US Rights Violations

[unclepercy]

Re: RE: US Rights Violations

. . .We are still the most respected country in the world. . . .

No one, Jimbo, with a modicum of intelligence, outside of the US (and a growing number inside) have any respect for the US.

Ameican credibility, also, is rather a scarce commodity.

So you're saying immigrants who choose the US are dummies? The country that's most popular amungst immigrants lets a bunch of dummies in every year? That's not very nice on your part, GL. What does that make Canada? Many of these immigrants who choose the US and get refused, eventually wind up in Canada. Does this mean Canada lets a bunch of dummies in also?

I don't know about your way of reasoning GL, but I do know the immigrants coming to the US are not dummies. Anyone wanting to move to this great country is no dummy.

How right you are! My otolaryngologist is Canadian. My plastic surgeon is Canadian. My previous gastroenterologist was Canadian. And my son-in-law's neurosurgeon is Canadian. Thanks, Canada. Why would these "immigrants" chose the US if it were so awful? Obviously we have sucked the brains right out of Canada.

Percy

 

[GL Schmitt]

. . .We are still the most respected country in the world. . . .

No one, Jimbo, with a modicum of intelligence, outside of the US (and a growing number inside) have any respect for the US.

Ameican credibility, also, is rather a scarce commodity.

So you're saying immigrants who choose the US are dummies? . ..

Where in my post did I say anything about dummies, Jimbo?

Knowing the terms of the of service of this forum, I pointedly made no reference to your intelligence. :roll:

 

[Ocean Breeze]

Re: RE: US Rights Violations

. . .We are still the most respected country in the world. . . .

No one, Jimbo, with a modicum of intelligence, outside of the US (and a growing number inside) have any respect for the US.

Ameican credibility, also, is rather a scarce commodity.

So you're saying immigrants who choose the US are dummies? The country that's most popular amungst immigrants lets a bunch of dummies in every year? That's not very nice on your part, GL. What does that make Canada? Many of these immigrants who choose the US and get refused, eventually wind up in Canada. Does this mean Canada lets a bunch of dummies in also?

I don't know about your way of reasoning GL, but I do know the immigrants coming to the US are not dummies. Anyone wanting to move to this great country is no dummy.

How right you are! My otolaryngologist is Canadian. My plastic surgeon is Canadian. My previous gastroenterologist was Canadian. And my son-in-law's neurosurgeon is Canadian. Thanks, Canada. Why would these "immigrants" chose the US if it were so awful? Obviously we have sucked the brains right out of Canada.

Percy

so you prefer Canadian talent. (heck a lot of people do. Not earthshattering) What does that have to do with US rights violations???? sheesh. :roll:

 

[peapod]

Vey vey impressive ocean and schmitt I must speak with momsy about deputizing you guys into the posse...Can you both ride??

Anyways..considering the "image" the united states puts out there, no wonder desperate people flock to it. Its just a media spin tho, the stuff of sheeple....think 1984 8O 8O 8O

British historian Simon Schama, who teaches at New York's Columbia University, also reported that, "n the wee small hours of Nov. 3, 2004, a new country appeared on the map of the modern world: the D.S.A., the Divided States of America." Schama's postelection analysis drew a distinction between "Godly America" and "Worldly America." "Worldly America," Schama explained, consists of the "blue states" on the United States' east and west coasts "and is necessarily porous and outward looking." "Worldly America" faces the world, he added, "on its Pacific and Atlantic coasts and freely engages, commercially and culturally, with Asia and Europe in the easy understanding that those continents are a dynamic synthesis of ancient cultures and modern social and economic practices."

By contrast, Schama observed, the "Godly America" that favored Bush "is solidly continental and landlocked, its tap roots of obstinate self-belief buried deep beneath the bluegrass and the high corn." For Schama, "It is time we called those two Americas something other than Republican and Democrat, for their mutual alienation and unforgiving contempt is closer to Sunni and Shia, or (in Indian terms) Muslim and Hindu."

Welcome to the land of milk and honey :?

 

[Ocean Breeze]

Analysis finds 21 homicides among deaths of U.S. prisoners overseas

LAST UPDATE: 10/24/2005 8:59:10 PM


WASHINGTON (AP) - At least 21 detainees who died while being held in U.S. custody in Iraq and Afghanistan were killed, many during or after interrogations, according to an analysis of Defense Department data by the American Civil Liberties Union.

