WikiLeaks’ 400,000 Iraq War Docs Reveal Torture, Civilian Deaths [Archive] - Debate Policy

revelarts

10-22-2010, 11:41 PM

Noir

10-23-2010, 05:53 AM

WikiLeaks’ 400,000 Iraq War Docs Reveal Torture, Civilian Deaths

Read More http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/10/wikileaks-press/#ixzz139Yhq9qD

Wikileaks and Aljazera, the Guardian, the NewYork times, Wired magazine and all those army reports, they all work for Al Quida!
lies lies lies!
But if it some small part of it, taken out of context, were true...
what happen to those people wasn't torture or even brutality really, Sodomy with a hose is not REAL torture. Electric shocks to the genitals are not REALLY torture. the well meaning army staff should not have even reported it, over and over again. SADAM WAS WORSE!!! LETS NOT FORGET THAT. Even though Rumsfeild and he worked together against the EVIL terror of IRAN. Plus if the Iraqi Police had them then they were criminals or TERRORIST. they should have been shot on the spot. That's good police work and what we should be training the Iraqis to do. It's the American way at least until we kill all the Muslims , except for the Iraqi police... right now ... who we are training to kill the terrorist for themselves and shouldn't report as torturing people when it's only torture when it happens to our boys. It's WAR, It's A WAR zone over there ,Crap happens in a war Zone. Well .. actually the whole world is a war zone soo um.
BUT It's treason! who released these secret documents? They should be put in Jail! It's wrong to release documents. Someone MIGHT get hurt because of this, even though 1000's of troops have left. How dare they?

I hope that this was all meant to be taken tounge in cheek, but sadly I fear it's not...

Guardian working for AQ? :laugh:
Electric Shocks not torture? :laugh::laugh:
Being sodomised not torture? :laugh::laugh::laugh:

So what exactly is torture? I mean, if beating, whipping, shocking and sodomising are fine, what's left?

You are really pretty wacked man, I mean, ofcourse I know Sadam would of been worse, but that doesn't mean you can let whatever happens slide because it's not as bad (remember, the lesser of two evils is still evil) The idea that you think decent americans should stand by, watch this happen and say nothing is disgusting.

And the only reason AQ cam use this as propaganda is because Americans did nothing! (well, atleast the decent soilders reported it) but those above them did nothing about it.

Maybe you'd rather live in a world of ignorance, some of us like knowledge. And the knowledge of what America has let go on here is shameful, I hope Britions where not a part of any of this.

Gaffer

10-23-2010, 07:35 AM

Kathianne

10-23-2010, 07:37 AM

So who are you and what have you done with revelarts?

I'm waiting for his return. My guess, was sarcasm. What think you?

Gaffer

10-23-2010, 08:42 AM

I'm waiting for his return. My guess, was sarcasm. What think you?

Yeah me too.

I guess he thought he was imitating me in some way. except he shouldn't type like English is his second language.

Noir

10-23-2010, 08:44 AM

I'm waiting for his return. My guess, was sarcasm. What think you?

Thank heavens, I couldn't remember his politics to know if it was sarcasm or not, and was dreading that it wasn't xD

revelarts

10-23-2010, 09:28 AM

Yeah, it's pretty much sarcasm.

Sadly It's the type of responses I typically see when something along this line is posted. I wasn't thinking of anyone specifically (except for the "kill all Muslims" line G. I should have used the word "eradicate".)

More Sarcasm alert,
Noir, you just don't get it. we're at war. War is not pretty , grow some hair on your face before you comment with your cute "rule of engagement", "laws of war" and "human rights" ideas. Our troops are well trained and we've Trained the brave Iraqi police and Military in the ways of democracy and how to survive the darkest evilness of the Muslim Terrorist Insurgents and so called Civilians. Would you like to see what they do to us?!!! We are all kind and good and benevolent and so are our allies, most of the time, There are just a few bad apples. WHY DOESN'T THE REPORT SHOW ALL OF THE CANDY AND BLANKETS GIVEN OUT!!!! OR HOW MANY LIVES SAVED BY THE IRAQI POLICE AND U.S. ARMY!!!! THAT CANCELS AND TRUMPS ANY so called torture. You want to give the enemy milk and cookies and slap on the wrist.

Sarcasm off.
OK that's out of my system.

I doubt anything will be done legally about the report now. Except, maybe, for the murders - no statute of limitation on murder- at least in the U.S.. (Anyone ever get fired for the Pat Tillman cover up? Do we know if it was a Fraging or friendly fire yet?)
But the families of the victims might follow up on some of this , if they feel safe enough to try.

darin

10-23-2010, 09:30 AM

Yeah, it's pretty much sarcasm.

