Torture? Rendition? Who is safe?

- but let's hope no-one is forced to confess to plotting such crime under torture or other duress.

Secret CIA Prisons in Your Backyard

House passes torture bill

Make Prisons, Get Rich

American Prison Camps Are on the Way

Republican Torture Laws Will Live in History

Unconstitutional: The War on Our Civil Liberties (TV Documentary)

American Fascism Is on the Rise

Sayonara to Checks and Balances?

Padilla Update: Bush has been Torturing American Citizens since 2002

If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention.

Bush Pre-senile Dementia Video

Addiction, Brain Damage and the President: "Dry Drunk" Syndrome and George W. Bush

Dry Drunk Syndrome

More about Dry Drunk Syndrome: Who does this remind you of?

President '12 step' Bush was told part of his alcohol treatment would be to take up a hobby so he started invading countries and collecting oil wells!

quote:

Originally posted by Tarquin Maynard-Portly:

quote:

Originally posted by Nigel Cavendish:
- but let's hope no-one is forced to confess to plotting such crime under torture or other duress.

The Rights of the few outweigh the lives of the many, then?

The end justifies the means, then?

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures. Gitmo

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power. Gitmo again

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury. Yes, once again, Gitmo.

Let's hope that the world's greatest terrorist, George W Bush, is rendered to a place where he's doing most harm.

G

Mike

Yes I evaded the question because I do not understand the question.

"The Rights of the few outweigh the lives of the many, then?"

Please expand on this. There are a great many unstated premises in what appears to be moral reasoning posed as a question.

quote:

Originally posted by Tarquin Maynard-Portly:

quote:

Originally posted by acad tsunami:
[If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention.

Indeed.

911 Mysteries - excellent science based documenatry about the uncomfortable truth

The weekend before 9/11 - Bomb-sniffing dogs pulled, power downs,
evacuation exercises, Bush family company operated the WTC's security system


The science of 9/11 - Physics, geology and common sense

The 9/11 Commission Report:

Loose Change - 2nd edition

9/11 American Scholars

Meet the Carlyle Group:How the Bush Family Profits From Endless war

The Power of Nightmares - Parts 1,11, and 111. BBC2 Documentary

This is the highly detailed, definitive BBC2 documentary about the Truth behind the war on terror. If you watch this all first you will shocked.

Mahar Arar

Basic story...

Canadian citizen, traveling under a valid Canadian passport. Picked up by US officials during a stop-over in New-York. RCMP fed US eronous raw data which they acted on...rendered to Syria by the US....tortured and released when found he knew nothing about nothing. Big shit storm all around. Do a quick google.

....not saying they are all inocent, but ....

...anyway has not most information gained by torture turned out to be pretty much worthless - as the detainee usually says whatever is required to make the hostile actions stop?

regards,

michael

quote:

Originally posted by Tarquin Maynard-Portly:

quote:

Originally posted by Nigel Cavendish:
- but let's hope no-one is forced to confess to plotting such crime under torture or other duress.

The Rights of the few outweigh the lives of the many, then?

Everyone enjoys the same rights under the law.

The majority have no right to torture individuals to extract confessions which might well be erroneous.

What would be the benefit to convict the innocent whilst the guilty go free.

Part of being civilised is to treat fairly even those whom you hate.

The people who condone rendition and torture, no doubt, whenever they start espousing human rights, have already made their own mental reservations about the proper application of the word "human."

Beano

quote:

Given the choice between family and the human rights of a wannabe bomber/terrorist, can anyone REALLY say they'd blink?

The law is there to protect everyone (even you) from your lynch-mob mentality.

But I dare say if you (or a member of your family) were falsely accused, taken to some remote location and tortured until a confession was obtained, you would think that OK?

quote:

Originally posted by Beano:
The people who condone rendition and torture, no doubt, whenever they start espousing human rights, have already made their own mental reservations about the proper application of the word "human."