The analysis, released Monday, looked at 44 deaths described in records obtained by the ACLU. Of those, the group characterized 21 as homicides, and said at least eight resulted from abusive techniques by military or intelligence officers, such as strangulation or "blunt force injuries," as noted in the autopsy reports.

The 44 deaths represent a partial group of the total number of prisoners who have died in U.S. custody overseas; more than 100 have died of natural and violent causes.

In one case, the report said, a detainee died after being smothered during interrogation by military intelligence officers in November 2003. In another case cited by the report, a prisoner died of asphyxiation and blunt force injuries after he was left standing, shackled to the top of a door frame, with a gag in his mouth.

One Afghan civilian, believed by the ACLU to be Abdul Wahid, died from "multiple blunt force injuries" in 2003 at a base in Helmand Province, Afghanistan, according to an autopsy report provided by the Defense Department.

Wahid, 28, was taken from his home by Afghan militia and accused of being a terrorist. The autopsy report said he died in American custody, though his father has blamed the militiamen.

The detailed list of prisoners whose deaths the report considered homicides includes two detainees who were beaten and died from "blunt force injuries" at the Bagram Airfield detention center in Afghanistan, according to the autopsies.

Earlier this month, Pfc. Damien M. Corsetti, a military intelligence interrogator with the 519th MI Battalion at Fort Bragg, N.C., became the 15th soldier to face charges since those 2002 deaths.

Details about the detainee abuse and deaths have been released by the Pentagon as part of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by the ACLU. Many of the incidents have been made public previously, and in a number of cases soldiers and officers involved have been prosecuted and punished.

"The U.S. military does not tolerate mistreatment of detainees," said Army spokesman Col. Joseph Curtin. "Past cases have been fully investigated. When there is credible evidence, commanders have the prerogative to prosecute."

To date, there have been more than 400 investigations of detainee abuse, and more than 230 military personnel have received a court-martial, nonjudicial punishment or other administrative action.

"There is no question that U.S. interrogations have resulted in deaths," said Anthony D. Romero, ACLU's executive director. "High-ranking officials who knew about the torture and sat on their hands and those who created and endorsed these policies must be held accountable."

The data includes detainees who were interrogated by military intelligence, Navy Seals and "Other Governmental Agency" personnel, which generally refers to the CIA.

Don't that make one's heart pitter patter with "pride" .....??


NOT!!!!

 

[GL Schmitt]

Oh how they love their torture perks. :roll:

White House Seeks Exception in Abuse Ban
By Eric Schmitt
October 25, 2005


WASHINGTON, Oct. 24 - Stepping up a confrontation with the Senate over the handling of detainees, the White House is insisting that the Central Intelligence Agency be exempted from a proposed ban on abusive treatment of suspected Qaeda militants and other terrorists.

The Senate defied a presidential veto threat nearly three weeks ago and approved, 90 to 9, an amendment to a $440 billion military spending bill that would ban the use of "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment" of any detainee held by the United States government. This could bar some techniques that the C.I.A. has used in some interrogations overseas.

But in a 45-minute meeting last Thursday, Vice President Dick Cheney and the C.I.A. director, Porter J. Goss, urged Senator John McCain, the Arizona Republican who wrote the amendment, to support an exemption for the agency, arguing that the president needed maximum flexibility in dealing with the global war on terrorism, said two government officials who were briefed on the meeting. They spoke on condition of anonymity because of the confidential nature of the discussions.

Mr. McCain rejected the proposed exemption, which stated that the measure "shall not apply with respect to clandestine counterterrorism operations conducted abroad, with respect to terrorists who are not citizens of the United States, that are carried out by an element of the United States government other than the Department of Defense and are consistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States and treaties to which the United States is a party, if the president determines that such operations are vital to the protection of the United States or its citizens from terrorist attack."

Spokesmen for Mr. McCain, Mr. Cheney and Mr. Goss all declined to comment on the matter Monday, citing the confidentiality of the talks.

Human rights organizations said Monday that it was unclear whether the language in the changes proposed by the White House meant that the president would decide exemptions case by case or whether there would be more of a blanket authority. But they said the administration's proposal would seriously undermine Mr. McCain's measure.

Elisa Massimino, Washington director of Human Rights First, formerly the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights, said the administration had interpreted an international treaty banning torture to mean that a prohibition against cruel and inhumane treatment did not apply to C.I.A. actions overseas.

