Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A six-year-old memo from within the George W. Bush administration that came to light this week acknowledges that White House- approved interrogation techniques.
The Bush White House tried to destroy every copy of the memo, written by then-State Department counselor Philip Zelikow. Zelikow examined tactics like waterboarding -- which simulates drowning -- and concluded that there was no way they were legal, domestically or internationally.
I guess that means that Obama relied on the fruits of torture to pinpoint the location of UBL. Kind of takes the lustre off his boast that he got UBL, doesn't it?
Huh? Bush has acknowledged repeatedly that he authorized water-boarding. Legal or illegal, he set the path forward. The question is whether he was a trailblazer or was he following a policy developed in past conflicts? That's the real question. This is nothing new. Hell, he even talks about it in his own book, Decision Points.
What part of "Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment" did you not understand?
The US violated 11 treaties in total.
Here's an excerpt from a paper I wrote and presented for a working group representing the illegally held detainees at Guantánamo while working on my doctorate in International Relations (I'll highlight the pertinent parts).
By the way, other than whining and griping on internet forums, what exactly have you done to help the detainees?
I just can't help but notice that *******s are quick to whine but loathe to take any real action and do anything positive.
The United States has consistently maintained that habeas corpus does not apply to alien enemy combatants, and that the United States does not exercise sovereignty over U.S. Naval Station Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. However, U.S. federal courts have held in Haitian Ctrs. Council, 823 F. Supp. at 1042, et al, that the two-year confinement of an alien at Guantánamo established substantial connection to the United States to give rise to due process rights.
The United States has additionally argued that the exigencies of the global “war on terror” outweigh all other considerations and that the defense of the nation is of prime importance. It has also adopted the position that terrorists are not only stateless, but that they are persona non-gratis as well, and fall out-side the definitions of all international laws and treaties.
Overall, the approach taken by the United States continues to be nonsensical and unnecessary. As David Sloss pithily notes, it would be in the government’s best interest to classify Taliban detainees as POWs under the 3rd Geneva Convention and al-Qaeda detainees as “protected persons” under the 4th Geneva Convention. The United States could legally maintain the detainees in custody until the “cessation of active hostilities” for the former and the “close of hostilities” for the latter. In both instances, the United States would have tremendous leeway to make the determination as to when hostilities ended.
IV. ANALYSIS
4.1 HAS THE U.S. GRANTED ENEMY COMBATANTS IN THE WAR ON TERROR DETAINED IN CUBA FULL GUARANTEES OF HUMAN RIGHTS TREATIES AND THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS?
Torture and inhumane treatment of persons are peremptory norms and as such, cannot be derogated. The United States has failed to treat detainees in accordance with international treaties and customary law. The ban against torture is a customary law ingrained as jus cogens. Under jus cogens, criminal acts are subject to universal jurisdiction, regardless where the criminal act took place, or the nationalities of the perpetrator or victim.
4.2 THE UNITED STATES HAS FAILED TO COMPLY WITH CAT.
Articles 1 & 16 specifically prohibit torture and inhumane treatment. Furthermore, it plainly states that, “This Convention does not exclude any criminal jurisdiction exercised in accordance with internal law.” Moreover, “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.”
Branch Memoranda on Status and Permissible Treatment of Detainees. The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 98, No. 4. (Oct., 2004), pp. 820-831.
Sloss, David L., Rasul v. Bush. 124 S.Ct. 2686, The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 98, No. 4. (Oct., 2004), pp. 788-798.
CAT art. 5, para.3
Ibid art 2, para. 2
4.3 THE UNITED STATES HAS FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE 3RD AND 4TH GENEVA CONVENTIONS.
In the A-s-h-c-r-o-f-t Letter, the United States Attorney General outlined an argument proposing that the detainees be denied the protections of the treaty because Afghanistan was a “failed state.” This argument falls short because neither Afghanistan nor the Taliban were ever on the United States State Department list of Terrorist States, Terrorist-Sponsoring States, Terrorist Organizations or Terrorist Sponsoring Organizations. Furthermore, the United States repeatedly engaged in negotiations through July 1, 2001, with the Taliban on behalf of the UNOCAL Corporation to build the CentGas oil pipeline through Afghanistan. Thus, the United States clearly recognized the Taliban as the legal government of Afghanistan, rather than a “failed state.”
A-s-h-c-r-o-f-t ’s second line of reasoning is that Taliban detainees should be denied protections as “unlawful combatants.” This argument fails, because Article 5 of the 3rd Geneva Convention requires that all persons be afforded protections until such time as an evaluation by a competent authority to evaluate each individual detainee’s status. The United States failed to convene a prompt hearing to determine the status of each detainee for more than two years. Of particular importance is the distinction noted between “armed conflict” and “armed violence.” Where terrorism is concerned, humanitarian law does not apply to “armed violence.” However, “armed conflict” automatically invokes the protections of the Geneva Conventions.
