Gitmo Gulag? Serious bad guys at Guantanamo would love to kill you. (Abuse BY prisoners)

Free Lance Star, Fredericksburg ^ | Oct. 23, 2005

[Ethan_Allen1777]

Gotta do your homework BEFORE you spout. Here is the relevant passage from the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment

...the United States understands that, in order to constitute torture, an act must be specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering and that mental pain or suffering refers to prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from (1) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering; (2) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality; (3) the threat of imminent death; or (4) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality.

Since we have already been a signatory to this treaty for 18 years I guess I don't know what all of the commotion is about. The prisoners do not get to decide what torture is the United States Senate has already done so.

[FairOpinion]

Now you should read the UN document:


Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment


http://www.ohchr.org/english/law/cat.htm

Some excerpts:

" For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions. "

NOTE that even "intimidation" is considered "torture" and they define it as "physical or MENTAL" -- they can claim that being locked up if mental torture.

[Ethan_Allen1777]

Tsk tsk. You excerpted from the wrong section. From the bill:

"...as defined in the United States Reservations, Declarations and Understandings to the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Forms of Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment done at New York, December 10, 1984."

Fortunately I was paying attention and excerpted the proper section above.

[FairOpinion]

You quoted from the specific reservations countries had, beyond the reservations stated, they are accepting the bill.

I gave the link to the actual agreement.

Tsk, tsk to you.

Go to my link:

http://www.ohchr.org/english/law/cat.htm

[fatteddy]

it figures fat-a## Kennedy and Durban would defend these thugs,maybe-they should pull some guard duty for a while....i despise fat teddy!

[FairOpinion]

"Kennedy and Durban would defend these thugs,maybe-they should pull some guard duty for a while"

===

This is an EXCELLENT suggestion. Those who criticize our troops' handling of the terrorists, should do guard duty themselves and let them cuddle the terrorists, and after the terrorists beat them up, or worse, they will realize who these detainees really are.

[Hank Rearden]

This article highlights why Bush will never "win" in Iraq - we'll just stay there, getting guys killed day by day, forever.

Because winning will take overwhelming badass actions in the face of UN outrage, we'll never win.

Spray them with pig blood, execute them and mail the bodies back to their Moo shitholes. Make it clear that they'll get the death they seek, but on our terms and in a manner that guarantees they never get to meet their mythical Allah.

Bush's plan is to keep screwing around until he leaves office, then pass the buck to Hillary (the way things are going).

[Ethan_Allen1777]

You quoted from the specific reservations countries had, beyond the reservations stated, they are accepting the bill.

Correct because THAT is what the The McCain Bill specifically references i.e. "the United States Reservations, Declarations and Understandings to the United Nations Convention..." it does not mention ANYTHING about the broader language of the bill.

The McCain amendment uses the definition of torture, approved by the US Senate and signed by President Reagan, that has been the law of the land for 18 years as the definition for torture.

I said before that I questioned if you had read the bill. It seems as if you have read it you just have not yet understood what it means. I hope I have helped to clarify this for you.

[FairOpinion]

We are so busy arguing about the trees, that you are missing the forest - which is that the McCain amendment gives foreign terrorists captured in foreign lands protection of the US Constitution and uses UN international law a basis for a US law, and a very bad law at that.

[Ethan_Allen1777]

This isn't forest and trees stuff. This is what they law actually says. You want to believe it is a terrorist protection law, it is not. Let's discuss what it actually is.

The McCain amendment gives terrorists certain protections which are the same as any American would have, yes.

They are:

Article [V.]
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

I don't believe these scumbags were ever in danger of being summarily executed or otherwise punished so I'm not sure how this gives them any rights we were not already going to extend in any case. Does that one bother you?

Next

Article [VIII.]
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

I know that whole "cruel and unusual" thing probably bugs you but our guys are pros they are not going to rip anyones fingernails out. Does that one bother you?

Excerpted for obvious reasons:

Article XIV.
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

This one says that the Jose Padillas of the world get the same rights as you or I. Does that one bother you?

[BIRDS]

"We will look you up on the Internet," the prisoners said. "We will find you and slaughter you and your family in your homes at night. We will cut your throats like sheep. We will drink the blood of the infidel."

Having seen several death-threat type comments spamming many sites, the internet and how it's used by terrorists really should be undergoing some sort of examination by U.S. military/Justice. I worry that it isn't, is my point, but that I can attest firsthand that the terrorist threats are ongoing on the internet.

[mother22wife21]

Thanks for posting this. I needed a reminder (though I am ashamed to admit it) that those troops at Gitmo need our prayers and support on a daily basis, Just as the fighting troops require them.

[GiovannaNicoletta]

Excellent article. Thanks for posting.

[Watery Tart]

They are motivated by a virulent form of Islam that promotes jihad and death to Western civilization.

They will kill Americans--including women and children--without conscience, for they are convinced that restoration of the Islamic caliphate is their sole mission on this earth.

Maybe these -er- prisoners need some head gear.

And we can treat them with dignity as soon as THEY start following modern conventions (let me know when they sign the papers, too). They might want to stop road-side-bombing us; they haven't slammed planes into buildings in awhile, and I haven't had to see many beheadings lately. But McCain's CFR Gitmo Prisoner Kindness Act does not erase these things.

[GodBlessRonaldReagan]

This was in the usually liberal Free-Lance Star? Pigs must be flying past my window right now!

[American in Israel]

For this he was dropped in rank to private. "

I would put up with him being dropped in rank, if they dropped the prisoner with a rope around his neck. Till then, they should have promoted him for his resourcefulness.

[Wormwood]

Several guards were required to repel the prisoner's attack; one soldier who came to the rescue delivered two blows to the inmate's head with a handheld radio.

For this he was dropped in rank to private.

Pathetic.

[FairOpinion]

"This one says that the Jose Padillas of the world get the same rights as you or I. Does that one bother you?"


====


First of all it isn't just the Jose Padilla's of the world, but the Bin Laden's, Al zawahiri's and Mohammed Atta's of the world would get the same right as we, as US citizens have, along with the lawyers and the whole bit.

And YES, IT BOTHERS ME. I find it quite amazing that it doesn't bother you. What about OUR rights to NOT be murdered and blown up by these terrorists? One terrorist can murder thousands of Americans. This is a new paradigm. If we wait for them to commit a crime, for which we can try them in US courts, it's too late, thousands of Americans may be dead. That's why the emphasis is on getting information to PREVENT the deaths of thousands of Americans.

[Ethan_Allen1777]

First of all it isn't just the Jose Padilla's of the world, but the Bin Laden's, Al zawahiri's and Mohammed Atta's of the world would get the same right as we, as US citizens have, along with the lawyers and the whole bit.

The amendment says: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States..."

Was OBL born here or did he become a citizen later?

Read first, think second, answer last.

[Ethan_Allen1777]

I forgot to answer this part.

If we wait for them to commit a crime, for which we can try them in US courts, it's too late

Please point out where I said we should be waiting or putting them on trial. I said we need not torture them.

Can you find anything from people in the intelligence agencies that says we need to torture these people? I am willing to be convinced.

Everything I have read says no. The Army (based on their field manual) says no. We have an international obligation, in place for nearly 2 decades, that commit us to not torture people. Why would we go back on those obligations what is there to gain?