Sadly It's the type of responses I typically see when something along this line is posted.

No, you don't. Nobody on this board posts like that. (shrug).

Here's the problem - that report shows nothing in Context. The Army is VERY GOOD at charging and prosecuting criminals. Better than any private industry or congress, for sure.

Noir

10-23-2010, 09:35 AM

No, you don't. Nobody on this board posts like that. (shrug).

Here's the problem - that report shows nothing in Context. The Army is VERY GOOD at charging and prosecuting criminals. Better than any private industry or congress, for sure.

What do you mean no context? Some guy got a bottle shoved where a bottle don't fit, what more context do you need?

darin

10-23-2010, 09:38 AM

What do you mean no context? Some guy got a bottle shoved where a bottle don't fit, what more context do you need?

Not to the eaches, but in general. There are reports of...

Not everything produced by the internets is correct. Because someone THINKS "the army is turning a blind eye" doesn't mean the Army is.

Noir

10-23-2010, 09:47 AM

Not to the eaches, but in general. There are reports of...

Not everything produced by the internets is correct. Because someone THINKS "the army is turning a blind eye" doesn't mean the Army is.

Do you have any proof that they have taken action against those who have committed torture?

darin

10-23-2010, 09:59 AM

Do you have any proof that they have taken action against those who have committed torture?

who are 'those'? What is 'torture'? You don't have, nor do I have, all the facts. We have a video from YouTube. You assume the worst, I assume right wins out.

Noir

10-23-2010, 10:15 AM

who are 'those'? What is 'torture'? You don't have, nor do I have, all the facts. We have a video from YouTube. You assume the worst, I assume right wins out.

Those are the Iraqi police that carried out these beatings, and perverse acts.
And torture is a creul or unusual punishment. Of which I would consider getting a bottle up the wrong 'un a candidate for both cruel and unusual.

What we do know is these events where reported, what we don know is how those who committed the acts where investigated and tried. I think ghat would be useful to know.

darin

10-23-2010, 10:18 AM

Those are the Iraqi police that carried out these beatings, and perverse acts.
And torture is a creul or unusual punishment. Of which I would consider getting a bottle up the wrong 'un a candidate for both cruel and unusual.

Okay? What's your point, vanessa?

What we do know is these events where reported, what we don know is how those who committed the acts where investigated and tried. I think ghat would be useful to know.

Right. So...yeah...okay?

Noir

10-23-2010, 10:43 AM

Okay? What's your point, vanessa?

The point of what you quoted was to answer the questions you asked me, valerie.

Right. So...yeah...okay?

So maybe the American military should give us this details to prove they did not pass a blind eye to torture :)

Pagan

10-23-2010, 10:47 AM

Great documentary -

http://www.amazon.com/Taxi-Dark-Side-Alex-Gibney/dp/B001BEK8FQ

But waring it'll piss you off. It shows how those responsible were not punished but in fact were promoted and the Enlisted were made scape goats.

darin

10-23-2010, 11:36 AM

The point of what you quoted was to answer the questions you asked me, valerie.

So maybe the American military should give us this details to prove they did not pass a blind eye to torture :)

Legal proceedings are public law. Look 'em up.

Great documentary -

http://www.amazon.com/Taxi-Dark-Side-Alex-Gibney/dp/B001BEK8FQ

But waring it'll piss you off. It shows how those responsible were not punished but in fact were promoted and the Enlisted were made scape goats.

Those responsible or those in charge? those in charge, if they didn't actually do anything wrong, are not responsible.

Pagan

10-23-2010, 12:57 PM

>> snip <<

Those responsible or those in charge? those in charge, if they didn't actually do anything wrong, are not responsible.

You mean the OIC who set the policy, was promoted, moved on to Iraq, created the same environment which resulted in the Abu Gharib bullshit. Then again not charged but promoted again/moved and the enlisted being the scape goats?

Or are you just making assumptions without seeing the documentary?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carolyn_Wood

She was the OIC who established the "enhanced" interrogation procedures, what happened to her?

She was promoted, received two bronze stars, took her "enhanced" procedures to Abu Ghraib and not only was not prosecuted (that's what the enlisted are for) but remains on active duty with honors.

Mr. P

10-23-2010, 03:59 PM

Abu Ghraib torture? Put womens' panties on my head..Please!!! :laugh:

No I didn't watch the doc..