"That's why the McCain amendment is important, and that's why this language they're floating now would gut it," said Ms. Massimino, who provided a copy of the administration's proposed changes to The New York Times.

Human rights advocates said that creating parallel sets of interrogation rules for military personnel and clandestine intelligence operatives was impractical in the war on terrorism, where soldiers and spies routinely cross paths on a global battlefield and often share techniques

"They are explicitly saying, for the first time, that the intelligence community should have the ability to treat prisoners inhumanely," Tom Malinowski, Washington advocacy director for Human Rights Watch, said. "You can't tell soldiers that inhumane treatment is always morally wrong if they see with their own eyes that C.I.A. personnel are allowed to engage in it."

Mr. McCain's provision faces stiff opposition in the House, which did not include similar language in its version of the spending bill.

The White House has threatened to veto any bill that includes the McCain provision, contending that it would bind the president's hands in wartime.

But Mr. McCain has kept the pressure on as the issue moves to a House-Senate conference committee, perhaps later this week or next. Shortly after the Senate vote on Oct. 5, Mr. McCain's staff sent members of the conference committee letters endorsing the provision signed by more than two dozen retired senior military officers, including former Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and John M. Shalikashvili, both former chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

The matter will probably be settled in a private meeting in the next week or two among four senior lawmakers: Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska and Representative C. W. Bill Young of Florida, both Republicans; and Senator Daniel K. Inouye of Hawaii and Representative John P. Murtha of Pennsylvania, both Democrats. All are on the conference committee.

Mr. McCain originally offered his measure earlier this year, when the Senate was working on a bill setting Pentagon policy. But Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee, the majority leader, scuttled that bill, partly because of White House opposition to the amendment.

Now it appears that senators have struck a deal to revive the budget bill for Senate floor debate and action. One of the principal amendments that Democrats are expected to offer, sponsored by Senator Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat, would create an independent commission to review accusations of prisoner abuse by American forces in Iraq, Afghanistan, Cuba and elsewhere. The White House has also threatened a presidential veto if any bill comes to Mr. Bush's desk that contains the provision.

 

[Reverend Blair]

That's it. The Bush White House can no longer deny that they are not international criminals.

 

[Ocean Breeze]

Re: RE: US Rights Violations

That's it. The Bush White House can no longer deny that they are not international criminals.

indeed...........Plus it indicates that they have no intention of stopping either. Granting themselves these exceptions is their ticket to more of the same. Might as well make it OFFICIAL. The US is a terrorist criminal rogue nation.

No one can deny that the US is a TERRORIST nation. It harbors terrorists in their own gov't offices and the "oval " office.


No point in beating around the "bush" about these issues.


( they are terrorizing Galloway again.... ......seems the sharks did not get enough blood last time.)..... :evil:

(never thought one would consider this..........but it is embarrassing and concerning to be their "neighbor". now)

 

[Ocean Breeze]

US detainees 'murdered' during interrogations

By Associated Press

10/25/05 "Associated Press" -- -- Washington -- At least 21 detainees who died while in US custody in Iraq and Afghanistan were the victims of homicide and usually died during or after interrogations, according to an analysis of Defence Department data.

The analysis by the American Civil Liberties Union, released today, looked at 44 deaths described in records obtained by the ACLU. Of those, the group characterised 21 as homicides, and said at least eight resulted from abusive techniques by military or intelligence officers, such as strangulation or "blunt force injuries", as noted in the autopsy reports.

The 44 deaths represent a partial group of the total number of prisoners who have died in US custody overseas; more than 100 have died of natural and violent causes.

In one case, the report said, a detainee died after being smothered during interrogation by military intelligence officers in November 2003. In another case cited by the report, a prisoner died of asphyxiation and blunt force injuries after he was left standing, shackled to the top of a door frame, with a gag in his mouth.

One Afghan civilian, believed by the ACLU to be Abdul Wahid, died from "multiple blunt force injuries" in 2003 at a base in Helmand province, Afghanistan, according to an autopsy report provided by the Defence Department.

Wahid, 28, was taken from his home by Afghan militia and accused of being a terrorist. The autopsy report said he died in American custody, although his father has blamed the militiamen.

The detailed list of prisoners whose deaths the report considered homicides includes two detainees who were beaten and died from "blunt force injuries" at the Bagram Airfield detention centre in Afghanistan, according to the autopsies.

