posted
We are the Torturers: The Global Erosion of Human Rights Source of Article
The absolute ban on torture, a cornerstone of the international human rights edifice, is under attack. The principle we once believed to be unassailable – the inherent right to physical integrity and dignity of the person – is becoming a casualty of the so-called war on terror. So warned Louise Arbour, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. Meanwhile, photographs, news reports and official investigations into abuses at Abu Ghraib, Bagram Air Base and Guantanamo Bay suggest a policy of systematic torture on the part of the US government that extends all the way up the chain of command. The 1984 Torture Convention prohibits “any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person.” The Bush administration favors its own standard, whereby the pain caused “must be equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily functions or even death.” Under this definition, many methods of what is generally understood as “torture” would be allowed, including “waterboarding” – where a person is made to believe they will drown. Senator John McCain, who was subjected to waterboarding in North Vietnam, describes it as “torture, very exquisite torture.” Last autumn, McCain sponsored draft legislation that stipulated “No individual in the custody or under the physical control of the United States Government, regardless of nationality or physical location, shall be subject to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.” The bill was opposed by Vice President Dick Cheney, who, by invoking the threat of a presidential veto, negotiated important loopholes. As adopted, the legislation fails to prohibit torture contracted out to other countries. It also provides legal immunity for those committing acts of torture that were “officially authorized and determined to be lawful at the time that they were conducted.” Moreover, when Bush signed McCain’s bill into law, he declared it would be interpreted within the context of the president’s powers to protect national security – in other words, that any interrogation method could still be used, if the White House deemed it necessary. This outright rejection of Congressional intent is breathtaking. As Sidney Blumenthal observed, it reflects “a basic ideology of absolute power.” At the same time, the CIA has engaged in a practice called “extraordinary rendition” whereby suspects are transferred in violation of the Torture Convention either to the intelligence services of countries notorious for torture or to clandestine prisons located outside the United States. The secret prisons have obvious parallels – the Soviet Gulag and the Latin American “disappearances” – and they contravene the prohibition on arbitrary detention in international human rights law. Some countries, including Britain and Canada, have obtained assurances of good treatment from the United States before handing over suspects. This practice has been criticized by the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture on the basis that such “assurances are unreliable and ineffective” – not least because they “are sought usually from states where the practice of torture is systematic.” The same two countries have supported the Bush administration’s illegal behavior in other ways. Both Britain and Canada have allowed CIA aircraft to use their airports and airspace on numerous occasions, including – it would seem – for rendition purposes. British agents have also allegedly conducted interrogations under threat of torture, while using information obtained by other governments through torture. Craig Murray, a former British ambassador to Uzbekistan, has posted classified documents on his website that show British officials deciding that they can use information obtained through torture for intelligence purposes. The documents are all the more troubling because Uzbekistan is notorious for using especially horrific methods of torture, such as dipping detainees in boiling water. A basic tenant of criminal law – reaffirmed in the Torture Convention – holds that those who aid or abet a crime are criminals themselves. Our behavior also has a negative impact on the way we are perceived, and how we perceive ourselves. In an important sense, if our democratic governments have been complicit in torture, we – as citizens and voters – are torturers too.
Michael Byers is the Canada Research Chair in Global Politics and International Law at the University of British Columbia.Posts: 3128 | From: Not Your Heaven | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The United states does not advocate tourture. The standard in the west is, has been and continues to be that tourture consists of anything that causes permanent damage. Micheal Byers is part of a radical anti american canadian group. He would write these silly articles regardless of what we did.
Posts: 904 | From: Texana | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ARROW99: The United states does not advocate tourture. The standard in the west is, has been and continues to be that tourture consists of anything that causes permanent damage. Micheal Byers is part of a radical anti american canadian group. He would write these silly articles regardless of what we did.
What's your definition of torture exactly?
