Suit filed against Rumsfeld over prisoner abuses

[KipWellsFan]

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/200...eld-050302.html

 

WASHINGTON - Two human rights groups have filed a lawsuit against Donald Rumsfeld, holding the U.S. secretary of defence personally responsible for the abuse of prisoners held by American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

The groups behind it, the American Civil Liberties Union and Human Rights First, say Rumsfeld sanctioned behaviour that led to beatings, sexual assaults and mock executions because he changed interrogation policies and practices designed to prohibit torture.

[CubKilla]

Will this stop the ACLU from defending the rights of pro-pedophilic love organizations such as NAMBLA?

[LowerCaseRepublican]

Will this stop the ACLU from defending the rights of pro-pedophilic love organizations such as NAMBLA?

Ah yes, the tell tale tactic of discrediting the messenger rather than focus on the meat and potatoes of the post -- being that the US is actively engaged in torture.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Will this stop the ACLU from defending the rights of pro-pedophilic love organizations such as NAMBLA?

 

 

Probably not. I think its funny though that these people are trying to invent rights for people when they don't exist. They dont seem to understand that the only connection that terrorists rounded up in Afghanistan and Iraq have with the United States is that they were caught while engaged in combat with our soldiers. They have no rights under the Constitution and if I'm not mistaken they also have no rights under the Geneva convention since they are not part of any standing army or part of any government.

[TheBigHurt35]

Will this stop the ACLU from defending the rights of pro-pedophilic love organizations such as NAMBLA?

 

I'm glad that we have an ACLU, but they've done an absolutely terrible job of picking their battles since 9/11. Unfortunately, they've lowered themselves to the level of opportunist demagogues like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton and most reasonable Americans don't take them seriously anymore.

 

Probably not.  I think its funny though that these people are trying to invent rights for people when they don't exist.  They dont seem to understand that the only connection that terrorists rounded up in Afghanistan and Iraq have with the United States is that they were caught while engaged in combat with our soldiers.  They have no rights under the Constitution and if I'm not mistaken they also have no rights under the Geneva convention since they are not part of any standing army or part of any government.

 

That's true. Terrorists have no right to due process under the Constitution.

Edited March 2, 2005 by TheBigHurt35

[LowerCaseRepublican]

Probably not.  I think its funny though that these people are trying to invent rights for people when they don't exist.  They dont seem to understand that the only connection that terrorists rounded up in Afghanistan and Iraq have with the United States is that they were caught while engaged in combat with our soldiers.  They have no rights under the Constitution and if I'm not mistaken they also have no rights under the Geneva convention since they are not part of any standing army or part of any government.

 

Its nice legal pretzel twisting but it also refers to the people in the US who were picked up in "preventative detention" and have not been charged -- like Jose Padilla. 2 years in a cell with no charges filed against him or proof/evidence leveled against him. "Quick and speedy trial" ensured by the Constitution, eh?

[TheBigHurt35]

Its nice legal pretzel twisting but it also refers to the people in the US who were picked up in "preventative detention" and have not been charged -- like Jose Padilla.  2 years in a cell with no charges filed against him or proof/evidence leveled against him.  "Quick and speedy trial" ensured by the Constitution, eh?

 

You can't compare Jose Padilla, a US citizen who was wongly held in prison, to terrorists who are not protected by our Constitution or the Geneva Convention.

[CubKilla]

Ah yes, the tell tale tactic of discrediting the messenger rather than focus on the meat and potatoes of the post -- being that the US is actively engaged in torture.

 

Look in the mirror dude. A thread will be dealing with policies in place in the US and Great Britain and you'll go off on a tangent about how the US was responsible for the overthrow of an Antarctic dictator who imported ice to the Sahara like a drug lord who imports his blow to Miami..... all with the help of Tony Blair.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

You can't compare Jose Padilla, a US citizen who was wongly held in prison, to terrorists who are not protected by our Constitution or the Geneva Convention.

He still is being held in prison. The US has 45 days to charge him with a crime or let him go. The ACLU is going after the whole concept of "preventative detention" since it is dubious legally.

[TheBigHurt35]

He still is being held in prison.  The US has 45 days to charge him with a crime or let him go.  The ACLU is going after the whole concept of "preventative detention" since it is dubious legally.

 

Sure, if he's a US citizen, he's entitled to due process and the government is wrong.

 

The terroists being held in Guantanamo, on the other hand, are not. The right to a "speedy trial" doesn't apply to them because...