Earlier this month, Private First Class Damien Corsetti, a military intelligence interrogator with the 519th MI Battalion at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, became the 15th soldier to face charges since those 2002 deaths.

Details about the detainee abuse and deaths have been released by the Pentagon as part of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by the ACLU. Many of the incidents have been made public before, and in a number of cases the soldiers and officers involved have been prosecuted and punished.

"The US military does not tolerate mistreatment of detainees," army spokesman Colonel Joseph Curtin said. "Past cases have been fully investigated. When there is credible evidence, commanders have the prerogative to prosecute."

To date, there have been more than 400 investigations of detainee abuse, and more than 230 military personnel have received a court-martial, non-judicial punishment or other administrative action.

"There is no question that US interrogations have resulted in deaths," ACLU executive director Anthony Romero said. "High-ranking officials who knew about the torture and sat on their hands and those who created and endorsed these policies must be held accountable."

The data includes detainees who were interrogated by military intelligence, Navy Seals and "Other Governmental Agency" personnel, which generally refers to the CIA.

 

[Ocean Breeze]

White House Insists That CIA Should Be Allowed To Continue Torture Of Detainees

Exception Sought in Detainee Abuse Ban

By ERIC SCHMITT

10/24/05 "New York Times" -- -- Stepping up a confrontation with the Senate over the handling of detainees, the White House is insisting that the Central Intelligence Agency be exempted from a proposed ban on abusive treatment of suspected Qaeda militants and other terrorists.

The Senate defied a presidential veto threat nearly three weeks ago and approved, 90 to 9, an amendment to a $440 billion military spending bill that would ban the use of "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment" of any detainee held by the United States government. This could bar some techniques that the C.I.A. has used in some interrogations overseas.

But in a 45-minute meeting last Thursday, Vice President Dick Cheney and the C.I.A. director, Porter J. Goss, urged Senator John McCain, the Arizona Republican who wrote the amendment, to support an exemption for the agency, arguing that the president needed maximum flexibility in dealing with the global war on terrorism, said two government officials who were briefed on the meeting. They spoke on condition of anonymity because of the confidential nature of the discussions.

Mr. McCain rejected the proposed exemption, which stated that the measure "shall not apply with respect to clandestine counterterrorism operations conducted abroad, with respect to terrorists who are not citizens of the United States, that are carried out by an element of the United States government other than the Department of Defense and are consistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States and treaties to which the United States is a party, if the president determines that such operations are vital to the protection of the United States or its citizens from terrorist attack."

Spokesmen for Mr. McCain, Mr. Cheney and Mr. Goss all declined to comment on the matter Monday, citing the confidentiality of the talks.

Human rights organizations said Monday that it was unclear whether the language in the changes proposed by the White House meant that the president would decide exemptions case by case or whether there would be more of a blanket authority. But they said the administration's proposal would seriously undermine Mr. McCain's measure.

Elisa Massimino, Washington director of Human Rights First, formerly the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights, said the administration had interpreted an international treaty banning torture to mean that a prohibition against cruel and inhumane treatment did not apply to C.I.A. actions overseas.

"That's why the McCain amendment is important, and that's why this language they're floating now would gut it," said Ms. Massimino, who provided a copy of the administration's proposed changes to The New York Times.

Human rights advocates said that creating parallel sets of interrogation rules for military personnel and clandestine intelligence operatives was impractical in the war on terrorism, where soldiers and spies routinely cross paths on a global battlefield and often share techniques

"They are explicitly saying, for the first time, that the intelligence community should have the ability to treat prisoners inhumanely," Tom Malinowski, Washington advocacy director for Human Rights Watch, said. "You can't tell soldiers that inhumane treatment is always morally wrong if they see with their own eyes that C.I.A. personnel are allowed to engage in it."

Mr. McCain's provision faces stiff opposition in the House, which did not include similar language in its version of the spending bill.

The White House has threatened to veto any bill that includes the McCain provision, contending that it would bind the president's hands in wartime.

But Mr. McCain has kept the pressure on as the issue moves to a House-Senate conference committee, perhaps later this week or next. Shortly after the Senate vote on Oct. 5, Mr. McCain's staff sent members of the conference committee letters endorsing the provision signed by more than two dozen retired senior military officers, including former Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and John M. Shalikashvili, both former chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

The matter will probably be settled in a private meeting in the next week or two among four senior lawmakers: Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska and Representative C. W. Bill Young of Florida, both Republicans; and Senator Daniel K. Inouye of Hawaii and Representative John P. Murtha of Pennsylvania, both Democrats. All are on the conference committee.