Beano

Nicely put.

quote:

Originally posted by Nigel Cavendish:

quote:

Originally posted by Tarquin Maynard-Portly:

quote:

Originally posted by Nigel Cavendish:
- but let's hope no-one is forced to confess to plotting such crime under torture or other duress.

The Rights of the few outweigh the lives of the many, then?

Everyone enjoys the same rights under the law.

quote:

In theory maybe, in practice definately not.

The majority have no right to torture individuals to extract confessions which might well be erroneous.

quote:

'Rights' be they moral, legal or so called 'God-given' are only permissions which change from time to time and are different from one country to another. There are two types of permission: those we give ourselves and those which are given to us - they are not universally set in stone and are everywhere abused. The 'majority' may have no right (permission) to torture but a minority certainly have given themselves this permission.

What would be the benefit to convict the innocent whilst the guilty go free.

quote:

As long as the public believe that those who have given themselves permission to arrest and imprison without charge or evidence have removed a threat (whether real or not)then the public is happy and willing to ignore or even approve the torture done in their name. If the public believe the government is protecting them from certain threat then the public is happy and the government stays in power.

Part of being civilised is to treat fairly even those whom you hate.

Very true.

Most of these guys who aided the killings were pencil pushers like you and me. Auschwitz is unique on the face of the earth, not because 1.5 million people died because of hatred, not because it is the largest graveyard in the world. It is unique because the people were killed by a dispassionate bureaucracy. -- Jerry Markle, WMU Sociology professor

I am worried enough as an outsider by the US passing the "torture bill" into law. The abuses of prisoners were unacceptable - but the legitimising of torture by law is extraordinary. I find it hard to believe that ordinary Americans are not marching in the streets in their millions at such a flagrant abuse of everything they learn at school about the founding fathers and the values that informed the Declaration of Independence.

The Universal Declaration Of Human Rights


Article 1.

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 2.

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Article 3.

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

Article 4.

No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.
Article 5.
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Article 6.

Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

Article 7.

All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Article 8.

Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.

Article 9.

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

Article 10.

Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

Article 11.

(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
(2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.

Article 12.

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
Article 13.
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

Article 14.

(1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.
(2) This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Article 15.

(1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.

Article 16.

(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

Article 17.

(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.
Article 18.
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Article 19.

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Article 20.

(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
(2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.

Article 21.

(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
(2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.
(3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

Article 22.

Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.

Article 23.

(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
(2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
(3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
(4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

Article 24.

Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.

Article 25.

(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

Article 26.

(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
(2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
(3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

Article 27.

(1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.
(2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.

Article 28.

Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.

Article 29.

(1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Article 30.

Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

quote:

Originally posted by Tarquin Maynard-Portly:
Al Qaeda ignore the above.

Actually there is no Al Qaeda in the sense the US and british would have us believe there is an Al Qaeda.The Power of Nightmares - BBC2 - especially part 111 but best to watch the whole 3 parts in order

quote:

You'd think it would guarantee safety just to stay out of jurisdictions which legislatively permit flagrant abuses of human rights such as torture or imprisonment without trial.

But no, you don't even have to be within their jurisdictions to be within their reach - you could be subject to extraordinary rendition and find yourself locked up without access to judicial review.

I have obviously missed some new development. Could somebody summarise (without a list of tedious web links please)

Cheers

Don

quote:

Nigel, would you answer the question honestly - I'll assume you are a father, or in a loving relationship - given the choice of either the human rights of someone known to be intent on killing your child, and the life of your child, you would seriously expect anyone to believe you would uphold human rights? What about the right to life?

I would do whatever I could to protect my family from direct threat and using violence to avert a direct and immenent attack on them would not bother me - and in law I would have a pretty sound defence.

What you are talking about is something quite different. I don't want the state to torture people I have never met, people who have not made any direct or immediate attack on my family, people who might be wholly innocent of crime or intent to commit crime. There is no justice in torture, there can be no justice that results from torture and it debases anyone who condones it.

quote:

quote:

But I dare say if you (or a member of your family) were falsely accused, taken to some remote location and tortured until a confession was obtained, you would think that OK?