Posts: 3128 | From: Not Your Heaven | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Anything that does not cause permanent damage. You may also be aware that Congress, both democrats and republicans , voted to let president Bush determine what is acceptable and what is not. They are also working on a war crimes trial bill for the scum at Gitmo.
Posts: 904 | From: Texana | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just can't believe how you can buy this crap Arrow. There can't be a grey area in torture to be decided by the president. You just don't torture. It is morally wrong and it will change the torturers too for the worst. Think about a military that is prescribed to have some small crossing of borders over this human believed to have done something wrong, not proven to have something wrong done,, and then coming home and love his wife and kids. It is dehumanising to both victim and torturer.
posted
We had some famous 'cases' here lately were suspects were forcefully pressed to admit to murder and sexual offences by keeping them awake, having lights on, threathning them lying to them and with bodily threats. They were so adament to get out of the pressure they gave in and were convicted. Now they are proven innocent, either the real killer stepped forward or better investigations proved otherwise. You just don't do that! What good does it bring you but shame and pain to anyone involved.
posted
The scum. And now we get the stories of the men that are released after years of captivity. The ones really innocent, held without trial, pressured and tortured in ways I can't even look at, just randomly picked and held without legal aid, there lives destroyed and that of their families. The scum? Where is the justice here? It is dehumanising and a shame to all involved.
posted
Now come on Demiana, give us all a brsak. These men are not innocent family men captured and taken to Gitmo. They were scraped off a battle field in Afghanistan and other places. In fact, we have let many go already. The ones that are left are turds who were finging in the war on terror....on the other side. They need to be put on trial and IF found guilt tied to a post and shot. They wore no uniforms in battle, they represented no government and that , under the Geneva convention, makes them common criminals.
Posts: 904 | From: Texana | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Even the ones suspected still and therefore kept should be treated with respect to their rights. If from weak nations they have ignorantly or willingly ignored the conventions of Geneva does not in any way should give anyone the right to strip them from their human rights. How low can you get?
posted
Deminia, who is stripping them of their of their rights? They will get a trial and each case will be looked at on its merits. You just want to take up for these killers because you favor their political position and you despise the United states....its as simple as that. If we just turned them lose and they ended up killing a marine or two in Iraq that would suit you just fine. Fact is, we are not going to do that.
Posts: 904 | From: Texana | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Battlefields unfortunately crowded with families, where the line to whom is a terrorist, who is adjusting and who is secretly resisting can be drawn coming from outerspace America! it is not like we fought worldwar 1 and all the soldiers ligned up at pastures around Yper Belgium and have only themselves and their enemy to 'entertain'. http://greatwar.nl/
posted
The 'collateral' damage and the scandals, the injustice, the American Army is inflicting on the general public is in fact damaging the objective, the war against terrorism.
posted
They will get a trial and each case will be looked at on its merits
They will get a trial after they have been tortured but without lasting damage(?) and lived an unlawfull life, without legal or other assistence, that will traumatise them for life and make them loose all trust in humanity. If they then be prooved guilty what will be a great misunderstanding of the way one can investigate crime in these unlawfull situations they will be shot?
quote:Originally posted by ARROW99: Anything that does not cause permanent damage. You may also be aware that Congress, both democrats and republicans , voted to let president Bush determine what is acceptable and what is not. They are also working on a war crimes trial bill for the scum at Gitmo.
I don't like it sill..... It's no different from Egypt in that respect....I must say I'm dissappointed Posts: 3128 | From: Not Your Heaven | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Some people have a lack of compassion they can't get in touch with their emotions, they can't perceive human weakness as a common trait, and obeserve pain and agony in others. It is called autism really.
posted
Torture to ordernary prisoners should never occure but im not sure how I feel about when it comes down to getting knownledge out of people who could save a lot of peoples life/preventing a terrorattack. - I big part of me feel like that would be ok. What if mullah Omar or Bin Laden or some other high profile terrorleader had been captured before 11.09 and we could have prevented the attack. Then we probaly would have war in Afghanistan or Iraq today. The world would have been different today (maybe not better but different)
Posts: 1215 | From: Nowhere | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
baloney....Congress, both Democrats and republicans woted 96-1 last summer to stay the course in Iraq and OPPOSED withdrawl. No poll ever issued favors withdraw from Iraq before the job is done. President Bush was REELECTED in 2004. If all these Bush haters are out there they would have defeated him. You are listening to the losers in American politics and assume they represent us all. There is not a shred of evidence for that position.