Mr. McCain originally offered his measure earlier this year, when the Senate was working on a bill setting Pentagon policy. But Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee, the majority leader, scuttled that bill, partly because of White House opposition to the amendment.

Now it appears that senators have struck a deal to revive the budget bill for Senate floor debate and action. One of the principal amendments that Democrats are expected to offer, sponsored by Senator Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat, would create an independent commission to review accusations of prisoner abuse by American forces in Iraq, Afghanistan, Cuba and elsewhere. The White House has also threatened a presidential veto if any bill comes to Mr. Bush's desk that contains the provision.

 

[no1important]

Judge rules on Guantanamo strike

Lawyers for scores of terror suspects on hunger strike at the Guantanamo Bay jail must be told before detainees are force-fed, says a US federal judge.

District Court Judge Gladys Kessler also ordered the US government to give medical records going back a week before such feedings take place.

She said the US "can hardly be proud" of its conduct if it was true that the jail had been using brutal methods.

The US denies using inhuman treatment of foreign suspects in its Cuba prison.

The Pentagon says 26 out of some 500 prisoners are on hunger strike that started in August, but one human rights group puts the figure at more than 200.

Most of prisoners at the US naval base in southern Cuba have been held for more than three years without being charged.

Click link at top for full story.

That Gitmo and others like it should be shut down. It is also terrible they took away their rights and are in non compliance with the Geneva convention on Prisoners of war. "W" and his posse are an utter disgrace and the American people should be ashamed of him.

 

[Ocean Breeze]

edited. :wink:

 

[no1important]

Justices urged to limit Bush's power to detain

Washington -- Lawyers for Jose Padilla, a U.S. citizen held as an enemy combatant, asked the Supreme Court on Thursday for the final word on how long the Bush administration can legally hold Americans accused in the war on terrorism without criminal charges or a trial.

Padilla has spent more than three years behind bars and has yet to be brought to court. His lawyers argued to the court that his predicament is blatantly unconstitutional for a U.S. citizen. Padilla is a native of New York and was arrested in Chicago.

The lawyers want the Supreme Court to rule that the White House has overstepped its legal authority by holding "without charge an American citizen arrested on American soil" during a war on terrorism that is "indeterminate in scope and time."

Click link at top for rest of article.

I hope he gets released. Holding someone for 3 years without charge or trial is inhumane and cruel. Bush is really an evil wicked man. :evil:

 

[no1important]

Anyone catch Jon Stewart last night? They had that former General now Colonel Janice Karpinski on, she was in charge of 17 prisons in Iraq including the infamous abu ghraib.

She basically said she was a scapegoat and how the higher ups have not been punished and there was more abuse going on than the people realize. I thought it was an interesting segment.

Edited to add: at this moment Randi Rhodes is interviewing her.

 

[Ocean Breeze]

U.S. Operatives Killed Detainees During Interrogations in Afghanistan and Iraq

October 24, 2005




FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: media@aclu.org

CIA, Navy Seals and Military Intelligence Personnel Implicated

NEW YORK - The American Civil Liberties Union today made public an analysis of new and previously released autopsy and death reports of detainees held in U.S. facilities in Iraq and Afghanistan, many of whom died while being interrogated. The documents show that detainees were hooded, gagged, strangled, beaten with blunt objects, subjected to sleep deprivation and to hot and cold environmental conditions.

“There is no question that U.S. interrogations have resulted in deaths,” said Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director of the ACLU. “High-ranking officials who knew about the torture and sat on their hands and those who created and endorsed these policies must be held accountable. America must stop putting its head in the sand and deal with the torture scandal that has rocked our military.”

The documents released today include 44 autopsies and death reports as well as a summary of autopsy reports of individuals apprehended in Iraq and Afghanistan. The documents show that detainees died during or after interrogations by Navy Seals, Military Intelligence and “OGA” (Other Governmental Agency) -- a term, according to the ACLU, that is commonly used to refer to the CIA.