I would prefer that to them being killed or hideously maimed by a terrorist outrage, as would you.

I really don't know what to say about that - you would allow them to be maimed by the state to prevent them possibly being maimed or killed by someone else? Even if they were innocent? But if they were taken away, they could not be innocent, by your logic.

No, I would never accept that even if it were you they wanted.

quote:

Originally posted by Don Atkinson:

quote:

You'd think it would guarantee safety just to stay out of jurisdictions which legislatively permit flagrant abuses of human rights such as torture or imprisonment without trial.

But no, you don't even have to be within their jurisdictions to be within their reach - you could be subject to extraordinary rendition and find yourself locked up without access to judicial review.

I have obviously missed some new development. Could somebody summarise (without a list of tedious web links please)

Cheers

Don

Basically Don,



Alberto Gonzales, The American Attorney Generals words.


Yesterday on the 18th October , the President signed into law the Military Commissions Act of 2006. This landmark piece of legislation accomplishes two goals that are vital to our national security. First, it allows the Central Intelligence Agency to continue its program for questioning key terrorist leaders and operatives, such as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks. The intelligence community has confirmed that this program has been an indispensable tool in our efforts to thwart terrorist attacks over the last five years, and the Military Commission Act ensures that the CIA program will continue in the future.
Second, it provides a legal framework for prosecuting terrorists who we capture on the fields of battle. The Military Commissions Act guarantees that every terrorist will receive a full and fair trial, consistent with America’s obligations under international and domestic law. At the same time, this new law protects the sources and methods used to collect our most sensitive national intelligence. These procedures—which resulted from extensive deliberations among policymakers in both the Executive and Legislative branches—protect the rights of accused terrorists and the safety of the American people.

quote:

Originally posted by Tarquin Maynard-Portly:

quote:

Originally posted by Deane F:
Mike

Yes I evaded the question because I do not understand the question.

"The Rights of the few outweigh the lives of the many, then?"

Please expand on this. There are a great many unstated premises in what appears to be moral reasoning posed as a question.

You seriously expect me to believe you do not understand my question?

Ok, let me spell this out for you:

I will not answer a leading question such as the one you asked me. Construct your own argument and state it clearly - but do not expect me to construct your argument for you with an answer, or series of answers, that are simply affirmations or rejections of your propositions.

quote:

Originally posted by Tarquin Maynard-Portly:
Acad

I suspect I know more people that have been shot at, or blown up by non-AQ than you do.

It exists.

Regards

Mike

Mike,

The distinction between Al-Qaeda funded/trained operatives operating under orders from an Al-Qaeda central command and 'Al-Qaeda' sympathisers acting independently is deliberately blurred by US and UK governments. The former hardly exists - the latter exists aplenty but they are not a coherent whole and if your friends are coming under fire from this rag tag bunch it may be something to do with the fact that they are univited combatants in a foreign land and ought to leave ASAP like a certain UK General says they should. Problem solved.

Regards,

Acad

Watch out for a 'false flag' black op against a major US asset (most likely a US aircraft carrier in the Gulf)by alleged iranian missiles prior to the November elections in the US.

quote:

Originally posted by Tarquin Maynard-Portly:
[QUOTE]



The only problem then would be the horrendous civil war that would the immediately follow.
BTW General Dannet is not saying they should leave asp but I agree with the sentiment.

AQ are now orgainised as cells, much as the Proviional IRA did over here for many years. This is a very succesful method of ensuring that each cell knows the bare minimum about its chain of command, and if captured they have little knowledge about command structure, members ofother cells, quartermaster etc.

Regards

Mike

The horrendous civil war scenario was always part of the plan Mike (according to some schools of thought). The US wants Iraq split up into three different states.

The cell thing is particularly difficult to prove or unprove. I think the third documentary in the link provided earlier provides much insight and is required viewing for anyone interested in this area. I was very impressed with the research.

Regards,

Acad