human rights for the al-queda terrorists

[Wobble 1]

said it cos a guy asked if the us was listed at amnesty for torture...and it is

show me where it says so.. because according to the writeup IT IS NOT...

as for the guards+prisoners.. how many? 10? 20? 200?

because it seems ANY would be enough for AI to get all pissy on it

its goal is a utopia..it can never be reached

exactley so it cant exactly be used in a "country good/country bad" argument.. because it is so unrealistic..

after reading some of the CRAP AI lists countries for it would no longer suprise me if the US was indeed on their 'torture' list.. as all it seems it would take is one or 2 isolated incidents for it to slap a country with that lable..

well at least I learned something today.. AI is as big of joke as PITA (dont get me started on PITA)

not to say AI is bad or anything.. but their 'judgment' is quite suspect in its labeling of what a country is or is not... VERY suspect.

[Guest]

LOL!

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Are you sure you wanna hear this?<span id='postcolor'>

You guys are hilarious. You went from that to:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">i think AI is better to whine too much than too little, its goal is a utopia..it can never be reached but we should never stop trying<span id='postcolor'>

All the way to:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">would you please stop excusing the rapes simply cos it happens in your nation wobble<span id='postcolor'>

What happened to the US being a TORTURE COUNTRY??

Morons.

[Wobble 1]

well Juan sometimes when the point of an argument cannot be won the losing party will deftley slllliiidddee the point to a different topic that they stand a better chance of winning  

would you please stop excusing the rapes simply cos it happens in your nation wobble

(just noticed this)

I said that a prison rape which is an isolated incident.. not a premeditated goverment sponsored act DOES NOT make a country a 'torture' country..

well it might to AI but like you said...  unrealistic utopian view..

but if you interpret that as me 'excusing rape because its in my country'... you my friend have a sever outlook issue.

[Wobble 1]

I wish I could type.. I need to take a keyborading class next semester

[Pete 1]

when did this become a good/bad country argument??

and the rape (and other ill-treatments) might be a few isolatet cases (most likely so)...but when the goverment does nothing to stop the rapers or to prevent it happening again...or even to the very least improve the prisoners condition...then it is a major issue and should be on amnestys list.

just like the single murder case in sweden...its there to put a pressure to make things change before they get any worse.

its not a good/bad country argument.....all our nations have defects and we should sort them out and make them better.

and yes, ur right..usa is not listed as a torture country, but it is listed for torture...

something that annoys me is when people defend something that is clearly wrong...if you dont like us coming with too much anti-us stuff, find some anti-euro stuff we can argue about...but do not defend raping of female prisoners and such clearly wrong things...we can argue about wars and reasons for them, but not this.

[Wobble 1]

...if you dont like us coming with too much anti-us stuff, find some anti-euro stuff we can argue about...but do not defend raping of female prisoners and such clearly wrong things...we can argue about wars and reasons for them, but not this.

I dont like starting shit like that.. I like the "he who knows no sin cast the first stone" rule, in otherwords dont pick on someone else's country because your's has its trouble's too..

and how am i 'defending' raping prisoners.. all I said is that they have nothing to do with the goverment..  thats it.  I never said its not a big deal. just that it doesnt make the US a torture country.. you see the difference.. sure its wrong of course it is and for quite a while the prison system has been trying to deal with it.. but its not a very easy thing to do..  after all how many women do YOU know who would want to be a prison guard?.. hell I dont know anyone male or female who would want to.. its a shitty job..  and you make it sound like this prison rape thing is some sort of rampant problem thats spinning out of control.. then you turn around and say its most likley isolated incidents.. well which is it?  isolated incidents.. ANY isolated incident are hard for ANY goverment to deal with.. becasue they are just that.. isolated incidents..  its not like the gov has some majic cure for this problem and just refuses to do anything about it.. its a hard thing to deal with.. because it has nothing to do with goverment.. its a single person with their own strange motive commiting a crime.. just like any other rape or murder or other crime.. you cant just 'fix' it.. you can try and make the incidents more rare by screening potental employees better and whatnot.. but its not something that can really be fixed.. because it occurs on the personal level..  it still sucks and is VERY VERY wrong.. but there is only so much a goverment can do about it becuase like I said... its a personal individual act...