 

1. They're not US citizens and aren't entitled to due process

2. They're not part of a recognized army and, therefore, are not protected by the Geneva Convention

3. The government probably has no plans to prosecute them. They're holding them for information and, after they're satisfied, they'll most likely release them. Some may see that as "dubious," but I see it another way: If you don't want to be held indefinitely in a military prison, don't commit terrorist attacks against US soldiers.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

Sure, if he's a US citizen, he's entitled to due process and the government is wrong. 

 

The terroists being held in Guantanamo, on the other hand, are not.  The right to a "speedy trial" doesn't apply to them because...

 

1. They're not US citizens and aren't entitled to due process

2. They're not part of a recognized army and, therefore, are not protected by the Geneva Convention

3. The government probably has no plans to prosecute them.  They're holding them for information and, after they're satisfied, they'll most likely release them.  Some may see that as "dubious," but I see it another way: If you don't want to be held indefinitely in a military prison, don't commit terrorist attacks against US soldiers.

 

Its dubious that the government can proclaim anybody a "preventative detention" detainee and off you go to the mystical land of no lawyers, no legal rights and secret military trials. The BBC even reported that most of the people being detained in Iraq were not "terrorists" but mostly people being held for minor offenses like not having the proper paperwork on them at a checkpoint, illegal parking, etc. etc.

 

So yes, I do find it a bit dubious to label them all as terrorists when our own allied media is saying that they're not all terrorists.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Sure, if he's a US citizen, he's entitled to due process and the government is wrong. 

 

The terroists being held in Guantanamo, on the other hand, are not.  The right to a "speedy trial" doesn't apply to them because...

 

1. They're not US citizens and aren't entitled to due process

2. They're not part of a recognized army and, therefore, are not protected by the Geneva Convention

3. The government probably has no plans to prosecute them.  They're holding them for information and, after they're satisfied, they'll most likely release them.  Some may see that as "dubious," but I see it another way: If you don't want to be held indefinitely in a military prison, don't commit terrorist attacks against US soldiers.

 

 

A lot of people who have been determined to be of little or no intelligence value have been released from Guantanamo with a simple pledge to not to engage in attacks against US forces or the US itself. Of course they are going to run right back to the Taliban but its not like anyone who goes there is gone forever.

[TheBigHurt35]

Its dubious that the government can proclaim anybody a "preventative detention" detainee and off you go to the mystical land of no lawyers, no legal rights and secret military trials.  The BBC even reported that most of the people being detained in Iraq were not "terrorists" but mostly people being held for minor offenses like not having the proper paperwork on them at a checkpoint, illegal parking, etc. etc.

 

So yes, I do find it a bit dubious to label them all as terrorists when our own allied media is saying that they're not all terrorists.

 

Since when has the BBC been "allied" with the Bush administration? Hell, even the New York Times has been caught fabricating polling data that consistently favors Democrats over Republicans. Both are leftist, anti-Bush media outlets and are about as credible as Clinton's grand jury testimony. So, you'll have to forgive me for not believing that crap about US soldiers using the time, engery, and jail space to imprison an Iraqi for a traffic ticket.

 

A lot of people who have been determined to be of little or no intelligence value have been released from Guantanamo with a simple pledge to not to engage in attacks against US forces or the US itself.  Of course they are going to run right back to the Taliban but its not like anyone who goes there is gone forever.

 

Yeah, I'll bet they're going to keep those promises. :rolly

 

What this boils down to is, who do you trust - our imperfect government or the terrorist lowlives who were captured after attacking US soldiers? I'll have to side with our imperfect government on this one.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

Since when has the BBC been "allied" with the Bush administration?  Hell, even the New York Times has been caught fabricating polling data that consistently favors Democrats over Republicans.  Both are leftist, anti-Bush media outlets and are about as credible as Clinton's grand jury testimony.  So, you'll have to forgive me for not believing that crap about US soldiers using the time, engery, and jail space to imprison an Iraqi for a traffic ticket.

Yeah, I'll bet they're going to keep those promises. :rolly

 

What this boils down to is, who do you trust - our imperfect government or the terrorist lowlives who were captured after attacking US soldiers?  I'll have to side with our imperfect government on this one.

 

Allied being UK media. Its state run media so I doubt they can get away with the same thing that a privately owned media firm could.

 

Why do we have to trust either of them? Given the track record -- they're both groups of craven power-hungry bastards. I hate all the bichromatic, black and white "if you're not with us, you're with the terrorists" sort of crap. Like with the Red Scare of the 1950s, one can be against the tactics used by the government while also not agreeing with communism/terrorism.

[Pale Hose Jon]

Probably not.  I think its funny though that these people are trying to invent rights for people when they don't exist.  They dont seem to understand that the only connection that terrorists rounded up in Afghanistan and Iraq have with the United States is that they were caught while engaged in combat with our soldiers.  They have no rights under the Constitution and if I'm not mistaken they also have no rights under the Geneva convention since they are not part of any standing army or part of any government.

