In her latest move , she and 7 of her colleagues think that the current administration does not have the right to try a Qatar citizen outside of OUR judicial system. By the way, this Qatarian is a suspected terrorist.
Once again, the Clinton people think that this is a police issue and should be handled by OUR criminal justice system. They do not seem to understand the difference between domestic criminal activities and terrorism.
Have you seen any law enforcement manual's definition of a terrorist/enemy combatant? Or the Patriot Act 1 & 2's defintions? They can be applied to almost anyone.
These laws most assuredly define what the word 'alien' means... a non-US Citizen. The Jihadist from Qatar is most certainly an alien. As such, the Constitution of the United States says the Federal Judiciary has no jurisdiction over this man for acts committed in a foreign country. This makes him the subject of the Executive branch and treaty. The relevant treaty in this case is the Geneva Conventions covering the conduct of war. This Jihadist fails to qualify as a prisoner of war because he fails to meet the tests of article 4 of the Geneva Conventions. Therefore, since as a Jihadist, he has engaged in combat and does not meet the tests of article 4, he is an illegal combatant. We used to call such people spy, sabotuer, fifth columnist, etc. Geneva says they are subject to the discretion of their captors. Historically, these people have frequently been executed, sometimes summarily.
Is sending terror suspects to Egypt Syria and other countries for torture covered by the geneva convention?
"Hegel says somewhere all great events and personalities in world history reappear in one fashion or another. He forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second as farce."
The Eighteeenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte (1852) sect. 1, Cf.
Read the conventions. They are available online. The Third conventions of 1949 are the ones governing the treatment of prisoners of war. Article 4 is the portion which defines who is considered a prisoner of war.
(1) None of Qatar, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, or Syria are signatories to the Geneva Conventions governing war. Therefore none of them is party to this treaty. The Treaty itself says these rights and guarantees must be extended to signatory POWs only. We do so to others only as an act of graciousness.
(2) The Jihadists are not covered by the Conventions in any event because they, by their actions, do not qualify under article 3 as non-combatants any more than they do as lawful combatants under Article 4..
In short, the Egyptians and Syrians can treat these Jihadists however they please and as their law dictates while on their soil. That is the whole point of what it means to be sovreign. Neither US law, nor anyone else's applies there.
Besides the obvious moral problem arising from your understanding that it was legal to hand over people to countries which torture them (also put away the fact that the U.S. themselves are (or at least have been) torturing.), I want to challenge you on the legal matters you gave as support for your arguing. As far as I know the U.S. have signed the
"1. No State Party shall expel, return ("refouler")
or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial
grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected
to torture."
As the only reason for sending terror suspects to such countries is them to have been tortured, the U.S. were acting illegal.
As most of the countries mentioned above by you are parties in this treaty (except Iran, Iraq and Pakistan) your last argument does not hold here (not to mention does your previous reading of this doesn't hold anyway).
"Hegel says somewhere all great events and personalities in world history reappear in one fashion or another. He forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second as farce."
The Eighteeenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte (1852) sect. 1, Cf.
I see you liberals have a selective reading problem. And you are still wrong. As follows:
Article 3, Section 1 opens with the phrase:
"Persons taking no active part in the hostilities"
That lets out your friend, the Jihadist, now, doesn't it.
As for cruelty convention: You need to look at the signatories:
"States which have Ratified the Convention Against Torture and made declaration, under Article 22, that they agree to allow individual complaints to the Committee against Torture:
States which have Ratified the Convention Against Torture: Australia,Belize,Brazil,Cameroon,Chile,Colombia,Cyprus,Egypt,Estonia ...
States which have Signed but not yet Ratified the Convention Against Torture:
Belgium,Bolivia,Costa Rica,Cuba,Dominican Republic,Gabon,Gambia,Iceland,Indonesia,Morocco,Nicaragua,Nigeria,Sierra Leone,Sudan,United States of America"
It appears the United States hasNEVER RATIFIED THIS TREATY. You are simply wrong. It is not illegal for the United States to extradite a prisoner to a foreign jurisdiction where they might be tortured or executed under this treaty because the United States is not legaly bound by it.
"Persons taking no active part in the hostilities""
What treaty are you talking about? The Convention against torture etc. is not speaking about hostilities.
But anyway the U.S. ratified the treaty on 10/24/94 (I guess that is Bill Clintons fault too).