[Wobble 1]

wow, I just found this..

Between 1980 and 1995, expected punishment more than doubled for murder and nearly tripled for rape

it was written in 97.. but it does show that the gov IS trying its best..  and stiffining punishments for the crime itself is really about all the gov can do..

wow here is an updated one:

1999

Rape has decreased 17 percent, as the probability of prison has increased 20 percent

this is interesting.. stuff

if you can scare up a 2000 or 2001 NCPA report I would like to see.. all I can find is the 1997 and 1999 one..

[Pete 1]

ok wobble....i over-reacted i quess

but the solution to solve that is simple and can be done real fast.

no males as guards.....raise the salary to a level where women want to work as prison guards, problem solved.

in sweden to my knowledge males arent allowed to be in touch with the female prisoners at any time, they might have administrative jobs in the prison, but all that has to do with the female prisoners is off limits for the male workers/guards.

thats something the goverment can do any time, just set a few "rules" on how a female prison is to be run.

[Wobble 1]

no males as guards.....raise the salary to a level where women want to work as prison guards, problem solved

I agree that would probably cut down on it some... but still its easier said than done.. first off you have the Law. now I know this sounds dumb.. but only allowing female prison guards would be considered gender descrimination... I know thats totally retarded.. but the same thing happened with male inmates.. a womens group sued and make it against the law for Prisons to deny females jobs based on their sex..

I totally agree with you.. all female staff is the way to go.. butUUGGH! the damn red tape..

[Longinius 1]

DEFINITION OF POW

"(DOD) A detained person as defined in Articles 4 and 5 of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War of August 12, 1949. In particular, one who, while engaged in combat under orders of his or her government, is captured by the armed forces of the enemy."

The Taliban were under orders from their LEGAL government.

"As such, he or she is entitled to the combatant's privilege of immunity from the municipal law of the capturing state for warlike acts which do not amount to breaches of the law of armed conflict. For example, a prisoner of war may be, but is not limited to, any person belonging to one of the following categories who has fallen into the power of the enemy: a member of the armed forces, organized militia or volunteer corps; a person who accompanies the armed forces without actually being a member thereof; a member of a merchant marine or civilian aircraft crew not qualifying for more favorable treatment; or individuals who, on the approach of the enemy, spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces. "

They sure seem like POW's to me.

TREATMENT OF TALIBAN PRISONERS

Geneva Convention on POW’s

http://www.hrweb.org/legal/undocs.html

â€Art 20. The evacuation of prisoners of war shall always be effected humanely and in conditions similar to those for the forces of the Detaining Power in their changes of station.â€

Since when are US soldiers drugged when transported to Cuba?

â€Art 22. Prisoners of war may be interned only in premises located on land and affording every guarantee of hygiene and healthfulness. Except in particular cases which are justified by the interest of the prisoners themselves, they shall not be interned in penitentiaries.

Prisoners of war interned in unhealthy areas, or where the climate is injurious for them, shall be removed as soon as possible to a more favourable climate.â€

Somehow I don’t think living in a cage is very healthful. Ever hear of dungeon decease? Its something you get from being held in damp, wet and cold cells. And it is quite bad for your health.

â€Art 25. Prisoners of war shall be quartered under conditions as favourable as those for the forces of the Detaining Power who are billeted in the same area. The said conditions shall make allowance for the habits and customs of the prisoners and shall in no case be prejudicial to their health.â€

Are the marines living in cages to?

The list goes on and on. Since America never goes against the Geneva convention, these guys can’t be POW’s. Even though they were captured combatants in a war…Hmmm, someone is giving people the run around.

â€3: maby not, but seeing as how the taleban was givin MANY MANY chances to cooperate with the US and refused and aeven mocked the attempt at avoiding a conflict with them by calling the US 'cowards' then they are the enemy. they had their chanced, they made the decision.. now they are fucked.â€

Then you are admitting they were the enemy in a war and thus POW’s that fall under the geneva convention which the US clearly is breaking.