According to the documents, 21 of the 44 deaths were homicides. Eight of the homicides appear to have resulted from abusive techniques used on detainees, in some instances, by the CIA, Navy Seals and Military Intelligence personnel. The autopsy reports list deaths by “strangulation,” “asphyxiation” and “blunt force injuries.” An overwhelming majority of the so-called “natural deaths” were attributed to “Arteriosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease.”

While newspapers have recently reported deaths of detainees in CIA custody, today’s documents show that the problem is pervasive, involving Navy Seals and Military Intelligence too.

The records reveal the following facts:

A 27-year-old Iraqi male died while being interrogated by Navy Seals on April 5, 2004, in Mosul, Iraq. During his confinement he was hooded, flex-cuffed, sleep deprived and subjected to hot and cold environmental conditions, including the use of cold water on his body and hood. The exact cause of death was “undetermined” although the autopsy stated that hypothermia may have contributed to his death. Notes say he “struggled/ interrogated/ died sleeping.” Some facts relating to this case have been previously reported. (In April 2003, Secretary Rumsfeld authorized the use of “environmental manipulation” as an interrogation technique in Guantánamo Bay. In September 2003, Lt. Gen. Sanchez also authorized this technique for use in Iraq. Although Lt. Gen. Sanchez later rescinded the September 2003 techniques, he authorized “changes in environmental quality” in October 2003.)

An Iraqi detainee (also described as a white male) died on January 9, 2004, in Al Asad, Iraq, while being interrogated by “OGA.” He was standing, shackled to the top of a door frame with a gag in his mouth at the time he died. The cause of death was asphyxia and blunt force injuries. Notes summarizing the autopsies record the circumstances of death as “Q by OGA, gagged in standing restraint.” (Facts in the autopsy report appear to match the previously reported case of Abdul Jaleel.)

A detainee was smothered to death during an interrogation by Military Intelligence on November 26, 2003, in Al Qaim, Iraq. A previously released autopsy report, that appears to be of General Mowhoush, lists “asphyxia due to smothering and chest compression” as the cause of death and cites bruises from the impact with a blunt object. New documents specifically record the circumstances of death as “Q by MI, died during interrogation.”

A detainee at Abu Ghraib Prison, captured by Navy Seal Team number seven, died on November 4, 2003, during an interrogation by Navy Seals and “OGA.” A previously released autopsy report, that appears to be of Manadel Al Jamadi, shows that the cause of his death was “blunt force injury complicated by compromised respiration.” New documents specifically record the circumstances of death as “Q by OGA and NSWT died during interrogation.”

An Afghan civilian died from “multiple blunt force injuries to head, torso and extremities” on November 6, 2003, at a Forward Operating Base in Helmand Province, Afghanistan. (Facts in the autopsy report appear to match the previously reported case of Abdul Wahid.)

A 52-year-old male Iraqi was strangled to death at the Whitehorse detainment facility on June 6, 2003, in Nasiriyah, Iraq. His autopsy also revealed bone and rib fractures, and multiple bruises on his body. (Facts in the autopsy report appear to match the previously reported case of Nagm Sadoon Hatab.)
The ACLU has previously released autopsy reports for two detainees who were tortured by U.S. forces in Bagram, Afghanistan, believed to be Mullah Habibullah and an Afghan man known as Dilawar.

“These documents present irrefutable evidence that U.S. operatives tortured detainees to death during interrogations,” said Amrit Singh, an attorney with the ACLU. “The public has a right to know who authorized the use of torture techniques and why these deaths have been covered up.”

The documents were released by the Department of Defense in response to a Freedom of Information Act request filed by the ACLU, the Center for Constitutional Rights, Physicians for Human Rights, Veterans for Common Sense and Veterans for Peace. The New York Civil Liberties Union is co-counsel in the case.

As part of the FOIA lawsuit brought by the ACLU, a federal judge recently ordered the Defense Department to turn over photographs and videotapes depicting the abuse of prisoners held by the United States at Abu Ghraib. That decision has been stayed until October 26. The government has not yet indicated whether it is going to appeal the court's decision.

The FOIA lawsuit is being handled by Lawrence Lustberg and Megan Lewis of the New Jersey-based law firm Gibbons, Del Deo, Dolan, Griffinger & Vecchione, P.C. Other attorneys in the case are Singh, Jameel Jaffer, and Judy Rabinovitz of the ACLU; Arthur Eisenberg and Beth Haroules of the NYCLU; and Barbara Olshansky of the Center for Constitutional Rights.