Furthermore Article
2. No
exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat
of war, internal political in stability or any other public emergency,
may be invoked as a justification of torture.
"Hegel says somewhere all great events and personalities in world history reappear in one fashion or another. He forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second as farce."
The Eighteeenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte (1852) sect. 1, Cf.
I was originally discussing the Geneva Conventions of 1949 governing the treatment of POWs and Non-combatants in time of war, which you conveniently construed to mean the Geneva Conventions Against Torture, a document the US Senate has NEVER FULLY RATIFIED and which is irrelevent in this case anyway since a state of war exists.
"The United States ratified CAT, subject to certain declarations, reservations, and understandings, including that the Convention was not self-executing and therefore "
The Senate's ratification included certain provisos. limitations, etc. I find it odd the Senate would ratify a treaty at all if there are provisos, limitations etc, but this was a Democratic Senate that did this, and you can't blame Bill Clinton for this. Treaty ratification is the province of the Senate only. One of the things this treaty prohibits is extradition of criminal defendants to a jurisdiction that might impose capital punishment or some forms or corporal punishment such as flogging for certain offenses. The French, Germans and other countries who have accepted this treaty without reservation have on occassion refused to extradite criminals wanted for capital crimes for this reason, among them the Caliph of Koeln [to Turkey, where he faced a death sentence].
We are still permitted to extradite defendants to jurisdictions where local law may cause some of these things to happen. These Islamic Jihadists are in general operating outside the law of the countries they live in or come from. Many of those countries employ legal codes derived from Sharia, which prescribes punishments like executions, beheadings, and amputations.
My reference is the Congressional Research Service. It says we may still extradite and outlines some legal gaps in the Treaty.
My personal opinion is we should entirely renounce this treaty, since the UN reserves the right to decide what is torture and what is not torture. This is subjective. For example. the UN thinks it is torture to prevent these Jihadists from praying. I think it is torture to be forced to watch Helen Thomas and Rosie O'Donnell for 24 hours straight. Neither of these acts is any kind of real torture.
1.) I didn't construe anything. I made quite clear what treaty I was talking about.
2.) You said the treaty was "irrelevent in this case anyway since a state of war exists."
The treaty itself states for that: "2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat
of war, internal political in stability or any other public emergency,
may be invoked as a justification of torture."
3.) That the senate ratified the treaty, subject to certain declarations etc., is not so odd, when you think about how careful many nations are about their sovereignty.
4.) Concerning Bill: Just a joke.
5.) The objections of german courts to extradite the so called "Caliph of Köln" were based on the assumption that there wouldn't be a fair trial in turkey. Furthermore turkish authorities have a known history of torturing people.
6.) If the U.N. definition of torture is subjective: the U.S.' is not? The U.N. (probably) doesn't think that it is torture to prevent detainees to pray. I think they would refer to that as degrading treatment or something. But as this is forbidden by U.S. guidelines too, there is no difference.
It appears to me, that your government sets double standards in dealing with the detainees. For example: They extradite people who they think are terrorists (which is a notion to be established by a court), to countries like Syria and Egypt, so that they can be tortured there, at the same time critizising these countries for violating human rights and calling some of them part of an axis of evil. Another example: For years some chinese people have been illegally detained at Gitmo. As the U.S. wants to get rid of them, they now say they cannot send them back to China, because they would face human rights violations. So instead of releasing them to the U.S. (or somewhere else) they are still held at Gitmo (Perhaps that changed to the date I'm writing this).
"Hegel says somewhere all great events and personalities in world history reappear in one fashion or another. He forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second as farce."
The Eighteeenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte (1852) sect. 1, Cf.
Don't you read the news? Or are you unable to understand the real meaning of "coercive interrogation techniques"? Water boarding was practised by the CIA. German officials have seen U.S. personnel in Bosnia beating detainees. Testimonies by people who were tortured (and innocent btw, but that doesn't matter). I hope that is enough.
"Hegel says somewhere all great events and personalities in world history reappear in one fashion or another. He forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second as farce."
The Eighteeenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte (1852) sect. 1, Cf.
Leaving out all the popular touchy-feely scruples so important to this society today;
The only standard even plausible during time of global (insane) terrorism is a simple one: It depends on WHO is being tortured, not on any other criterion. If it's someone under coercion who has sworn unending hatred for us, and who considers it HOLY to exterminate others by stealth, then by all means give him the full treatment. He means to kill us all. Have we any concept of what this means? Any concept of "self-defense?