AMERICA AND TORTURE

â€Thank you all for coming. As a survivor of torture, I want to urge you to support declassification of United States government documents that shed light on human rights abuses. Simply by declassifying documents, our government can save lives. Survivors of human rights violations need to know as much as possible about who committed the atrocities against them. With this information, justice is possible, and only justice can lay the foundation for reconciliation, stability, and peace. Guatemala and Honduras are two countries that would benefit immeasurably from full declassification. The sticking point in these instances seems to be that the US has supported the abusers.â€

http://www.struggle.ws/mexico/usa/torture_guatemala_jun98.html

â€In its conclusions and recommendations (released May 15th, 2000), UNCAT very firmly called attention to the high number of reports in the US of "police ill-treatment of civilians, ill treatment in prisons, (including inter-prisoner violence)," calling special attention to the fact that much of the police violence seems to be discriminatory in nature, and "alleged cases of sexual assault on female detainees and prisoners by law enforcement officers, and prison personnel," stressing that women are often held in humiliating and degrading circumstances.â€

http://www.disinfo.com/pages/dossier/id363/pg1/

â€AMERICAN investigators are considering resorting to harsher interrogation techniques, including torture, after facing a wall of silence from jailed suspected members of Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaeda network, according to a report yesterday. â€

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/1022-01.htm

And then we have the fact that the CIA often have been accused of torture. But that is really not relevent since they do not represent the US society per say.

COMMENTS

â€yes but most german soldiers didnt know about the atrocities that were commited... im pretty sure every soldier fighting for the taleban has a pretty good idea about what happened to get them in the situation they are in... they know what happened, they either:â€

I really doubt that. Why would a person without TV or radio know what was going on? I doubt they even knew about WTC.

â€so your view is that because the average soldier *might* not know what has happened.. or at least what REALLY happened.. that they should be immune to normal military procedure concerning captured enemy troops?â€

No, but they SHOULD be treated according to the Geneva Convention. Which they aren’t.

â€Im still waiting for ANYONE to name ANYTHING that the US has 'done' to these guys thats any problem..â€

See above. And human rights still apply to criminals. No matter what, the regular soldier in the Taliban armed forces is an enlisted man, thus a soldier, thus a POW. No matter WHAT Bush says. This is not for him to decide, this is for the international community to decide.

And no, I am not saying the US is a torture country. The US government supports torture however.

[Pete 1]

rofl!!...it sounds so dumb that im sure ur right about it!!

heheheh...equal rights, i agree on men and women being cabable on doing the same kinds of jobs, but in some cases men/women should be allowed to work with certain jobs..

here, in sweden....if u are a man and try to find a job where u work with children..in a daycare or kindergarden, u will have BIG trouble getting a job.

we had a few incidents with pedophiles (sp?) with those jobs and they photographed children when they were naked, touched them in the wrong places and other really sick stuff...i think none of the kids were actually raped, but it caused a big scandal here and many men (innocent of course) were fired from there jobs....just in case.

now a few years after the initial shock its still a sensitive issue...it is not illegal for men to work with children, but nobody wants to hire men.......so, now the question here is.

1: should the goverment push harder to give the men a equal chance to get those jobs.

2: should men be allowed to work with children at all, considering the risk (even is it is a small risk).

my personal opinion, even if many disagree is to only have women with those jobs....if one child gets molested by a man working in a daycare centre its one child too much...but you can see that its a sensitive issue here...specially since sweden is one of the most "egual" nations in the world, men and women have the same rights (or should have) and the pedophile-scare is causing double-standards.

[Guest]

That's quite different from liberal america: they'd rather see 10 guilty go free than 1 innocent suffer in jail. Unfortunately, the result of that kind of thinking is: 1500 guilty go free and 2 innocents suffer in jail.

[Longinius 1]

"That's quite different from liberal america: they'd rather see 10 guilty go free than 1 innocent suffer in jail. Unfortunately, the result of that kind of thinking is: 1500 guilty go free and 2 innocents suffer in jail. "

Are you sure about that?