To date, more than 77,000 pages of government documents have been released in response to the ACLU's Freedom of Information Act lawsuit. The ACLU has been posting these documents online at www.aclu.org/torturefoia.

The documents released today are available online at http://action.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/102405/

 

[no1important]

UN rejects Guantanamo visit offer

UN human rights monitors say they will not accept a US offer to visit the Guantanamo Bay prison camp unless they are given free access to the prisoners.

The monitors said they could accept some limitations, but not a ban on private interviews with detainees.

The Pentagon, which received the UN request for a visit more than three years ago, said the invitation showed it had "nothing to hide".

About 500 people are currently being held at Guantanamo.

To date, only the International Committee of the Red Cross has been granted direct access to prisoners at the camp in Cuba.

Click above link for rest.

Sounds like the US admitted, by not allowing priviate visits and free acess to prisoners, they have something to hide. Bastards.

Humane treatment of prisoners of war

Prisoners of war must be humanely treated at all times. Any unlawful act which causes death or seriously endangers the health of a prisoner of war is a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions. In particular, prisoners must not be subject to physical mutilation>, biological experiments, violence, intimidation, insults, and public curiosity. (Convention III, Art. 13)

mmm mmm Maybe that is what they want hidden?

Prisoners of war must be interred on land, and only in clean and healthy areas. (Convention III, Art. 22)

Prisoners of war are entitled to the same treatment given to a country’s own forces, including total surface and cubic space of dormitories, fire protection, adequate heating and lighting, and separate dormitories for women. (Convention III, Art. 25)

Prisoners of war must receive enough food to maintain weight and to prevent nutritional deficiencies, with account of the habitual diet of the prisoners. Food must not be used for disciplinary purposes. (Convention III, Art. 26)

Prisoners of war must receive adequate clothing, underwear and footwear. The clothing must be kept in good repair and prisoners who work must receive clothing appropriate to their tasks. (Convention III, Art. 27)

Also see clothing for prisoners of war.

Prisoners of war must have adequate sanitary facilities, with separate facilities for women prisoners. (Convention III, Art. 29)

Prisoners of war must receive adequate medical attention. (Convention III, Art. 30)

See medical care for prisoners of war.

Prisoners of war must receive due process and fair trials. (Convention III, Art. 82 through Art. 8 8)

Collective punishment for individual acts, corporal punishment, imprisonment without daylight, and all forms of torture and cruelty are forbidden. (Convention III, Art. 87)


Could the US be worried about that last part?

 

[Reverend Blair]

Could the US be worried about that last part?

They're worried about a lot of things, No 1. The violations of the Geneva Conventions run from proper toilet facilities to torture. Food has been withheld as punishment. Religious rights have been denied.

The international community has not given up on this, which is good. The US is used to being let off the hook and that doesn't appear to be happening this time.

 

[Ocean Breeze]

The US is used to being let off the hook and that doesn't appear to be happening this time.

don't think it would be tolerated now. ( letting them off the hook).......... even though.....many probably still believe they will be (in their arrogance). The world is a much smaller place than it was during the Vietnam war ........let alone the previous wars....and communication is the key . Most people are much more informed now and faster. (well......except for americans........it seems. The u.s. has been getting away with too much for too long......and the sands might be shifting. About time too.

 

[Ocean Breeze]

Dept of Torture :x

The Department of TORTURE
Where atrocity threatens to become official U.S. foreign policy
thepen, OpEdNews



October 31, 2005

As always, we begin with the action links:

http://www.nocrony.com/no_conservative.htm (Supreme Court)

http://www.nocrony.com/no_torture.htm (McCain Amendment)

The Senate amendment to the new Defense Appropriations Act would explicitly prohibit the U.S. government from subjecting those in its custody to cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment or punishment. It's pretty straightforward stuff. Yet despite a rousing 90-9 vote for its passage, there are still dark forces at work trying to subvert the intent of this measure, the language of which must survive the conference committee with the House of Representatives.

If the morality perverters have their way, there will be a carve-out to exempt the CIA from this prohibition. They are seeking this with the express knowledge that sadists (acting under the color of CIA authority) have been responsible for the horrific abuses which made necessary further action and clarification of existing law. This exemption would in fact turn the measure on its head to by omission AUTHORIZE torture by a particular agency, diametrically contrary to the amendment's intent. They might as well appoint a "Torture Czar" and make it a cabinet level position.