Ive heard of interrogation, but to my knowledge there has not been a case of torture.
The left keeps claiming that we are torturing, just like they say we caused 9/11, but there has been no concrete evidence provided. If you have links showing that any case has been proven true, then by all means post it. And of course a respectable source, no national enquirer bull.
Who have we waterboarded? Got any names?
What German official saw US personnel in Bosnia beating detainees? More importantly what US person was it?
Where are these testimonies by people who were tortured?
This nation will remain the land of the free only so long as it is the home of the brave.
Kalid Sheikh Mohammed for example. This was the most cited case how effective and necessar this procedure is supposed to be. If you ask who did it, I can't answer you. Probably they know, that what they were doing was illegal, so they don't say anything.
"What German official saw US personnel in Bosnia beating detainees? More importantly what US person was it?"
I read an article today (in german however), describing how U.S. military kidnapped Abdel-Halim Khafagy an egyptian with permanent residence in Germany in Bosnia at the end of september 01. The U.S. asked the german BKA (the equivalent to your FBI), whether they would assist in interrogating this man. When the german officials came to Tuzla ("Eagle Base") and saw how the detainees were treated, they immediately went back to Germany. As it was a military base, I suppose it was a member of the U.S. army.
"Where are these testimonies by people who were tortured?"
For several months a german comitee of the parliament is investigating the special rendition programme of the CIA.Also investigated are claims of Khaled el Masri a german kidnapped in Kosovo transported to Afghanistan were he was detained and by his own account beaten several times.He testified before this commitee.
"Hegel says somewhere all great events and personalities in world history reappear in one fashion or another. He forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second as farce."
The Eighteeenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte (1852) sect. 1, Cf.
For several months a german comitee of the parliament is investigating the special rendition programme of the CIA. I would suggest that the Germans, who cannot power project....um, who have very little military power to begin with, a pathetic economy, and a spoiled citizenry who will fight all day long for their government to coddle them, but NOT for their own liberties, have much bigger things to worry about. Rather than be a bunch of whiny ingrates, and whine, cry, and howl all day long about how your freedoms and liberties are being defended at VERY LITTLE COST to YOU, perhaps the German Parliament should worry more about how to put its economic house in order and figure out a way how they can have a voice in world affairs.
The United States of America will one day be universally loved by ALL of the Germans. When It Is Gone (hat tip to Nightwish).
"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy." -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)
"Hegel says somewhere all great events and personalities in world history reappear in one fashion or another. He forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second as farce."
The Eighteeenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte (1852) sect. 1, Cf.
"Hegel says somewhere all great events and personalities in world history reappear in one fashion or another. He forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second as farce."
The Eighteeenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte (1852) sect. 1, Cf.
No offense, but I am not convinced. People lie especially when politics are involved.
Sounds to me there is no concrete proof, just the hearsay of people who you dont even have names for. If there was proof of torture it would have been exposed or you would have a link to a human rights article. I will reserve my judgement for my government until I see proof of wrong doing.
This nation will remain the land of the free only so long as it is the home of the brave.
Then please read your newspapers. And I gave you names. You can google them. And there are more. And the proofs have been exposed. Have you missed the last 5 years?
"Hegel says somewhere all great events and personalities in world history reappear in one fashion or another. He forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second as farce."
The Eighteeenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte (1852) sect. 1, Cf.
It is ironic that you are recommending we consult the same newspapers that come under scornful attack (justifiably so!) on this very website on a daily basis. Why should I trust newspapers run by people who desperately want to see the United States lose in Iraq; people who see the United States seen as the locus of all that is evil in this world?
"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy." -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)
"Hegel says somewhere all great events and personalities in world history reappear in one fashion or another. He forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second as farce."
The Eighteeenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte (1852) sect. 1, Cf.
What this treaty you are citing says is irrelevant, because the US Senate never fully ratified it. Go read the text of the CRS report on the subject, which outlines the actual legal situtation vis-a-vis this treaty in great detail. BTW: The CRS is a highly credible source, as it is the non-partisan research arm of the Congress. It is the most common means Congress uses to ascertain fact.
The treaty which IS relevant is the 49 conventions which the US Senate ratified without reservations or limitations.
In point of fact, US authorities do not prevent detainees in Gitmo from praying. Apparently, some of these detainees are prevented from sleeping comortably. Personally, I would like to line these bastards up against a wall and exercise our rights under the 1949 Geneva Conventions Governing War: have them executed by firing squad as illegal combatants. Unfortunately, that does not best serve the interests and safety of the American people.
The Caliph was under an absentia death sentence. His crime: treason. He was not going to be tortured. He was going to be executed. The conduct of the German authorities in that case was an act of war gainst Turkey. This is what the "Caliph" was advocating:
"Metin Kaplan, an imam in Cologne, succeeded his father as the head of the group "Caliphate State" (Kalifatsstaat), which spread antisemitism and called for a coup d'etat against the secular regime in Turkey. They had come to Germany in 1983 as asylum seekers. The organization, founded by his father Cemaleddin (known as the Khomeini of Cologne), called for global domination under Islam under a Caliphate. (Conveniently, he called himself "the Caliph of Cologne"). He incited the assassination of a rival imam from Berlin, for which he served four years in prison. Turkey sought his extradition after 32 members of the Caliphate State planned to crash a plane into a monument to Ataturk (the secular founder of Turkey) in 1998."
"It appears to me that your government sets double standards" ?
You are a native English speaker not of Commonwealth origins. How is this also not your goverment?
There are no "Chinese" in Gitmo. There are Uighers there, captured in Afghanistan, whose origins are remote areas of western China where the people are not necessarily ethnic Chinese. They apparently don't want to go back to China. Why we are humoring them on this point, I do not know.
The implication that this treaty is obsolete in our considerations, because the senate never fully ratified it, is still to be proven. That you ratify a treaty with certain objections concerning the sovereignty of a nation is nothing unusual. But it doesn't change the content of that treaty and that parties ratifying the treaty are bound to that treaty in the extent to the passages they don't object to.
The Geneva Convention was also signed with reservations concerning minor details of the conventtion.
My government is the german one (But I am thankful for being complimented on my english skills).
The people in Gitmo are of chinese nationality. I don't care about the ethnicity they have.
Obviously you acknowledge that your government sets double standards. That's progress, I think.
Concerning Kaplan: German courts refused to allow the extradition of Metin Kaplan because they feared that he wouldn't have a fair trial in turkey (their concern based on the fact that very often testimony was used in turkish courts, which was obtained by torture). The link you provided doesn't talk about the death penalty although it could have played a role in the courts decision.
"Hegel says somewhere all great events and personalities in world history reappear in one fashion or another. He forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second as farce."
The Eighteeenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte (1852) sect. 1, Cf.
NL207 goodness gracious! Either you are near as old as I or an avid reader and old movie fan.. Saboteur, Fifth Columnist! What pleasant memories of my youth you have evoked for me this afternoon.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Have you seen any law enforce
November 21, 2006 - 14:02 ET by libertyordeathHave you seen any law enforcement manual's definition of a terrorist/enemy combatant? Or the Patriot Act 1 & 2's defintions? They can be applied to almost anyone.
These laws most assuredly def
November 21, 2006 - 15:36 ET by NL207These laws most assuredly define what the word 'alien' means... a non-US Citizen. The Jihadist from Qatar is most certainly an alien. As such, the Constitution of the United States says the Federal Judiciary has no jurisdiction over this man for acts committed in a foreign country. This makes him the subject of the Executive branch and treaty. The relevant treaty in this case is the Geneva Conventions covering the conduct of war. This Jihadist fails to qualify as a prisoner of war because he fails to meet the tests of article 4 of the Geneva Conventions. Therefore, since as a Jihadist, he has engaged in combat and does not meet the tests of article 4, he is an illegal combatant. We used to call such people spy, sabotuer, fifth columnist, etc. Geneva says they are subject to the discretion of their captors. Historically, these people have frequently been executed, sometimes summarily.
Is sending terror suspects
November 21, 2006 - 16:12 ET by kafkakaeferIs sending terror suspects to Egypt Syria and other countries for torture covered by the geneva convention?
"Hegel says somewhere all great events and personalities in world history reappear in one fashion or another. He forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second as farce."
The Eighteeenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte (1852) sect. 1, Cf.
Read the conventions. They
November 21, 2006 - 17:20 ET by NL207Read the conventions. They are available online. The Third conventions of 1949 are the ones governing the treatment of prisoners of war. Article 4 is the portion which defines who is considered a prisoner of war.
(1) None of Qatar, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, or Syria are signatories to the Geneva Conventions governing war. Therefore none of them is party to this treaty. The Treaty itself says these rights and guarantees must be extended to signatory POWs only. We do so to others only as an act of graciousness.
(2) The Jihadists are not covered by the Conventions in any event because they, by their actions, do not qualify under article 3 as non-combatants any more than they do as lawful combatants under Article 4..
In short, the Egyptians and Syrians can treat these Jihadists however they please and as their law dictates while on their soil. That is the whole point of what it means to be sovreign. Neither US law, nor anyone else's applies there.
the U.S. were acting illegal
November 21, 2006 - 18:57 ET by kafkakaeferBesides the obvious moral problem arising from your understanding that it was legal to hand over people to countries which torture them (also put away the fact that the U.S. themselves are (or at least have been) torturing.), I want to challenge you on the legal matters you gave as support for your arguing. As far as I know the U.S. have signed the
CONVENTION AGAINST
TORTURE AND OTHER CRUEL, INHUMAN OR DEGRADING
TREATMENT OR PUNISHMENT
This Convention states in Article 3
"1. No State Party shall expel, return ("refouler")
or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial
grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected
to torture."
As the only reason for sending terror suspects to such countries is them to have been tortured, the U.S. were acting illegal.
As most of the countries mentioned above by you are parties in this treaty (except Iran, Iraq and Pakistan) your last argument does not hold here (not to mention does your previous reading of this doesn't hold anyway).
"Hegel says somewhere all great events and personalities in world history reappear in one fashion or another. He forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second as farce."
The Eighteeenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte (1852) sect. 1, Cf.
I see you liberals have a sel
November 21, 2006 - 22:56 ET by NL207I see you liberals have a selective reading problem. And you are still wrong. As follows:
Article 3, Section 1 opens with the phrase:
"Persons taking no active part in the hostilities"
That lets out your friend, the Jihadist, now, doesn't it.
As for cruelty convention: You need to look at the signatories:
"States which have Ratified the Convention Against Torture and made declaration, under Article 22, that they agree to allow individual complaints to the Committee against Torture:
Algeria,Argentina,Austria,Canada,Denmark,Ecuador,Finland,France,Greece,Hungary,Italy,Liechtenstein,Luxembourg,Malta,Monaco,Netherlands,New Zealand,Norway,Portugal,Russia,Spain,Sweden,Switzerland,Togo,Tunisia,Turkey,Uruguay,Yugoslavia
States which have Ratified the Convention Against Torture: Australia,Belize,Brazil,Cameroon,Chile,Colombia,Cyprus,Egypt,Estonia ...
States which have Signed but not yet Ratified the Convention Against Torture:
Belgium,Bolivia,Costa Rica,Cuba,Dominican Republic,Gabon,Gambia,Iceland,Indonesia,Morocco,Nicaragua,Nigeria,Sierra Leone,Sudan,United States of America"
It appears the United States has NEVER RATIFIED THIS TREATY. You are simply wrong. It is not illegal for the United States to extradite a prisoner to a foreign jurisdiction where they might be tortured or executed under this treaty because the United States is not legaly bound by it.
"Article 3, Section 1
November 22, 2006 - 05:59 ET by kafkakaefer"Article 3, Section 1 opens with the phrase:
"Persons taking no active part in the hostilities""
What treaty are you talking about? The Convention against torture etc. is not speaking about hostilities.
But anyway the U.S. ratified the treaty on 10/24/94 (I guess that is Bill Clintons fault too).
Furthermore Article
2. No
exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat
of war, internal political in stability or any other public emergency,
may be invoked as a justification of torture.
"Hegel says somewhere all great events and personalities in world history reappear in one fashion or another. He forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second as farce."
The Eighteeenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte (1852) sect. 1, Cf.
I was originally discussing t
November 22, 2006 - 14:38 ET by NL207I was originally discussing the Geneva Conventions of 1949 governing the treatment of POWs and Non-combatants in time of war, which you conveniently construed to mean the Geneva Conventions Against Torture, a document the US Senate has NEVER FULLY RATIFIED and which is irrelevent in this case anyway since a state of war exists.
to. wit. :
"The United States ratified CAT, subject to certain declarations, reservations, and understandings, including that the Convention was not self-executing and therefore "
The Senate's ratification included certain provisos. limitations, etc. I find it odd the Senate would ratify a treaty at all if there are provisos, limitations etc, but this was a Democratic Senate that did this, and you can't blame Bill Clinton for this. Treaty ratification is the province of the Senate only. One of the things this treaty prohibits is extradition of criminal defendants to a jurisdiction that might impose capital punishment or some forms or corporal punishment such as flogging for certain offenses. The French, Germans and other countries who have accepted this treaty without reservation have on occassion refused to extradite criminals wanted for capital crimes for this reason, among them the Caliph of Koeln [to Turkey, where he faced a death sentence].
We are still permitted to extradite defendants to jurisdictions where local law may cause some of these things to happen. These Islamic Jihadists are in general operating outside the law of the countries they live in or come from. Many of those countries employ legal codes derived from Sharia, which prescribes punishments like executions, beheadings, and amputations.
My reference is the Congressional Research Service. It says we may still extradite and outlines some legal gaps in the Treaty.
My personal opinion is we should entirely renounce this treaty, since the UN reserves the right to decide what is torture and what is not torture. This is subjective. For example. the UN thinks it is torture to prevent these Jihadists from praying. I think it is torture to be forced to watch Helen Thomas and Rosie O'Donnell for 24 hours straight. Neither of these acts is any kind of real torture.
1.) I didn't construe anythin
November 26, 2006 - 14:35 ET by kafkakaefer1.) I didn't construe anything. I made quite clear what treaty I was talking about.
2.) You said the treaty was "irrelevent in this case anyway since a state of war exists."
The treaty itself states for that:
"2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat
of war, internal political in stability or any other public emergency,
may be invoked as a justification of torture."
3.) That the senate ratified the treaty, subject to certain declarations etc., is not so odd, when you think about how careful many nations are about their sovereignty.
4.) Concerning Bill: Just a joke.
5.) The objections of german courts to extradite the so called "Caliph of Köln" were based on the assumption that there wouldn't be a fair trial in turkey. Furthermore turkish authorities have a known history of torturing people.
6.) If the U.N. definition of torture is subjective: the U.S.' is not? The U.N. (probably) doesn't think that it is torture to prevent detainees to pray. I think they would refer to that as degrading treatment or something. But as this is forbidden by U.S. guidelines too, there is no difference.
It appears to me, that your government sets double standards in dealing with the detainees. For example: They extradite people who they think are terrorists (which is a notion to be established by a court), to countries like Syria and Egypt, so that they can be tortured there, at the same time critizising these countries for violating human rights and calling some of them part of an axis of evil. Another example: For years some chinese people have been illegally detained at Gitmo. As the U.S. wants to get rid of them, they now say they cannot send them back to China, because they would face human rights violations. So instead of releasing them to the U.S. (or somewhere else) they are still held at Gitmo (Perhaps that changed to the date I'm writing this).
"Hegel says somewhere all great events and personalities in world history reappear in one fashion or another. He forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second as farce."
The Eighteeenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte (1852) sect. 1, Cf.
Do you have any proof that an
November 26, 2006 - 14:46 ET by ChemicalOperatorDo you have any proof that anyone has been tortured by the US?
This nation will remain the land of the free only so long as it is the home of the brave.
Don't you read the news? Or
November 26, 2006 - 14:59 ET by kafkakaeferDon't you read the news? Or are you unable to understand the real meaning of "coercive interrogation techniques"? Water boarding was practised by the CIA. German officials have seen U.S. personnel in Bosnia beating detainees. Testimonies by people who were tortured (and innocent btw, but that doesn't matter). I hope that is enough.
"Hegel says somewhere all great events and personalities in world history reappear in one fashion or another. He forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second as farce."
The Eighteeenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte (1852) sect. 1, Cf.
the standard ought to be:
November 26, 2006 - 15:21 ET by tumblerLeaving out all the popular touchy-feely scruples so important to this society today;
The only standard even plausible during time of global (insane) terrorism is a simple one: It depends on WHO is being tortured, not on any other criterion. If it's someone under coercion who has sworn unending hatred for us, and who considers it HOLY to exterminate others by stealth, then by all means give him the full treatment. He means to kill us all. Have we any concept of what this means? Any concept of "self-defense?
Ive heard of interrogation, b
November 26, 2006 - 15:26 ET by ChemicalOperatorIve heard of interrogation, but to my knowledge there has not been a case of torture.
The left keeps claiming that we are torturing, just like they say we caused 9/11, but there has been no concrete evidence provided. If you have links showing that any case has been proven true, then by all means post it. And of course a respectable source, no national enquirer bull.
Who have we waterboarded? Got any names?
What German official saw US personnel in Bosnia beating detainees? More importantly what US person was it?
Where are these testimonies by people who were tortured?
This nation will remain the land of the free only so long as it is the home of the brave.
ChemicalOperator
November 26, 2006 - 16:17 ET by kafkakaefer"Who have we waterboarded? Got any names?"
Kalid Sheikh Mohammed for example. This was the most cited case how effective and necessar this procedure is supposed to be. If you ask who did it, I can't answer you. Probably they know, that what they were doing was illegal, so they don't say anything.
"What German official saw US personnel in Bosnia beating detainees? More importantly what US person was it?"
I read an article today (in german however), describing how U.S. military kidnapped Abdel-Halim Khafagy an egyptian with permanent residence in Germany in Bosnia at the end of september 01. The U.S. asked the german BKA (the equivalent to your FBI), whether they would assist in interrogating this man. When the german officials came to Tuzla ("Eagle Base") and saw how the detainees were treated, they immediately went back to Germany. As it was a military base, I suppose it was a member of the U.S. army.
"Where are these testimonies by people who were tortured?"
For several months a german comitee of the parliament is investigating the special rendition programme of the CIA.Also investigated are claims of Khaled el Masri a german kidnapped in Kosovo transported to Afghanistan were he was detained and by his own account beaten several times.He testified before this commitee.
"Hegel says somewhere all great events and personalities in world history reappear in one fashion or another. He forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second as farce."
The Eighteeenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte (1852) sect. 1, Cf.
Why the insistence on ingratitude?
November 26, 2006 - 16:53 ET by UnsaneFor several months a german comitee of the parliament is investigating the special rendition programme of the CIA. I would suggest that the Germans, who cannot power project....um, who have very little military power to begin with, a pathetic economy, and a spoiled citizenry who will fight all day long for their government to coddle them, but NOT for their own liberties, have much bigger things to worry about. Rather than be a bunch of whiny ingrates, and whine, cry, and howl all day long about how your freedoms and liberties are being defended at VERY LITTLE COST to YOU, perhaps the German Parliament should worry more about how to put its economic house in order and figure out a way how they can have a voice in world affairs.
The United States of America will one day be universally loved by ALL of the Germans. When It Is Gone (hat tip to Nightwish).
"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy." -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)
Unsane
November 26, 2006 - 16:58 ET by kafkakaeferMost profound indeed!
"Hegel says somewhere all great events and personalities in world history reappear in one fashion or another. He forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second as farce."
The Eighteeenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte (1852) sect. 1, Cf.
Auf Deutsch
November 26, 2006 - 18:30 ET by UnsaneVielen dank!
"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy." -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)
en francais
November 26, 2006 - 18:32 ET by kafkakaeferpas de probleme!
"Hegel says somewhere all great events and personalities in world history reappear in one fashion or another. He forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second as farce."
The Eighteeenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte (1852) sect. 1, Cf.
No offense, but I am not conv
November 26, 2006 - 17:05 ET by ChemicalOperatorNo offense, but I am not convinced. People lie especially when politics are involved.
Sounds to me there is no concrete proof, just the hearsay of people who you dont even have names for. If there was proof of torture it would have been exposed or you would have a link to a human rights article. I will reserve my judgement for my government until I see proof of wrong doing.
This nation will remain the land of the free only so long as it is the home of the brave.
Then please read your newsp
November 26, 2006 - 17:09 ET by kafkakaeferThen please read your newspapers. And I gave you names. You can google them. And there are more. And the proofs have been exposed. Have you missed the last 5 years?
"Hegel says somewhere all great events and personalities in world history reappear in one fashion or another. He forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second as farce."
The Eighteeenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte (1852) sect. 1, Cf.
It is ironic that you are rec
November 26, 2006 - 18:29 ET by UnsaneIt is ironic that you are recommending we consult the same newspapers that come under scornful attack (justifiably so!) on this very website on a daily basis. Why should I trust newspapers run by people who desperately want to see the United States lose in Iraq; people who see the United States seen as the locus of all that is evil in this world?
"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy." -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)
Why would you read newspape
November 26, 2006 - 18:31 ET by kafkakaeferWhy would you read newspaper anyway.