Posts: 904 | From: Texana | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tibe: Torture to ordernary prisoners should never occure but im not sure how I feel about when it comes down to getting knownledge out of people who could save a lot of peoples life/preventing a terrorattack. - I big part of me feel like that would be ok. What if mullah Omar or Bin Laden or some other high profile terrorleader had been captured before 11.09 and we could have prevented the attack. Then we probaly would have war in Afghanistan or Iraq today. The world would have been different today (maybe not better but different)
If it wasnt Bin laden it would have been something else
And please guys stop denying the fact that 9/11 was a Cover-up & there are proofs... even if it was Bin Laden, it wouldnt have been that easy without a lille help from ... in the USA (god knows who, Bush, CIA,?????)
Posts: 3128 | From: Not Your Heaven | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
After the uncovering of the manipulation leading to the Iraq war and the following misunderstanding of its proceedings I would be very surprised if American voters would give Bush a third term. His part is done. Lets hope somone more balanced and with broader faculties will take his place.
Posts: 1419 | From: Amsterdam, Netherlands | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ARROW99: baloney....Congress, both Democrats and republicans woted 96-1 last summer to stay the course in Iraq and OPPOSED withdrawl. No poll ever issued favors withdraw from Iraq before the job is done. President Bush was REELECTED in 2004. If all these Bush haters are out there they would have defeated him. You are listening to the losers in American politics and assume they represent us all. There is not a shred of evidence for that position.
We know that the voting machines had no paper trail & was hacked... & it was decided before a large numbers of Americans reaching those machines to vote.
If you want to keep lying to yourself.... please go ahead.... but not to us But going around in circles sucks
Posts: 3128 | From: Not Your Heaven | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can assure you that our policy won't change no matter who is elected. No sane American politican is going to give Iran a pass to run the middle east. Mrs Clinton agrees with President Bush on Iraq and the war on terror. Be careful what you wish for.
Posts: 904 | From: Texana | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
He can not be elected the next time - in US they are only allowed doing 2 terms.
Posts: 1215 | From: Nowhere | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Demiana: After the uncovering of the manipulation leading to the Iraq war and the following misunderstanding of its proceedings I would be very surprised if American voters would give Bush a third term. His part is done. Lets hope somone more balanced and with broader faculties will take his place.
yeh, we need someone more moderate... But we still got 2 F*** years untill the AH is gone.... I'm scared of the damage that could happen to the whole world by the time he's gone.
For me, having a good USA president.... all will be well back in my developing country.
Posts: 3128 | From: Not Your Heaven | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ARROW99: I can assure you that our policy won't change no matter who is elected. No sane American politican is going to give Iran a pass to run the middle east. Mrs Clinton agrees with President Bush on Iraq and the war on terror. Be careful what you wish for.
Your policy won't change right away but it will change along the way
Posts: 3128 | From: Not Your Heaven | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Our policy will change when a moderate governmant is in power in Iran. That is when you will see the beginnings of an American pullout in Iraq and not before then. If there is another terror attack in the States public opinion will allow us to finnally do what is neccessary and that is pulverize Iran into the stone age. That will end the war on terror.
Posts: 904 | From: Texana | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ARROW99: Anything that does not cause permanent damage.
Rape doesn't (always) cause permanent damage, but I would consider that torture.
Posts: 8794 | From: 01-20-09 The End of an Error | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic