| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 7/13 |
| 2004/6/23 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:30964 Activity:very high |
6/23 Read the interrogation memos yourself:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A62516-2004Jun22.html
Start with Feb. 1, 2002 (John Ashcroft's letter), it's short.
Then go to Feb. 7, 2002 (Bush's memo).
Now, my question: Why isn't anyone talking about the "UN Convention
Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or
Punishment", which I believe should apply to everyone, al Qaeda
included?
Anyway, those two are really short reads, and it's interesting to
see how the AP mischaracterizes some parts.
\_ Another point is the Geneva Convention covers warfare between nation
states, the Bush administration decided the taliban and
al-queda are not valid nation states, so the geneva
convention does not apply to such prisoners. I don't
agree at all but that's their reasoning.
\_ Yeah, to put it succinctly, if you read the two memos I
highlighted --
Ashcroft said: Afghanistan is a failed state! Therefore,
GC does not apply to Taliban.
Bush said: I accept what Ashcroft said (and if he's wrong,
he takes all the blame). But, I still say the
Taliban should be covered by GC, but I reserve
the right to remove GC coverage later.
\_ Conversely, it's therefore okay for non-nation states to torture
others since they are not signatories of the Geneva Convention.
\_ It's not quite conversely. Let's say al Qaeda chops off
heads in Iraq. Then they could be prosecuted by the Iraqi
government for murder, or extradited to the U.S. The
difference is, that if the U.S. tortures al Qaeda people
in Guantanamo, no one cares. If the U.S. abuses an
al Qaeda suspect who turns out to be innocent and people
complain about it, then you have problems.
\_ If the US doesn't torture a guy who had information that
would have lead to saving thousands more American lives,
you'd be the first to bitch about it and blame Bush.
\_ Okay, I'm answering my own question:
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu2/6/cat/treaties/convention-reserv.htm
See United States of America. On signing, the USA made an
exception for itself. They took out "degrading". Haha, I can't
believe it was that straightforward. Hahahahaha ... it's totally
legal for U.S. forces to treat those not covered by GC in a
degrading way. This is what Bush means by never condoning torture
or anything illegal, which is "true".
Also, see this for the legal aspects behind torture at Guantanamo:
http://www.warblogging.com/archives/000865.php
Bottom line: It's *all* legal!
(if they wanted to use torture there)
\_ Well, the beating to death stuff is still illegal.
\_ According to what you've posted, making prisoners stand naked
would be acceptable. Sexual assault, violence, and murder,
however, would still be considered inhumane and would therefore
constitute violations of the conventions. In other words, Pfc
England would be within the good zone if she just pointed, but
would be in the bad zone if she touched.
\_ Sexual assault, violence, and murder would be legal for
an al Qaeda member at Guantanamo. Iraq is fully covered
by GC, on the other hand. This is the Bybee memo that
the Bush adminstration has been disavowing as "too broad,
theoretical" for the last two days.
\_ No, murder, sexual assault (rape), and some forms of
violence would still not be ok.
\_ Not according to the Bush Administration. Well,
they would be "not okay" by policy, but Bush
claims that he is above the law and that the
Administration could not be punished by any
judge or legislative act. So the prison guards
could rape away without fear of any punishment
if that was Administration policy. Or so they
claim.
\_ Bullshit. Show me where Bush said murder and rape
are ok in any American controlled prison.
\_ Don't forget: Iraq, it's not legal; Guantanamo,
legal for al Qaeda members. -op
\_ That's right, torture/killing of al Qaeda members at
Guantanamo is "not okay" (Bush said don't do it), but
it's "legal". Big difference. -op
\_ Torture, yes, of course. Killing, no. It is
intellectually dishonest to use "torture/killing"
as a one word phrase when only one part of it is
true.
\_ Let's put it this way: If an al Qaeda member
ends up dead at Guantanamo from a torture session
gone wrong, what charge will be brought?
Can we at least say that this manner of killing
is legal, as determined by the Bush adminstration? |
| 7/13 |
|
| www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A62516-2004Jun22.html Bybee argued that that the War Crimes Act and the Geneva Convention did not apply to al Qaeda prisoners and that President Bush had constitutional authority to "suspend our treaty obligations toward Afghanistan" because it was a "failed state." Bybee, then head of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, has since become a federal judge. The memo was Ashcroft's personal response to the State Department position that, as a matter of law, the Geneva Conventions protected Taliban soldiers. Ashcroft warned that if the president sided with the State Department, American officials might wind up going to jail for violating US and international laws. Bybee also concluded that the interrogation of al Qaeda members was outside the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, but warned that a "rogue prosecutor" could choose to investigate US interrogation techniques because the international court "is not checked by any other international body, not to mention any democratically-elected or accountable one." Bush administration officials said on June 22, 2004 -- when the document was publicly released -- that the memo's conclusions were overbroad and would be rewritten. The memo allowed commanders to seek Rumsfeld's direct approval to use the tougher techniques if they are "warranted in an individual case" but would require a "thorough justification." |
| www.unhchr.ch/html/menu2/6/cat/treaties/convention-reserv.htm Also according to paragraph 2 of the article 30, the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan, will not be bound to honour the provisions of paragraph 1 of the same article since according to that paragraph 1 the compulsory submission of disputes in connection with interpretation or the implementation of the provisions of this Convention by one of the parties concerned to the International Court of Justice is deemed possible. Concerning to this matter, it declares that the settlement of disputes between the States Parties, such disputes may be referred to arbitration or to the International Court of Justice with the consent of all the Parties concerned and not by one of the Parties. Austria will establish its jurisdiction in accordance with article 5 of the Convention irrespective of the laws applying to the place where the offence occurred, but in respect of paragraph 1 only if prosecution by a State having jurisdiction under para graph 1 or paragraph 1 is not to be expected. Austria regards article 15 as the legal basis for the inadmissibility provided for therein of the use of statements which are established to have been made as a result of torture." Botswana Reservation made upon signature and confirmed upon ratification: "The Government of the Republic of Botswana considers itself bound by Article 1 of the Convention to the extent that 'torture' means the torture and inhuman or degrading punishment or other treatment prohibited by Section 7 of the Constitution of the Republic of Botswana." Upon ratification: The Government of Chile declares that in its relations with American States that are Parties to the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, it will apply that Convention in cases where its provisions are incompatible with those of the present Convention. China Reservations made upon signature and confirmed upon ratification: " The Chinese Government does not recognize the competence of the Committee against Torture as provided for in article 20 of the Convention. " The Chinese Government does not consider itself bound by paragraph l of article 30 of the Convention." Cuba Declarations: The Government of the Republic of Cuba deplores the fact that even after the adoption of General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) containing the Declaration on the granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples, a provision such as paragraph 1 of article 2 was included in the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. The Government of the Republic declares, in accordance with article 28 of the Convention, that the provisions of paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of article 20 of the Convention will have to be invoked in strict compliance with the principle of the sovereignty of States and implemented with the prior consent of the States Parties. In connection with the provisions of article 30 of the Convention, the Government of the Republic of Cuba is of the view that any dispute between Parties should be settled by negotiation through the diplomatic channel. Equatorial Guinea Declaration and reservation: First - The Government of Equatorial Guinea hereby declares that, pursuant to article 28 of this Convention, it does not recognize the competence of the Committee provided for in article 20 of the Convention. Second - With reference to the provisions of article 30, the Government of Equatorial Guinea does not consider itself bound by paragraph 1 thereof. in accordance with Article 30 of the said Convention that the submission under Article 30 to arbitration or the International Court of Justice of disputes between State Parties relating to the interpretation or application of the said Convention shall be by the consent of ALL the Parties concerned and not by one or more of the Parties concerned." In the opinion of the Federal Republic of Germany, article 3 as well as the other provisions of the Convention exclusively establish State obligations that are met by the Federal Republic of Germany in conformity with the provisions of its domestic law which is in accordance with the Convention. In recent times the Catholic Church has consistently pronounced itself in favour of unconditional respect for life itself and unequivocally condemned "whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, torments inflicted on body or mind, attempts to coerce the will itself" (Second Vatican Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et spes, 7 December 1965). The law of the Church (Code of Canon Law, 1981) and its catechism (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1987) enumerate and clearly identify forms of behaviour that can harm the bodily or mental integrity of the individual, condemn their perpetrators and call for the abolition of such acts. On 14 January 1978, Pope Paul VI, in his last address to the diplomatic corps, after referring to the torture and mistreatment practised in various countries against individuals, concluded as follows: "How could the Church fail to take up a stern stand ... with regard to torture and to similar acts of violence inflicted on the human person?" Pope John Paul II, for his part, has not failed to affirm that "torture must be called by its