"Hegel says somewhere all great events and personalities in world history reappear in one fashion or another. He forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second as farce."
The Eighteeenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte (1852) sect. 1, Cf.
On obsolescence
November 26, 2006 - 20:42 ET by UnsaneNewspapers and town criers have something in common.
Obsolescence.
"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy." -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)
What this treaty you are citi
November 26, 2006 - 21:13 ET by NL207What this treaty you are citing says is irrelevant, because the US Senate never fully ratified it. Go read the text of the CRS report on the subject, which outlines the actual legal situtation vis-a-vis this treaty in great detail. BTW: The CRS is a highly credible source, as it is the non-partisan research arm of the Congress. It is the most common means Congress uses to ascertain fact.
The treaty which IS relevant is the 49 conventions which the US Senate ratified without reservations or limitations.
In point of fact, US authorities do not prevent detainees in Gitmo from praying. Apparently, some of these detainees are prevented from sleeping comortably. Personally, I would like to line these bastards up against a wall and exercise our rights under the 1949 Geneva Conventions Governing War: have them executed by firing squad as illegal combatants. Unfortunately, that does not best serve the interests and safety of the American people.
The Caliph was under an absentia death sentence. His crime: treason. He was not going to be tortured. He was going to be executed. The conduct of the German authorities in that case was an act of war gainst Turkey. This is what the "Caliph" was advocating:
"Metin Kaplan, an imam in Cologne, succeeded his father as the head of the group "Caliphate State" (Kalifatsstaat), which spread antisemitism and called for a coup d'etat against the secular regime in Turkey. They had come to Germany in 1983 as asylum seekers. The organization, founded by his father Cemaleddin (known as the Khomeini of Cologne), called for global domination under Islam under a Caliphate. (Conveniently, he called himself "the Caliph of Cologne"). He incited the assassination of a rival imam from Berlin, for which he served four years in prison. Turkey sought his extradition after 32 members of the Caliphate State planned to crash a plane into a monument to Ataturk (the secular founder of Turkey) in 1998."
"It appears to me that your government sets double standards" ?
You are a native English speaker not of Commonwealth origins. How is this also not your goverment?
There are no "Chinese" in Gitmo. There are Uighers there, captured in Afghanistan, whose origins are remote areas of western China where the people are not necessarily ethnic Chinese. They apparently don't want to go back to China. Why we are humoring them on this point, I do not know.
The implication that this t
November 27, 2006 - 13:06 ET by kafkakaeferThe implication that this treaty is obsolete in our considerations, because the senate never fully ratified it, is still to be proven. That you ratify a treaty with certain objections concerning the sovereignty of a nation is nothing unusual. But it doesn't change the content of that treaty and that parties ratifying the treaty are bound to that treaty in the extent to the passages they don't object to.
The Geneva Convention was also signed with reservations concerning minor details of the conventtion.
My government is the german one (But I am thankful for being complimented on my english skills).
The people in Gitmo are of chinese nationality. I don't care about the ethnicity they have.
Obviously you acknowledge that your government sets double standards. That's progress, I think.
Concerning Kaplan: German courts refused to allow the extradition of Metin Kaplan because they feared that he wouldn't have a fair trial in turkey (their concern based on the fact that very often testimony was used in turkish courts, which was obtained by torture). The link you provided doesn't talk about the death penalty although it could have played a role in the courts decision.
"Hegel says somewhere all great events and personalities in world history reappear in one fashion or another. He forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second as farce."
The Eighteeenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte (1852) sect. 1, Cf.
NL207 goodness gracious!
November 21, 2006 - 16:40 ET by misterbillNL207 goodness gracious! Either you are near as old as I or an avid reader and old movie fan.. Saboteur, Fifth Columnist! What pleasant memories of my youth you have evoked for me this afternoon.
Thank you.
PS You are, once again, totally correct.
Nice to see Janet Leave-No-Wi
November 21, 2006 - 16:21 ET by Dave RNice to see Janet Leave-No-Witness-Alive Reno has resumed her career as a terrorist enabler.
By the way, this Qatarian is
November 21, 2006 - 16:26 ET by deus_ex_machinaBy the way, this Qatarian is a suspected terrorist.
Based on what?
He lied to the FBI for starters
November 21, 2006 - 16:53 ET by LionKingThe detainee lied to th FBI for starters. Apparently he declined several opportunities to be tried in our courts.