Gaffer

10-23-2010, 06:34 PM

Abu Ghraib torture? Put womens' panties on my head..Please!!! :laugh:

No I didn't watch the doc..

I agree, Abu ghraib wasn't torture, it was humiliation, but no where near torture. I didn't watch the doc either.

Noir

10-23-2010, 06:42 PM

Gaffer & Mr P, you guys don't consider rape to be torture?

Major General Antonio Taguba has stated that there is photographic evidence of rape being carried out by American military personnel at Abu Ghraib.[9] An Iraqi teenage boy was raped by a uniformed man while photos of it were taken by a female US military police.[10] The alleged rapist was identified by a witness as an American-Egyptian who worked as a translator, and who is now the subject of a civil court case in the US.[9] Another photo shows an American soldier apparently raping a female prisoner.[9] Other photos show sexual assaults on prisoners with objects including a truncheon, wire and a phosphorescent tube, and a female prisoner having her clothing forcibly removed to expose her breasts.[9] Taguba has supported President Obama's decision not to release the photos, stating, “These pictures show torture, abuse, rape and every indecency.”[9]

In other alleged cases, female inmates were said to be raped by soldiers.[11] In one reported case, senior US officials admitted rape had taken place at Abu Ghraib.[12]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisoner_abuse?wasRedirecte d=true

Pagan

10-23-2010, 06:54 PM

Abu Ghraib torture? Put womens' panties on my head..Please!!! :laugh:

No I didn't watch the doc..

I agree, Abu ghraib wasn't torture, it was humiliation, but no where near torture. I didn't watch the doc either.

Obviously you didn't and it's obvious that you've accepted what the government has told you without question.

Mr. P

10-23-2010, 09:53 PM

Gaffer & Mr P, you guys don't consider rape to be torture?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisoner_abuse?wasRedirecte d=true
Nope, I don't consider rape torture. A crime..yes.

revelarts

10-23-2010, 09:55 PM

Mr. P
you've said before that water boarding is not torture,
now you say rape is not torture.

I'm just wondering, what do you consider torture?

Mr. P

10-23-2010, 09:58 PM

Obviously you didn't and it's obvious that you've accepted what the government has told you without question.
Your link is to Amazon where I could buy something not watch a doc. And FYI, I don't accept anything the Gov says without verification.

Pagan

10-23-2010, 10:04 PM

Your link is to Amazon where I could buy something not watch a doc. And FYI, I don't accept anything the Gov says without verification.

Netflix has it or check your local DVD rental store.

revelarts

10-23-2010, 10:09 PM

And many people still don't classify foreign objects forcibly shoved between their gluts as a sex, so technically it aint rape either.
Torture seems like a reasonable word for it.

revelarts

10-23-2010, 10:10 PM

revelarts

10-23-2010, 11:31 PM

Mancow (radio host) Said he didn't think waterboarding was torture , until he tried it...
"It is way worse than I thought it would be, and that's no joke,"Mancow said, likening it to a time when he nearly drowned as a child. "It is such an odd feeling to have water poured down your nose with your head back...It was instantaneous...and I don't want to say this: absolutely torture."

Conservative atheist Christopher Hicthens said he didn't think waterboarding was torture , until he tried it...
"The conservative writer said he found the treatment terrifying, and was haunted by it for months afterward. Hitchens concluded in the article."
"Well, then, if waterboarding does not constitute torture, then there is no such thing as torture,"

Navy Seal Jesse Ventura says it's torture

The Head of one military branches SERE training, which prepares military for possible capture. He says waterboarding is torture.

In WWII nazi's and Japanese where convicted for waterboarding as torture.

But Mr p says it's not torture.
Sorry but I don't think your definition is quite right sir. I'll go with the others.

------------------------
International law we signed 1984
Convention Against Torture, Article 1.1
definition of torture
Article 1

1. 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.

2. This article is without prejudice to any international instrument or national legislation which does or may contain provisions of wider application.

Article 2
1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.

2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.

3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.

...
Article 4
1. Each State Party shall ensure that all acts of torture are offences under its criminal law. The same shall apply to an attempt to commit torture and to an act by any person which constitutes complicity or participation in torture. 2. Each State Party shall make these offences punishable by appropriate penalties which take into account their grave nature.

Chuckie Taylor convicted of torture

31 October 2008
Chuckie Taylor, son of former Liberian president Charles Taylor, was found guilty of torture and related crimes by a US court on Thursday 30 October.