Another issue involves the definitions of the two types of armed conflicts, international and internal. The conflict in Afghanistan ceased to be an international conflict on December 21, 2001, the day that Hamid Karzai became the leader of the interim government. Since al-Qaeda is not a State, its members are automatically governed by Common Article 3.
* Sorry about that but the stupidity of City Data requires that I use hyphens for the attorney general's name.
4.4 THE UNITED STATES HAS FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE ICCPR.
Although ICCPR provides limited derogations from certain rights under the convention, the Special Rapporteur noted that the “United States has not notified any official derogation from ICCPR, as requested under article 4 (3) of the Covenant, or from any other international human rights treaty.” The ICCPR makes no distinction between “armed violence” and “armed conflict.” It is in full force and effect at all times and specifically prohibits the derogation of certain articles regardless of circumstance, including the directive that, “No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”
See Official Statement of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) dated 21 July 2005 regarding “The relevance of IHL in the context of terrorism” (available at http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/terrorism-ihl-210705?OpenDocument>). Quoted in U.N. ESCOR, 62nd Session, Prov. Agenda Items 10 & 11, U. N. Doc. E/CN.4/2006/120 (2006) at p.29.
Sloss, David L., Rasul v. Bush. 124 S.Ct. 2686, The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 98, No. 4. (Oct., 2004), pp. 788-798.
U.N. ESCOR, 62nd Session, Prov. Agenda Items 10 & 11, U. N. Doc. E/CN.4/2006/120 (2006) at p.6.
ICCPR art. 4, para. 2
Any questions?
I didn't need a "smoking gun" memo from Bush the Younger to figure it out. US laws and international treaties to which the US is a party are quite clear.
What part of "Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment" did you not understand?
The US violated 11 treaties in total.
Here's an excerpt from a paper I wrote and presented for a working group representing the illegally held detainees at Guantánamo while working on my doctorate in International Relations (I'll highlight the pertinent parts).
By the way, other than whining and griping on internet forums, what exactly have you done to help the detainees?
I just can't help but notice that *******s are quick to whine but loathe to take any real action and do anything positive.
The United States has consistently maintained that habeas corpus does not apply to alien enemy combatants, and that the United States does not exercise sovereignty over U.S. Naval Station Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. However, U.S. federal courts have held in Haitian Ctrs. Council, 823 F. Supp. at 1042, et al, that the two-year confinement of an alien at Guantánamo established substantial connection to the United States to give rise to due process rights.
The United States has additionally argued that the exigencies of the global “war on terror” outweigh all other considerations and that the defense of the nation is of prime importance. It has also adopted the position that terrorists are not only stateless, but that they are persona non-gratis as well, and fall out-side the definitions of all international laws and treaties.
Overall, the approach taken by the United States continues to be nonsensical and unnecessary. As David Sloss pithily notes, it would be in the government’s best interest to classify Taliban detainees as POWs under the 3rd Geneva Convention and al-Qaeda detainees as “protected persons” under the 4th Geneva Convention. The United States could legally maintain the detainees in custody until the “cessation of active hostilities” for the former and the “close of hostilities” for the latter. In both instances, the United States would have tremendous leeway to make the determination as to when hostilities ended.
IV. ANALYSIS
4.1 HAS THE U.S. GRANTED ENEMY COMBATANTS IN THE WAR ON TERROR DETAINED IN CUBA FULL GUARANTEES OF HUMAN RIGHTS TREATIES AND THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS?
Torture and inhumane treatment of persons are peremptory norms and as such, cannot be derogated. The United States has failed to treat detainees in accordance with international treaties and customary law. The ban against torture is a customary law ingrained as jus cogens. Under jus cogens, criminal acts are subject to universal jurisdiction, regardless where the criminal act took place, or the nationalities of the perpetrator or victim.
4.2 THE UNITED STATES HAS FAILED TO COMPLY WITH CAT.
Articles 1 & 16 specifically prohibit torture and inhumane treatment. Furthermore, it plainly states that, “This Convention does not exclude any criminal jurisdiction exercised in accordance with internal law.” Moreover, “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.”
Branch Memoranda on Status and Permissible Treatment of Detainees. The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 98, No. 4. (Oct., 2004), pp. 820-831.
Sloss, David L., Rasul v. Bush. 124 S.Ct. 2686, The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 98, No. 4. (Oct., 2004), pp. 788-798.
