Shakkara Posted June 7, 2004 Share Posted June 7, 2004 Ok this is a ragtag translation of the newspost at the following official Dutch website found on http://www.nu.nl/news.jsp?n=335462&c=22 ============================== Pentagon deems torture of terrorist suspects legal New York - The American government does not deem itself bound to laws if it desires to torture terrorist suspects, a report of the American ministery of Defence reveals. In case of national security issues, unconventional interrogationmethods will be allowed, Wall Street Journal found in the secret Pentagon-document. The Pentagon created the document since it was found at the end of 2002 that many prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay remained stubbornly silent during interrogation. In the first version of the document dating from march 2003 military and civilian jurists advocated that the American minister of Defence could order to put extreme pressure on inmates. Even torture would be allowed under such circumstances. The document also gives government officials charged for torture several ways to officially defend themselves in court. Amongst other things they are allowed to justify their actions by saying they followed orders or because of defence of the state. Guantanamo "Guantanamo is a professional and humane camp, where detention and interrogation take place in concordance with the law and the American spirit", general James Hill commented to the newspapers. The responsible official for the prison in Guantanamo said that in April 2003 he had received instructions of which interrogation methods are allowed by minister Donald Rummsfeld. For four of these methods authorisation has to be asked to the minister, and these particular methods have been applied to two prisoners so far, according to the general. Without authorisation of the minister the prison staff is amongst other things allowed to withhold food, sleep and clothing to the inmated for limited periods of time, perform regular full-cavity searches. Also they are allowed to chain inmated in unnatural positions for long periods of time. It is unknown which other methods require only authorisation from Rumsfelt and which require presidential authorisation. Leaked Critics hold the opinion that the leaked documents go against the promise of the government that they will obey the UN Convention which forbids torture. The US ratified this convention in 1994. The documents were ment for Rumsfeld. It is unknown if president Bush has seen it himself. The American government has always persisted that it does not torture prisoners. =============================== Of course we could have expected this poo from the Americans. Double standards all the time. I really wonder what their problem was with Saddam Hussein... Oh yeah, according to the patriot act, the new definition of domestic terrorism is:"Involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the US" So, you can now get tortured for jaywalking! Only in America! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malchik Posted June 7, 2004 Share Posted June 7, 2004 Strangely I watched a film called The General's Daughter on TV last night. That had some incidental comments about psychological warfare against the enemy. I suspect that the boundaries between psychological warfare and torture are very grey indeed and the US will move the goal posts to suit themselves. What is totally disgusting is that the men held at Guantanamo Bay have been denied the basic human rights the US is supposed to be fighting for. How dare they criticise others for what they do themselves? I doubt if I am ever going to be able to believe that they are on the side of 'good' again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albareth Posted June 7, 2004 Share Posted June 7, 2004 It certainly makes it hard to do so - and obvious why this is causing such a great wave of anti-americanism throughout Europe. The kind of stunts the US goverment is constantly pulling these days is really hurting the nation in a very serious permanent way, I'm surprised that such a great number of the american populace doesn't see this and is still supporting the administration... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darnoc Posted June 9, 2004 Share Posted June 9, 2004 Then vote for Kerry ;) I persuaded my father to do so, when the voting comes. He is citizen of two nations: Switzerland and USA. Therefore he can vote in both nations. Kind of useful sometimes. But I agree absolutely with you, Shakkara. Why can the Americans be so blind? At least most of them. Thank god that there is Michael Moore... And as I said there are also others, like my classmate Eric who comes from Alasca. He is definetly Anti-Bush and against war. As I heard about 50% of the Americans are against Bush. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shakkara Posted June 9, 2004 Author Share Posted June 9, 2004 I don't trust Kerry either. He may not be so blatantly deceiving as Bush, however that doesn't mean he's honest. There aren't much differences between the two political parties in the US anyway. I even think they might actually be the same... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darnoc Posted June 9, 2004 Share Posted June 9, 2004 Yeah, you've got something there, Shakkara. Both parties in the USA are almost the same and if the difference between Bush and Kerry is really as huge as they say... well I don't know. But there is no other choice. Either you get 4 years more Bush or you get Kerry. What do you think is better? OK, all nations could unite and invade the USA :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark0ne Posted June 9, 2004 Share Posted June 9, 2004 Unfortunately such methods seem acceptable to the majority of Americans in accordance with National Security. In past battles interrogation was beaten only by spies in its value as intelligence...with the creation of the UN and new laws governing torture, the second best form of intelligence has been lost as POWs think that they are protected by laws - thus meaning they don't have to release sensitive information. The people are being interrogated for a reason - these aren't innocent bystanders who got called in and are being pumped for information they don't have - these are terrorists who may know information about the next 9/11 attack - I'd rather torture 5 terrorists and save 5,000 lives, than not torture them at all. Think about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cactoblasta Posted June 9, 2004 Share Posted June 9, 2004 That's assuming they were terrorists - nearly all of the inmates of Abu Ghraib were released, so it doesn't look like there were too many terrorists there. I can understand releasing a few guilty people in order to trace their friends' whereabouts, but not hundreds or thousands. The only logical explanation is that few were guilty and deserved to be tortured like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gwelwen Posted June 9, 2004 Share Posted June 9, 2004 The fact that the US does not respect the human rights reminds Europe at the fact that the US still not signed the declaration of Child-rights. I don't know much about this, but the longer the bush jr.-period lasts, the more problems Europe sees and recognizes. In Belgium there are a lot of discussions among the people who care about politics. The most interesting thought I read was : if the people of the US choose another president, he will have so much (money) problems that at another election he will not be chosen again. Bush ruined all, for his and for the future president .(if the americans will see bush' dangerous mistakes) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UberBender Posted June 9, 2004 Share Posted June 9, 2004 Unfortunately such methods seem acceptable to the majority of Americans in accordance with National Security. In past battles interrogation was beaten only by spies in its value as intelligence...with the creation of the UN and new laws governing torture, the second best form of intelligence has been lost as POWs think that they are protected by laws - thus meaning they don't have to release sensitive information. The people are being interrogated for a reason - these aren't innocent bystanders who got called in and are being pumped for information they don't have - these are terrorists who may know information about the next 9/11 attack - I'd rather torture 5 terrorists and save 5,000 lives, than not torture them at all. Think about it. That is a good point. I think that anytime innocent peoples lives are at stake we should take anymeans nessesary to extract information that would save lives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.