, where he was "placed on a small private jet, and flown to Washington D.C.," according to a lawsuit filed recently against the U.S. government.

He was flown to Jordan, interrogated and beaten by Jordanian authorities who then turned him over to Syria, according to the lawsuit.
Arar said that for the 10 months he was in prison, he was beaten, tortured and kept in a shallow grave. After much pressure from the Canadian government and human rights activists, he was freed and has returned to Canada .


So for you, tandem, is it a scandal that the governement of the US is sued in this case?

Is it a scandal that human rights activists got him out of Syria?

[Oh Jerusalem]

Originally posted by Olivier
So for you, tandem, is it a scandal that the governement of the US is sued in this case? I it a scandal that human rights activists got him out of syria?
There isn't a single example in that Washington Post article that shows a US government employee involved in handing someone over to foreign torturers.

The Bosnian case is where a foreign government handed over prisoners to the US and noth the other way around. There is also no allegation of torture against these prisoners in the article.

The next case is in Indonesia. An intelligence tip from CIA was involved, not CIA agents themselves.

In the last case, Arar's, it was the US' right to deport him. There is no evidence given by this article that the US told the Jordanians or the Syrians to torture them.

[Olivier]

Originally posted by Binyamin
Olivier, you missed this post by someone on your ignore list, so I'm posting it again for your edification. I'm edified, and as a matter of fact I do not really regret putting this person on my ignore list.




Originally posted by Binyamin
I'm sure you also realize that the abuse in Abu-Ghraib dos not qualify as torture according to the U.S. rules that you linked to above.We do not know yet all that happened at Abu-Ghraib, but only a small part because some soldiers were stupid enough to take photos and broadcast them.
For the fact represented on the photos (there are new photos (http://www.truthout.org/) out, nice smile btw), I myself hesitate calling that torture, mainly because I think you torture someone with a purpose (e.g. making him/her confess something) while in those cases the prisonners had absolutely nothing to confess, so it's more sadism.

But when sadism reaches a certain point, I call it torture. I would take into account what is felt by the victims too, and I understand they call that torture. Some even said it was worst that what was done to them (you know in some cases the same guys were tortured by saddam and by US troops).


Originally posted by Binyamin
I think torture (real torture, not just abuse) should be legal with known criminals and terrorists, when they can provide useful information. They can always cooperate if they do not like it.Well do it yourself then and tell me who you see in the mirror afterwards.

[Oh Jerusalem]

Originally posted by Olivier
I'm edified, and as a matter of fact I do not really regret putting this person on my ignore list.
And loving it!
we do not know yet all that happened at Abu-Ghraib, but only a small part
Maybe you know the large part and the party is essentially over. At least it seems to be in the rest of the world except, apparently in Al Queda Cave HQ. Where are you posting from, BTW?
Well do it yourself then and tell me who you see in the mirror afterwards.
How infantile. I don't want to be a combat soldier or a policeman because of some of the violence that's involved. But when one of them saves lives through acceptable methods, I say "thank you" to those that serve.

No one questions whether torture or torment is pretty or not.

[Oh Jerusalem]

Originally posted by Olivier
I'm not sure you realize the extend of torture exercised by the US lately : the USA may very well have turned into the biggest torturer worldwide.
How much french fried can we consume in such a short amount of time. Little French emporer Ollie is naked.

From Amnesty revisited (http://normblog.typepad.com/normblog/2004/06/amnesty_revisit.html):

We are being asked by Irene Khan to believe that against the backdrop of forty post-war years of hideous violations of human rights throughout the USSR and its zone of influence, of the auto-genocide in Cambodia, the tortures practised for years in Chile and Argentina, and the 'disappearances' there, ethnic cleansing, torture and murder in former Yugoslavia, the genocide in Rwanda in which nearly a million people died within a few short months, the systematic torture and murder of political opponents for more than two decades in Iraq, including mass slaughters of genocidal proportions against the Kurds and the Shia, the assault against the East Timorese by Indonesia with its thousands upon thousands of victims, the further thousands and thousands gruesomely killed in Algeria, the routine practice of torture in jails in Egypt, Syria, apartheid South Africa, present-day Zimbabwe, and Saudi Arabia, the murderous brutalities of Idi Amin in Uganda, the ferocities of the civil war continuing for years now in Sudan and the practice of slavery there, the nightmare treatment of the populace in the shadowlands of North Korea - we are asked to believe, against this blood-soaked backdrop, that legislative measures taken by America and other liberal democracies since September 2001 in the war against terrorism amount to a greater attack on human rights principles and values than anything we have seen in the last 50 years. The imbalance, the grotesque lack of proportion, in this judgement cries out for explanation itself, which explanation is perhaps to be found in the influence of political considerations which are outwith Amnesty International's proper (and irreplaceably important) remit.

You can follow up on the about at Amnesty postscript (http://normblog.typepad.com/normblog/2004/06/amnesty_postscr.html).

Viva la pants!