CAT art. 5, para.3
Ibid art 2, para. 2
4.3 THE UNITED STATES HAS FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE 3RD AND 4TH GENEVA CONVENTIONS.
In the A-s-h-c-r-o-f-t Letter, the United States Attorney General outlined an argument proposing that the detainees be denied the protections of the treaty because Afghanistan was a “failed state.” This argument falls short because neither Afghanistan nor the Taliban were ever on the United States State Department list of Terrorist States, Terrorist-Sponsoring States, Terrorist Organizations or Terrorist Sponsoring Organizations. Furthermore, the United States repeatedly engaged in negotiations through July 1, 2001, with the Taliban on behalf of the UNOCAL Corporation to build the CentGas oil pipeline through Afghanistan. Thus, the United States clearly recognized the Taliban as the legal government of Afghanistan, rather than a “failed state.”
A-s-h-c-r-o-f-t ’s second line of reasoning is that Taliban detainees should be denied protections as “unlawful combatants.” This argument fails, because Article 5 of the 3rd Geneva Convention requires that all persons be afforded protections until such time as an evaluation by a competent authority to evaluate each individual detainee’s status. The United States failed to convene a prompt hearing to determine the status of each detainee for more than two years. Of particular importance is the distinction noted between “armed conflict” and “armed violence.” Where terrorism is concerned, humanitarian law does not apply to “armed violence.” However, “armed conflict” automatically invokes the protections of the Geneva Conventions.
Another issue involves the definitions of the two types of armed conflicts, international and internal. The conflict in Afghanistan ceased to be an international conflict on December 21, 2001, the day that Hamid Karzai became the leader of the interim government. Since al-Qaeda is not a State, its members are automatically governed by Common Article 3.
* Sorry about that but the stupidity of City Data requires that I use hyphens for the attorney general's name.
4.4 THE UNITED STATES HAS FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE ICCPR.
Although ICCPR provides limited derogations from certain rights under the convention, the Special Rapporteur noted that the “United States has not notified any official derogation from ICCPR, as requested under article 4 (3) of the Covenant, or from any other international human rights treaty.” The ICCPR makes no distinction between “armed violence” and “armed conflict.” It is in full force and effect at all times and specifically prohibits the derogation of certain articles regardless of circumstance, including the directive that, “No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”
See Official Statement of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) dated 21 July 2005 regarding “The relevance of IHL in the context of terrorism” (available at http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/terrorism-ihl-210705?OpenDocument>). Quoted in U.N. ESCOR, 62nd Session, Prov. Agenda Items 10 & 11, U. N. Doc. E/CN.4/2006/120 (2006) at p.29.
Sloss, David L., Rasul v. Bush. 124 S.Ct. 2686, The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 98, No. 4. (Oct., 2004), pp. 788-798.
U.N. ESCOR, 62nd Session, Prov. Agenda Items 10 & 11, U. N. Doc. E/CN.4/2006/120 (2006) at p.6.
ICCPR art. 4, para. 2
Any questions?
I didn't need a "smoking gun" memo from Bush the Younger to figure it out. US laws and international treaties to which the US is a party are quite clear.
Legally...
Mircea
If you look at my posting history, it's plain to see that I always understood that waterboarding was torture. This memo just confirms what many of us already knew...that the Bush administration knew too, but tried to conceal/destroy the memo that advised them of its unlawfulness. This thread was for the benefit of deniers and reptiles.
And your beloved Obama administration continued the same policies despite having had the ability to abandon them.
What's your point? Both parties suck, yours employs the same tactics as the party they claim to oppose.
Wake up, grow a functioning brain. Despite the pablum fed to the hungry and undiscerning useful idiots that willingly claim abuses are OK because their party is the one currently committing them, wrong remains wrong. Until such time as you're willing to protest abuses whether or not your preferred party is orchestrating them government power will continue to grow and our Constitutionally protected liberties will continue to diminish.
You and the equally clueless partisan idiots that inhabit both sides of the partisan political aisle and happily embrace your undiscerning mindset are enabling further abuses on the part of an utterly corrupt political class. You're part of the problem and offer no solutions whatsoever.
Moronic partisan hacks will be the death of this nation. I'd thank you for your tireless efforts to hasten our demise but those thanks would be anything but sincere.
Last edited by outbacknv; 04-09-2012 at 08:07 PM..
Huh? Bush has acknowledged repeatedly that he authorized water-boarding. Legal or illegal, he set the path forward. The question is whether he was a trailblazer or was he following a policy developed in past conflicts? That's the real question. This is nothing new. Hell, he even talks about it in his own book, Decision Points.
Dead on. If the left is hanging its hat on the fact that one administration official disagreed with this course of action, as evidence that is illegal, they couldn't be more wrong. Does the Obama administration demand purity of thought before it moves forward with an action? Are we to believe that every Obama administration official agrees that the murder of American citizens is correct?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