Taylor could face between 20 years to life imprisonment for the crimes he committed in Liberia, while serving as the head of the former Liberian President's Anti Terrorist Unit (ATU). These include the use of electric shocks on the genitals, burning victims with cigarettes and hot irons and melting plastic and rubbing salt into wounds.

According to media reports, sentencing is scheduled for 9 January 2009. The charges Taylor was convicted on cover acts of torture between 1999 and 2003.

This is the first conviction under the US Torture Victim Protection Act since that law was enacted in 1994. Chuckie Taylor is also the first person to be tried and convicted for crimes under international law committed during Liberia's decade-long conflict, which ended in 2003.

The trial of Chuckie Taylor (also known as Roy Belfast, Jr, Charles Taylor II and Charles MacArthur Emmanuel) started on 28 September 2008 in Miami, where he was originally arrested for passport fraud, before the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

The federal anti-torture statute authorizes US Federal courts to exercise universal jurisdiction over persons found in the US who are suspected of torture committed anywhere in the world. The statute applies to US citizens and to those present in the United States, regardless of nationality and regardless where the crimes occurred....

http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.ssf/2010/06/ex-chicago_cop_jon_burge_convi.html

Ex-Chicago cop Jon Burge convicted in torture case, faces up to 45 years for perjury
CHICAGO, Illinois - A decorated former Chicago police lieutenant accused of suffocating, shocking and beating confessions out of scores of suspects was convicted Monday of federal perjury and obstruction of justice charges for lying about the torture....
...Prosecutors presented testimony from five men who said Burge and officers under his command held plastic bags over their heads, shocked them with electric current and put loaded guns in their mouths during the 1970s and 1980s to elicit confessions.

The testimony of those men echoed what others have long said: Black men suspected of crimes didn't leave interrogation rooms at Chicago's Area 2 police station until they told detectives what they wanted to hear.

1997 NY City Police "Not" torturing a criminal picked up in a bar fight
Wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abner_Louima#Background_and_incident

....The arresting officers beat Louima with their fists, nightsticks, and hand-held police radios on the ride to the station.[2] On arriving at the station house, he was strip-searched and put in a holding cell. The beating continued later, culminating with Louima being sexually assaulted in a bathroom at the 70th Precinct station house in Brooklyn. Volpe kicked Louima in the testicles, then, while Louima's hands were cuffed behind his back, he first grabbed onto and squeezed his testicles and then sodomized him with a broken broom stick, causing severe internal damage to his colon and bladder that required several operations to repair. Volpe then walked through the precinct holding the bloody, excrement-stained instrument in his hand, indicating that he had "broke a man down."

Louima's teeth were also badly damaged in the attack by having the plunger handle jammed into his mouth.[3] He testified to the presence of a second officer in the bathroom helping Volpe in the assault but he could not positively identify him. ...

Noir

10-24-2010, 06:18 AM

Indeedy, heres a link to an interview with Hitchens on waterboarding on NewsNight. (also I love Jeremys' introduction...'Now then, fancy a bit of waterboarding? Ofcourse you don't.' xD)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlSFTqGIyKY&feature=youtube_gdata_player

@Mr P, so if rapes fine what do you consider torture?

jimnyc

10-24-2010, 06:41 AM

@Mr P, so if rapes fine what do you consider torture?

Why do you guys insist on taking quotes out of context and making your own "new" statements? Mr. P NEVER said rape was fine, he simply stated that he didn't believe it to be torture but rather a crime. Might very well be both to some - but a crime should be prosecuted nonetheless. But why change what he said to make your statement sound better?

Not picking on you alone, Noir - I've seen quite a few members lately taking statements and twisting them, then tossing them back into the OP's face as if they actually stated such.

Noir

10-24-2010, 06:50 AM

Why do you guys insist on taking quotes out of context and making your own "new" statements? Mr. P NEVER said rape was fine, he simply stated that he didn't believe it to be torture but rather a crime. Might very well be both to some - but a crime should be prosecuted nonetheless. But why change what he said to make your statement sound better?

Not picking on you alone, Noir - I've seen quite a few members lately taking statements and twisting them, then tossing them back into the OP's face as if they actually stated such.

Mkay then, question reworded 'Mr P, you dont think rape is torture, so what do you think is torture?'

jimnyc

10-24-2010, 07:02 AM

Mkay then, question reworded 'Mr P, you dont think rape is torture, so what do you think is torture?'

Stop being up so early (EST) and replying! At least gimme a chance to get the caffeine in me!