"WASHINGTON (UPI) - A congressional investigation into abuses and illegal conduct by the Federal Bureau of Investigation in its handling of organized crime investigations over the last 30 years has found evidence that then-FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover knowingly allowed innocent men to be convicted - and spend decades in prison - for a murder allegedly committed by an FBI witness, documents examined by United Press International indicate."

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/4/25/213718.shtml

"But ask Bednar about the controversy engulfing Oklahoma's criminal justice system, forcing the review of nearly 1,700 convictions, and he sounds downright radical. Prosecutors, he says, are playing games with forensic evidence, putting their desire to convict ahead of the demands of science. Judges, he argues, don't insist on high standards of admissible evidence. Defense attorneys, he contends, haven't delved deeply enough into scientific tests used to determine their clients' guilt.

"We have used for the last 25 years bad science in this state to convict people, and we have stretched the truth," said Bednar, now head of Oklahoma's Indigent Defense System. "It's got to stop.""

http://www.freep.com/news/nw/zlabs13_20010713.htm

http://www.justicedenied.org/innocent.htm

I don't give much for the American judicial system (which is similar to the Swedish, which also is inefficient). Basically if you have money or power you go free. Justice is not blind. And that is not how it is supposed to be.

Besides, when you can sue a company because you spilled hot coffee in your lap AND get millions for it, something is VERY wrong.

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ Jan. 15 2002,09:02)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Besides, when you can sue a company because you spilled hot coffee in your lap AND get millions for it, something is VERY wrong.<span id='postcolor'>

Yep. Most places would refill your cup for you.

[Stag 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ Jan. 15 2002,07:33)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">DEFINITION OF POW

"(DOD) A detained person as defined in Articles 4 and 5 of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War of August 12, 1949. In particular, one who, while engaged in combat under orders of his or her government, is captured by the armed forces of the enemy."

The Taliban were under orders from their LEGAL government.<span id='postcolor'>

And there you have it. The prisoners are Al Qeda, NOT Taliban, and among them are six individuals holding British citizenship. The Taliban are NOT their government. These are terrorists, not soldiers.

You think that they are going to have a rough time? I certainly hope so, BUT, I suspect that the reason that they are not given the status of Prisoners of War is because the US intends to execute them, or lock them up and throw away the key. POW's would go home when the fighting is over.

As for those 6 "Brits?" I certainly hope that the US hands them back. Treason is the one reason left in British law where you can get your neck stretched.

[Pete 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> I suspect that the reason that they are not given the status of Prisoners of War is because the US intends to execute them, or lock them up and throw away the key. POW's would go home when the fighting is over.<span id='postcolor'>

i believe you are right about it...it will be intresting to see what happens next, but im convinced that it will cause a big argument heheheh

anyways..the al-queda could be classed as mercenaries i think, does the rules of war apply to them?

personally....as i said, i dont care what happens to the prisoners, i am however worried that usa might once again break a few rules and set a new "standard" for others to follow..creating a worse world to live in for everyone.

long term thing...usa needs to do the right thing at all times, and follow international rules, cos if they dont then why would anyone follow international rules....it would just end up with a chaotic world...

[Longinius 1]

"And there you have it. The prisoners are Al Qeda, NOT Taliban, and among them are six individuals holding British citizenship. The Taliban are NOT their government. These are terrorists, not soldiers."

But according to the news they are detaining both Talibans and Al Queda men. As for the foreign nationals, I wont comment since I do not know if they hold Afghan citizenship aswell. That does not matter anyway because they were fighting for a government. Just likes Swedes fought with the Finns against Russians and even with the Americans in Vietnam. If they were caught, they would have been POW's (Even though the Swedish Armed Forces wasn't directly envolved).

"You think that they are going to have a rough time? I certainly hope so, BUT, I suspect that the reason that they are not given the status of Prisoners of War is because the US intends to execute them, or lock them up and throw away the key. POW's would go home when the fighting is over."

This is probably true. But it is not for the US to decide if they are POW's or not.

[Stag 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ Jan. 15 2002,09:33)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">That does not matter anyway because they were fighting for a government. Just likes Swedes fought with the Finns against Russians and even with the Americans in Vietnam.<span id='postcolor'>

Not according to the passage of the Geneva Convention you quoted.

[Krull SGC 0]

Pete your right about Al Qaeda members being covered by the Geneva Convention. They fall under Article 4, persons who aren't part of an involved nations regular military, but are still a party to the conflict, by virtue of affiliation, see below:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Art 4. A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

(1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:[

(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

© that of carrying arms openly;

(d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.<span id='postcolor'>

One last thing according to Article 2, a state of war is not necessary for the convention to apply, this clearly means that affirmative action such as that taken by the US is covered and any prisioners taken by the US must treated accordingly, Afghanistan by the way is a party to the convention (yes even the Taliban, who while not recognised fully as the legitimate government, were the only "effective" government in place, and so bound by the predecessors)

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Art 2. In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.

<span id='postcolor'>

For the full text of the Convention check out this link here.

[Stag 0]

It appears you are right about Taliban being there as well. Okay, another reason why they would not be treated as POWs would be that Nobody on the planet except Pakistan recognised the Taliban as a National government. However:

[Prime Minister Tony Blair's official spokesman says the American authorities have given assurances the prisoners are being treated "humanely" and in accordance with "international norms of behaviour".]

Believe it, or not.

[Longinius 1]

Krull beat me to it...

"(1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces."

Thus foreign nationals fighting in a volunteer corps are in fact POW's when captured.

[foxer 0]

I think you people are forgeting again that these are Al Qeda terrorist.There's 2 different things from a soldier and terrorist,Soldiers fight soldiers.Soldiers train to kill other soldiers.Terrorist kill civilians,They train on how to blow up civilian building,how to kill civilians,other.When the war is over soldiers go home and live their life.Terrorist know no end,They keep trying kill civilains.If someone said he was going kill you with an gun,and he lived down the street,wouldn't you want the cops to go put him in jail ?

In all the conflicts america has been in ,all of our POW got the living shit kick outta them.Heck the japanese were alot worse then the nazi's in some cases,better yet alot worse(not just talking about POW,talking about what they did to the chinese and koreans too.

[Longinius 1]

"I think you people are forgeting again that these are Al Qeda terrorist."

First of, we have been talking about Taliban soldiers, not Al Queda operatives. There is a difference. They are not the same. The Taliban regime was a legal government. Al Queda is a terrorist organisation.

"There's 2 different things from a soldier and terrorist,Soldiers fight soldiers."

No, soldiers fight the enemy. This means soldiers can fight soldiers, soldiers can fight terrorists, soldiers can fight freedom fighters. And freedomfighters are civilians. When they pick up weapons however, they become combatants.

"Soldiers train to kill other soldiers.Terrorist kill civilians,They train on how to blow up civilian building,how to kill civilians,other."

So does soldiers. Popular targets are purification plants, infrastructure, food storages etc. Civilians targets. Sure, they have to be destroyed so the enemy can't use them, but they are still civilian targets.

"When the war is over soldiers go home and live their life.Terrorist know no end,They keep trying kill civilains."

Wrong. Not all terrorists work like that. Some have a very distinct goal they work towards.

"In all the conflicts america has been in ,all of our POW got the living shit kick outta them.Heck the japanese were alot worse then the nazi's in some cases,better yet alot worse(not just talking about POW,talking about what they did to the chinese and koreans too."

So, just because some American POW's got treated badly by army X, the Americans can do the same to army Y? Thats real logical, and maybe the reason shit like WTC go down.

[Stag 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ Jan. 15 2002,13:10)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">First of, we have been talking about Taliban soldiers, not Al Queda operatives. There is a difference. They are not the same. The Taliban regime was a legal government. Al Queda is a terrorist organisation.<span id='postcolor'>

Not accroding to the UN, or the majority of governments on the planet.

[Longinius 1]

"Not accroding to the UN, or the majority of governments on the planet."

Not any longer, no. That is why I say "was". But up until this conflict, noone objected. Noone tried to stop them. Noone sent UN peacekeepers to establish a real government. They were accepted until they fucked up.