Actually, for all practical purposes we already have a torture czar . . . it's the Vice President of the United States, Dick Cheney. Yes, it is Cheney himself who is PERSONALLY pressuring the conference committee to rescind the McCain amendment in this way (just as he was pressuring CIA analysts in the cooking of the justification for war with Iraq). It has been Cheney himself who has taken a lead role from the beginning, talking in 2002 about the need to revive the "dark arts." Since they could no longer keep the abuses at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib and elsewhere classified, they have prosecuted a couple of selected patsies for these crimes, while their agency handlers right up through the chain of command have continued in their unconscionable ways.

This is not to let the president himself off the hook. In the first place there is Bush's own overreaching lust for absolute dictatorial power. Indeed, his longtime attorney and ally, Alberto Gonzales, put his name on the infamous Jan 25, 2002 memo, referring to the Geneva convention as "quaint." But what many people do not realize is that the heart of that reprehensible legal pretzel job was drafted by David Addington, the staff attorney closely associated with Dick Cheney. And would anybody like to guess Mr. Addington's current title in the White House? That's right. He's been tapped to replace the indicted "Scooter" Libby as Cheney's Chief of Staff.

There isn't a "talking head" out there not drinking their own "talking points Kool-Aid" who believes the Fitzgerald investigation is remotely close to being finished. If anything, the allegations in the Libby indictment, which identify Cheney as the one who specifically advised Libby that Valerie (Plame) Wilson worked under the covert wing of the CIA, suggest that the Vice President is at least one of the big game that the Special Counsel is still pursuing. The tight-lipped Fifth Amendment-type reactions given by Cheney in the aftermath of the indictment to explain his own role in the leak scandal do nothing to dispel the intrigue. Instead the administration is circling the torture-advocate wagons even tighter with the promotion of Addington, while the shadow of Traitorgate continues to darken over their heads.

Especially now, with the chickens of treason coming home to roost in the nest of the chicken hawks themselves, this is the last time in history for the authors of torture as official American policy to be allowed to push for largesse for even wider atrocities. We must all immediately contact our senators and members of the House of Representatives who might have influence on the conference committee to demand that the overwhelmingly approved language of the McCain amendment remain intact in the final Defense Appropriations Bill.

ACTION FORM: http://www.nocrony.com/no_torture.htm (McCain Amendment)

We must also recognize that this is profoundly related to the selection of a replacement for Harriet Miers as Supreme Court nominee. Remember -- one of the talking points of the neocons (before they turned on her for not being sufficiently and demonstrably loyal to their causes) was that she would support the president's policies in the deceptively dubbed "war on terror." But the universal common denominator of all Bush appointees is their submissive endorsement of the unlimited expansion of the president’s power to do whatever he likes in defiance of Congress and even the people themselves.

In his own confirmation hearing Roberts refused to say (among other things) whether the Congress would have the power to stop a war if the president ignored their authority. That case might come before him, he argued, as if he knew something we didn't. And it most certainly will if Bush is not stopped from making any more such appointments. Roberts and his ilk will not legislate from the bench (as if that were the boogie man to be feared). No, instead they will UN-legislate from the bench, perhaps even to remove the McCain language from American law by court order on the grounds that it would interfere with the power of the president to play God. Remember also that in his first day on the bench of the high court Roberts left the sheep's clothing in his chambers to ask aggressively why they should not overturn the TWICE-expressed will of the people in the Oregon "Right to Die" case.

For all of these reasons we must demand that the next nominee to the Supreme Court be a true moderate and a true nonpartisan. One of the truly beautiful things about Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald is that the American people can look at his work and agree that it will be based entirely on the facts and the law. Even opposing attorneys of those he has indicted must concede that he is unwavering in his fairness and his integrity, favoring neither side by any inherent bias. We can demand no less from the next justice to be appointed to the Supreme Court.

ACTION FORM: http://www.nocrony.com/no_conservative.htm (Supreme Court)

If we all speak out, we can remove the Vice President from his position as the torture czar. It's not as if he doesn't have enough other black hats to wear; he's already serving in the capacity of treason czar as it is. Sheriff Fitzgerald is working on that last one. The rest is up to we the people.

 

[no1important]

Rumsfeld defends UN visit curbs
:roll:

Thats I guys I have not heard anything from in a while. I am surprised he still has a job, he is a real lame duck.