Mr. P has much better insight than I as former military, and what constitutes torture by the law, but I'll take a stab at the question as well. Obviously rape is a crime and needs to be punished. In "MY" opinion, it does rise to the level of torture. Whether labeled simply as a crime or as torture, the suspects should be prosecuted. I'd leave it to the military courts to determine if a service personnel has acted in a manner that rises to "torture". Some on this board think having a prisoner stay up all night is torture while others think anything short of sawing your head off, as our enemies do, is not torture.

I would also imagine that a rape would be done so outside of the military's directive - whereas most techniques that "some" would consider torture fall under the directives of military superiors. Until such time that congress and/or the military themselves CLEARLY outline what is torture and what is not - the rest of us are monday morning armchair QB's.

Noir

10-24-2010, 08:18 AM

Stop being up so early (EST) and replying! At least gimme a chance to get the caffeine in me!

Mr. P has much better insight than I as former military, and what constitutes torture by the law, but I'll take a stab at the question as well. Obviously rape is a crime and needs to be punished. In "MY" opinion, it does rise to the level of torture. Whether labeled simply as a crime or as torture, the suspects should be prosecuted. I'd leave it to the military courts to determine if a service personnel has acted in a manner that rises to "torture". Some on this board think having a prisoner stay up all night is torture while others think anything short of sawing your head off, as our enemies do, is not torture.

I would also imagine that a rape would be done so outside of the military's directive - whereas most techniques that "some" would consider torture fall under the directives of military superiors. Until such time that congress and/or the military themselves CLEARLY outline what is torture and what is not - the rest of us are monday morning armchair QB's.

Well I do tend to reply late into the night (EST) so you should forgive me for a few midday (GMT) posts =P

Can you define what you term as Torture (which you don't think rape rises to?)

Gaffer

10-24-2010, 09:17 AM

Rape is a crime. Shoving items up someones ass is a crime. Beating someone under your control is a crime. Discomfort, annoyance or humiliation is not a crime. Also you have to take in the purpose of the so called torture. Is it for getting information? personal pleasure? revenge? Lots of factors involved. Is it sanctioned? why is it sanctioned? And does it get accurate information?

I'm not going to rent, buy or in any way acquire a movie that is made to depict US forces as evil killers of the innocent. That's propaganda. Might want to look at who funded the documentary.

Water boarding is a form of mental torture. It makes you feel like your drowning. Physically it is just a discomfort. You don't just catch a bad guy and sit him down and expect him to spill his guts. He's probably been trained in how to resist questioning and how to give false information. That's one of the training subjects in the terrorist camps.

Noir

10-24-2010, 09:31 AM

Rape is a crime. Shoving items up someones ass is a crime. Beating someone under your control is a crime. Discomfort, annoyance or humiliation is not a crime. Also you have to take in the purpose of the so called torture. Is it for getting information? personal pleasure? revenge? Lots of factors involved. Is it sanctioned? why is it sanctioned? And does it get accurate information?

I'm not going to rent, buy or in any way acquire a movie that is made to depict US forces as evil killers of the innocent. That's propaganda. Might want to look at who funded the documentary.

Water boarding is a form of mental torture. It makes you feel like your drowning. Physically it is just a discomfort. You don't just catch a bad guy and sit him down and expect him to spill his guts. He's probably been trained in how to resist questioning and how to give false information. That's one of the training subjects in the terrorist camps.

Please define torture as you see it.

Also, water biardig does not simulate drowning, you are being drowned, just slowly.

Gaffer

10-24-2010, 10:22 AM

Please define torture as you see it.

Also, water biardig does not simulate drowning, you are being drowned, just slowly.

I already have have in my previous posts. Discomfort and humiliation are not torture.

Water boarding is simulated drowning. Your not being drowned as it is controlled. You just feel like you are. That's simulating. Its a mind game. Your not physically hurt.

Actual physical pain will get people to say anything. That's not good intelligence. They will say anything you want to hear then. So physical torture is useless for information. You have to mess with their minds to get what you really want.

revelarts

10-24-2010, 03:26 PM

International law we signed in 1984
Convention Against Torture,

"Article 1.1
definition of torture
Article 1

1. 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.

2. This article is without prejudice to any international instrument or national legislation which does or may contain provisions of wider application.

Article 2
1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.

2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.

3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.

...
Article 4
1. Each State Party shall ensure that all acts of torture are offences under its criminal law. The same shall apply to an attempt to commit torture and to an act by any person which constitutes complicity or participation in torture. 2. Each State Party shall make these offences punishable by appropriate penalties which take into account their grave nature....."