proper name" (message for the celebration of the World Day of Peace, 1 January 1980). He has expressed his deep compassion for the victims of torture (World Congress on Pastoral Ministry for Human Rights, Rome, 4 July 1998), and in particular for tortured women (message to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, 1 March 1993). In this spirit the Holy See wishes to lend its moral support and collaboration to the international community, so as to contribute to the elimination of recourse to torture, which is inadmissible and inhuman. The Holy See, in becoming a party to the Convention on behalf of the Vatican City State, undertakes to apply it insofar as it is compatible, in practice, with the peculiar nature of that State. Reservation: The Government of the Republic of Indonesia does not consider itself bound by the provision of article 30, paragraph 1, and takes the position that disputes relating to the interpretation and application of the Convention which cannot be settled through the channel provided for in paragraph 1 of the said article, may be referred to the International Court of Justice only with the consent of all parties to the disputes." In accordance with article 28 of the Convention, the State of Israel hereby declares that it does not recognize the competence of the Committee provided for in article 20. In accordance with paragraph 2 of article 30, the State of Israel hereby declares that it does not consider itself bound by paragraph 1 of that article." Kuwait Reservation: "With reservations as to article (20) and the provision of paragraph from article (30) of the Convention." Luxembourg Interpretative declaration: Article l The Grand Duchy of Luxembourg hereby declares that the only "lawful sanctions" that it recognizes within the meaning of article 1, paragraph 1, of the Convention are those which are accepted by both national law and international law. Monaco Reservation: In accordance with paragraph 2 of article 30 of the Convention, the Principality of Monaco declares that it does not consider itself bound by paragraph 1 of that article. Morocco Declaration made upon signature and confirmed upon ratification: Declaration: The Government of the Kingdom of Morocco does not recognize the competence of the Committee provided for in article 20. The Government of the Kingdom of Morocco does not consider itself bound by paragraph 1 of the same article. Netherlands Interpretative declaration with respect to article 1: "It is the understanding of the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands that the term "lawful sanctions" in article 1, paragraph 1, must be understood as referring to those sanctions which are lawful not only under national law but also under international law." New Zealand Reservation: "The Government of New Zealand reserves the right to award compensation to torture victims referred to in article 14 of the Convention Against Torture only at the discretion of the Attorney-General o... |
| www.warblogging.com/archives/000865.php The memo concludes that the United States is "not bound by torture laws". It was written by military and civilian lawyers at the Department of Defense for Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. It was received by Secretary Rumsfeld and carries the mark "Classified by: Secretary Rumsfeld" on its title page. The memo itself was classified as "SECRET/NOFORN" by Secretary Rumsfeld -- meaning that it is not to be seen by anyone except American nationals possessing a "secret" or better security clearance. This means that American allies -- from the British to the French to the Polish -- would not have been privy to this memo or its conclusions if it had not leaked. The actual full title of the memo is "Working Group Report on Detainee Interrogations in the Global War on Terrorism: Assessment of Legal, Historical, Policy and Operational Considerations". The copy of the memo that was made available to the WSJ and is now available from NPR is stamped "DRAFT" but Pentagon officials have reportedly assured reporters that it does not significantly differe from the final version of the report. The report available on NPR weighs in at 52 relatively dense pages and makes for difficult reading because of the bad scanning job -- it looks like it was sent through several fax machines and then run the the ringer. Only one section of the memo is blacked out, a paragraph on the second page. This paragraph may be blacked out because it contains identifying information that could help the Pentagon find the leaker. It should be noted that it appears that pages from the memo are missing in the PDF available from NPR. The last page in the PDF is page 52 but is marked in the document itself as "page 56". It doesn't end neatly, either: the end of the memo cuts off mid-sentence. Interestingly, on page 32, the Pentagon lawyers explain their reasoning for believing that torture conducted by US military personnel outside the fifty United States is not covered by the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. When the United States signed the Convention Against Torture it did so with the reservation that the Convention's prohibitions against torture only apply to the extent that such conduct is already banned by the Fifth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution. The lawyers write this immediately after writing that the United States Constitution does not apply to, for instance, detainees at Guantanamo Bay because GITMO is not sovereign United States territory and those detained are not American citizens. Write the attorneys: Nonresident enemy aliens do not enjoy constitutional rights outside the sovereign territory of the United States. The courts have held that unlawful combatants do not gain constitutional rights upon transfer to GTMO as unlawful combatants merely because the US exercises extensive dominion and control over GTMO.. And, so, if the United States accepts the Convention Against Torture only to the extent of the Constitution's applicability then, clearly, the Convention does not apply where the Constitution does not. Search Warblogging Enter your search terms below and click "Search" Search Stay Informed Enter your e-mail address below to be notified of new articles as they're posted to Warblogging. You can unsubscribe at any time and you won't be sent more than one e-mail per day. Subscribe Praise The very model of a communications revolution. This is Not a Blog As seen in The Washington Post, USA Today, TIME Magazine, Reuters, France Radio, German TV, National Public Radio, The PBS Newshour, The Globe and Mail, The Houston Chronicle, New York Newsday, MSNBC, The Chicago Tribune, Forever Young, Ganett News Service, Yahoo! UK, The Village Voice, Comunicazione Politica, The Guardian, New Hampshire Public Radio, at the American Bar Association, Poynter Online and elsewhere. |