[David_in_NYC]

Newsguy - I think at this point that we have conclusive proof that Oliver has zero interest in the truth, and is solely concerned with the promotion of anti-US and anti-semitic propoganda. Far from making a contribution, he is nothing more than a source of pollution. Get rid of him for all our sakes.

[Oh Jerusalem]

Originally posted by David_in_NYC
Newsguy - I think at this point that we have conclusive proof that Oliver has zero interest in the truth, and is solely concerned with the promotion of anti-US and anti-semitic propoganda. Far from making a contribution, he is nothing more than a source of pollution. Get rid of him for all our sakes.
No! No! Keep him. He only helps us reinforce the truth even more with one of his passionate novelettes.

[Binyamin]

Originally posted by Olivier
Some even said it was worst that what was done to them (you know in some cases the same guys were tortured by saddam and by US troops).
I am not going to track down that comment, but he described what Saddam did to him, and what America did to him. It was very clear which was worse. His comment actually gives the lie to all the outrage we hear. No one cares that much about what happenend, they are only trying to attack America. The prisoner in question included. (He probably cared abouyt what they did to him, but he cared alot more about hurting America.)

[Mira~]

Originally posted by Olivier
no[QUOTE]Originally posted by Olivier
[B]no. But I have already answered this baseless affirmation and it seems you didn't take my answer into account. Le pen is one thing, Chirac didn't torture anyone, he was not in the paratroopers. And at least we have a president who knows what war is.

No. lol. That wasn't what I was referring to, although considering that there are still victims alive as well as their perpetrators, some of whom are even in politics like Le Pen, it would at least be nice if France would offer a public apology for what was done to the Algerian people. Of course Chirac refuses: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1071504.stm

What I was actually referring to was the brief filed regarding the war crimes of the NATO allies in the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. Chirac, along with Clinton and Blair are among the named defendants: http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/icty.htm


You know the best project we have to punish international war crimes is the international penal tribunal. You know that all democracies in the world support it and only the US block the advent of this court.

If the case against the NATO allies were to ever go anywhere, you can bet that Chirac will actually have to answer the allegations against him regarding his involvement in cutting the deal to protect Ratko Mladic from justice at the Hague in exchange for general Mladic handing over two French pilots that were held hostage. http://www.opinion.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2003/07/11/dl1102.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2003/07/11/ixopinion.html

Apparently, Chirac is a very public champion of the international court, but when it comes to any crimes involving the French, it suddenly becomes a very bad idea and he blocks French military personnel from testifying.

The French government refused to allow Gen Janvier to testify in public during the parliamentary inquiry into France's role in the Srebrenica disaster.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;$sessionid$ZEO2TFNMQJ5A5QFIQMGSFGGAVCBQ WIV0?xml=/news/2003/07/11/wkos11.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/07/11/ixnewstop.html&secureRefresh=true&_requestid=390729

So while it's important complaining about french war crimes forty years ago, do you or not support the international tribunal NOW?

No, not at this time. The US has supported the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda with significant financial resources, much of them voluntary and it has used its diplomatic and military resources to make these tribunals more effective. The US also participated in the Rome Conference. However, I don’t support US ratification of the ICC at this time. One of the reasons why the US did not step in to stop the genocide in Rwanda is because of our failure in Somalia. Like it or not, the United States is still the primary stabilizing force in the world. As a democracy, our President has to weigh the risks of fighting an unpopular war. Bush will likely not get re-elected another term because of Iraq. As an open society, our media and human rights organizations are there to maintain transparence. Why would we do anything that could potentially hamper our decision making process even more in the event that our troops are needed somewhere? .

Also, I won’t support it when the Court remains politically charged and the Statute granting power to the ICC gives substantial discretion to the ICC’s prosecutor and the definitions of war crimes are phrased generally and in some cases, are open for enormous interpretation. Arafat is lauded by European government leaders and these same leaders call for Sharon to face the Hague for the war crimes of the SLA in Lebanon even after he was subject to full justice and stripped of his military ranking years ago in an Israeli trial. The ICC has broad discretion to second guess the decisions of sovereign nations in their exercise of primary jurisdiction over any accused national, and as in the case of Sharon, we saw that the Court was very subjective in terms of trying to exercise its authority, which is only suppose to be granted in the event that there is an inconceivable breakdown in the justice system of the sovereign State. The same thing that happened in Lebanon by the SLA happened in Afghanistan by the Northern Alliance. And yet, I don’t hear much talk about charging Blair and Bush for war crimes in Afghanistan, perhaps because it was a war that was fairly well supported by the international community. Basically, you would have to first clean up the political corruption in the UN to convince me that it is a good thing. Certain interest groups will always be very concerned with particular ICC prosecutions and I can’t conceive of the US compromising the Constitutional rights of our own citizens in order to appease world opinion.

[tandem]

Originally posted by Olivier
So for you, tandem, is it a scandal that the governement of the US is sued in this case?
it is. the united states has every right to deport individuals who pass through it who are suspected of having ties to terrorists. the US did nothing illegal deporting him to his native country. he's not a US citizen and he probably doesn't even hold a US visa. it's the syrians who tortured and abused him, not the US and not canada. if anything, as mentioned in the article, canada helped secure his release. now he's suing the canadian government.

he should sue syria for compensation. he should make every effort to bring syria's atrocious human rights record to the public. he's doing neither. lots of misplaced anger if you ask me.

Is it a scandal that human rights activists got him out of Syria?
what the hell are you talking about?

[Olivier]

Originally posted by Mira
No, not at this time. The US has supported the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda with significant financial resources, much of them voluntary and it has used its diplomatic and military resources to make these tribunals more effective. The US also participated in the Rome Conference. However, I don’t support US ratification of the ICC at this time. One of the reasons why the US did not step in to stop the genocide in Rwanda is because of our failure in Somalia. Like it or not, the United States is still the primary stabilizing force in the world. As a democracy, our President has to weigh the risks of fighting an unpopular war. Bush will likely not get re-elected another term because of Iraq. As an open society, our media and human rights organizations are there to maintain transparence. Why would we do anything that could potentially hamper our decision making process even more in the event that our troops are needed somewhere? .

Also, I won’t support it when the Court remains politically charged and the Statute granting power to the ICC gives substantial discretion to the ICC’s prosecutor and the definitions of war crimes are phrased generally and in some cases, are open for enormous interpretation. Arafat is lauded by European government leaders and these same leaders call for Sharon to face the Hague for the war crimes of the SLA in Lebanon even after he was subject to full justice and stripped of his military ranking years ago in an Israeli trial. The ICC has broad discretion to second guess the decisions of sovereign nations in their exercise of primary jurisdiction over any accused national, and as in the case of Sharon, we saw that the Court was very subjective in terms of trying to exercise its authority, which is only suppose to be granted in the event that there is an inconceivable breakdown in the justice system of the sovereign State. The same thing that happened in Lebanon by the SLA happened in Afghanistan by the Northern Alliance. And yet, I don’t hear much talk about charging Blair and Bush for war crimes in Afghanistan, perhaps because it was a war that was fairly well supported by the international community. Basically, you would have to first clean up the political corruption in the UN to convince me that it is a good thing. Certain interest groups will always be very concerned with particular ICC prosecutions and I can’t conceive of the US compromising the Constitutional rights of our own citizens in order to appease world opinion. Sometimes it's really worth it being here. Nice job Mira :)



Let's try a game: I bet you're good enough to guess what my answers will be to some of your arguments..


"if France would offer a public apology for what was done to the Algerian people."
(easy guess)


"The French government refused to allow Gen Janvier to testify in public"
(hard guess, but logical)

"the United States is still the primary stabilizing force in the world"
(easy guess there, soo easy)

"Bush will likely not get re-elected another term because of Iraq." (harder to guess my answer here!)

"Arafat is lauded by European government leaders"
(very easy guess)


"the political corruption in the UN "
(average)

[Mira~]

Oliver,

I will be leaving town for a week, so I don't have time to guess, although at least a few of your answers I am sure are obvious.

Have a good rest of your week.

[Oh Jerusalem]

Originally posted by Mira
I will be leaving town for a week
Au revoir! :cool:

[Oh Jerusalem]

Originally posted by Mira
I will be leaving town for a week
Au revoir! :cool:

[Oh Jerusalem]

Originally posted by Mira
I will be leaving town for a week
Au revoir! :cool:

[Oh Jerusalem]

Originally posted by Mira
I will be leaving town for a week
Au revoir! :cool:

[Mira~]

Originally posted by Oh Jerusalem
Au revoir! :cool:

Thanks! I leave tomorrow. :)

[Mira~]

Originally posted by Oh Jerusalem
Au revoir! :cool:

Thanks! I leave tomorrow. :)

[Mira~]

Originally posted by Oh Jerusalem
Au revoir! :cool:

Thanks! I leave tomorrow. :)

[Mira~]

Originally posted by Oh Jerusalem
Au revoir! :cool:

Thanks! I leave tomorrow. :)

[Mira~]

Originally posted by Oh Jerusalem
Au revoir! :cool:

Thanks! I leave tomorrow. :)

[Mira~]

Originally posted by Oh Jerusalem
Au revoir! :cool:

Thanks! I leave tomorrow. :)

[Mira~]

Originally posted by Oh Jerusalem
Au revoir! :cool:

Thanks! I leave tomorrow. :)

[Mira~]

Originally posted by Oh Jerusalem
Au revoir! :cool:

Thanks! I leave tomorrow. :)

[Mira~]

Originally posted by Oh Jerusalem
Au revoir! :cool:

Thanks! I leave tomorrow. :)

[Mira~]

Originally posted by Oh Jerusalem
Au revoir! :cool:

Thanks! I leave tomorrow. :)

[Mira~]

Originally posted by Oh Jerusalem
Au revoir! :cool:

Thanks! I leave tomorrow. :)

[Mira~]

Originally posted by Oh Jerusalem
Au revoir! :cool:

Thanks! I leave tomorrow. :)

[Mira~]

Originally posted by Mira
Thanks! I leave tomorrow. :)

So ridiculous!