Seems like, from a careful reading, that it should be interpreted more broadly rather than continuously attempting to narrow it.
And it's interesting that those here would prefer Mr. P's assessment over a SERE's trainer. Both are military. Jesse Ventura is a Navy seal His opinon doesn't count for beans compared to P's.
I'm not sure why I should change my opinion based if all I have to go on is Mr P's opinion.

It's interesting that nearly every one my sarcastic comments for avoiding the facts and implication of the Wiki Leaks paper have been used.

Gaffer

10-24-2010, 05:56 PM

Jesse Ventura is a certified nut case.

I was a combat infantryman. I did capture and help interrogate prisoners. So by your standards I should be at least as qualified, if not more so, than Jesse the bod.

You have never been involved in the interrogation of a prisoner and what's involved. Your incensed by what you read and hear about, with no clue as to what really goes on.

revelarts

10-24-2010, 07:08 PM

MESSAGE TO THE SENATE, MAY 20, 1988.sup.1

With a view to receiving the advice and consent of the Senate to ratification, subject to certain reservations, understandings, and declarations, I transmit herewith the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. The Convention was adopted by unanimous agreement of the United Nations General Assembly on December 10, 1984, and entered into force on June 26, 1987. The United States signed it on April 18, 1988. 1 also transmit, for the information of the Senate, the report of the Department of State on the Convention.

The United States participated actively and effectively in the negotiation of the Convention . It marks a significant step in the development during this century of international measures against torture and other inhuman treatment or punishment. Ratification of the Convention by the United States will clearly express United States opposition to torture, an abhorrent practice unfortunately still prevalent in the world today.....

...By giving its advice and consent to ratification of this Convention, the Senate of the United States will demonstrate unequivocally our desire to bring an end to the abhorrent practice of torture."

Your not saying that "civilians" have no business examining the facts presented by various parties involved and then making their own judgments. You've said several times that you do believe the military should be subject to "civilian" authority. Right? All due respect to you and Mr. P. but I agree with Reagan, SERE trainers, Ventura, conservative talk show host, conservative atheist, Ron Paul, the Red Cross, victims and various other citizens in and out of the military left and right on the issue.

jimnyc

10-24-2010, 07:24 PM

International law we signed in 1984
Convention Against Torture,

"Article 1.1
definition of torture
Article 1

1. 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.

2. This article is without prejudice to any international instrument or national legislation which does or may contain provisions of wider application.

Article 2
1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.

2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.

3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.

...
Article 4
1. Each State Party shall ensure that all acts of torture are offences under its criminal law. The same shall apply to an attempt to commit torture and to an act by any person which constitutes complicity or participation in torture. 2. Each State Party shall make these offences punishable by appropriate penalties which take into account their grave nature....."

Seems like, from a careful reading, that it should be interpreted more broadly rather than continuously attempting to narrow it.
And it's interesting that those here would prefer Mr. P's assessment over a SERE's trainer. Both are military. Jesse Ventura is a Navy seal His opinon doesn't count for beans compared to P's.
I'm not sure why I should change my opinion based if all I have to go on is Mr P's opinion.

It's interesting that nearly every one my sarcastic comments for avoiding the facts and implication of the Wiki Leaks paper have been used.

Your not saying that "civilians" have no business examining the facts presented by various parties involved and then making their own judgments. You've said several times that you do believe the military should be subject to "civilian" authority. Right? All due respect to you and Mr. P. but I agree with Reagan, SERE trainers, Ventura, conservative talk show host, conservative atheist, Ron Paul, the Red Cross, victims and various other citizens in and out of the military left and right on the issue.

Yes, they may all be against torture, but then everyone might have a different definition of torture. I personally don't think waterboarding falls under the definition as outlined above. I don't think making prisoners wear pink underwear on their heads is torture - nor barking dogs, sleep deprivation or any of the other crap we've been fed and asked to believe is torture.

Rape? absolutely. Jamming something up someone's ass? I would say so, and I think in both instances that those directly involved should be brought up on charges. It'll be up to the military courts to convict them, and to determine whether their actions were "torture".

Unless someone has verifiable scars for life, whether physical or mental, they have not been tortured. Shitting your pants out of fear, feeling like you're about to die, or freeze to death, or getting a few volts on the family jewels - none are torture, IMO.

Outside of these isolated cases out of hundreds of thousands who have been either in Iraq or Afghanistan, the numbers seem rather small. But radical Muslims will perform more "torture" in one building on a few dozen prisoners, than the US Military has probably ever done, ever.