 

As i recall, and i may be wrong, but i thought that the prisoners in abu grave(sp) were all there for minor offences like shoplifting and other misdmeanor offences. They traced the identity of most of the victims from the pictures back to simple car thiefs, not terrorists.

[TheBigHurt35]

Allied being UK media.  Its state run media so I doubt they can get away with the same thing that a privately owned media firm could.

 

Why do we have to trust either of them?  Given the track record -- they're both groups of craven power-hungry bastards.  I hate all the bichromatic, black and white "if you're not with us, you're with the terrorists" sort of crap.  Like with the Red Scare of the 1950s, one can be against the tactics used by the government while also not agreeing with communism/terrorism.

 

Just as I dislike leftist conspiracy-theory freaks like Noam Chomsky. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one (although I agree that what they did to Padilla (or any other US citizen in his situation) was wrong).

 

EDIT: State-run media certainly can get away with pursuing political agendas. The BBC has always maintained an anti-Bush sentiment. The CBC (also state-run) took that a step further by running a program called The Fifth Estate, which was essentially a vicious attack on the Fox News Channel.

Edited March 2, 2005 by TheBigHurt35

[Soxbadger]

The distinctions that are being drawn in this thread are some what inconsistent with the actual Geneva convention.

 

There are:

 

1) Lawful combatants

 

2) Unlawful combatants.

 

Combatant Status

 

Lawful Combatants. A lawful combatant is an individual authorized by governmental authority or the LOAC to engage in hostilities. A lawful combatant may be a member of a regular armed force or an irregular force. In either case, the lawful combatant must be commanded by a person responsible for subordinates; have fixed distinctive emblems recognizable at a distance, such as uniforms; carry arms openly; and conduct his or her combat operations according to the LOAC. The LOAC applies to lawful combatants who engage in the hostilities of armed conflict and provides combatant immunity for their lawful warlike acts during conflict, except for LOAC violations.

 

Noncombatants. These individuals are not authorized by overnmental authority or the LOAC to engage in hostilities. In fact, they do not engage in hostilities. This category includes civilians accompanying the Armed Forces; combatants who are out of combat, such as POWs and the wounded, and certain military personnel who are members of the Armed Forces not authorized to engage in combatant activities, such as medical personnel and chaplains. Noncombatants may not be made the object of direct attack. They may, however, suffer injury or death incident to a direct attack on a military objective without such an attack violating the LOAC, if such attack is on a lawful target by lawful means.

 

Unlawful Combatants. Unlawful combatants are individuals who directly participate in hostilities without being authorized by governmental authority or under international law to do so. For example, bandits who rob and plunder and civilians who attack a downed airman are unlawful combatants. Unlawful combatants who engage in hostilities violate LOAC and become lawful targets. They may be killed or wounded and, if captured, may be tried as war criminals for their LOAC violations.

 

Iraqi's caught during the attack on Iraq, are lawful combatants and are therefore protected by the Geneva convention. They were authroized by Saddam, wore uniforms, etc. The Geneva conventions protections do not end because the government was overthrown, had the Geneva convention been adopted before World War II this interpretation would have meany that after the Nazi's took over France, French combatants would no longer have been protected by the Geneva convention because they were not part of a "recognized army". A recognized army means at the time of capture, not after time when their government falls apart.

 

Iraqi's caught after the fall of Saddam, will be considered unlawful combatants as they are no longer part of a government force when that government falls. But you can not reclassify an already captured combatant.

 

Afghani's caught during the Afghanistan war, who were under the direction of the Taliban, should also have Geneva convention protection, as like the Iraqi's at the time of the capture they were fighting for a government army. Those Afghani's caught after the fall of the Taliban, will be considered unlawful combatants.

 

The bigger problem here is:

 

Government tort immunity.

 

SB

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

As i recall, and i may be wrong, but i thought that the prisoners in abu grave(sp)  were all there for minor offences like shoplifting and other misdmeanor offences. They traced the identity of most of the victims from the pictures back to simple car thiefs, not terrorists.

 

 

There were some that were in there for minor stuff, you're right, but not all.

[Controlled Chaos]

Jose Padilla can kiss my ass...there's enough info out there for me to know that. They can hold him forever for all I care.

 

 

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0601042padilla1.html

[Soxbadger]

Court Ruling On Padilla

 

Lastest court ruling says that they must release him in 30 days or formally charge him.

 

The case will be appealed but with Rehnquist probably unable to be at the SC, it should be interesting to see how the battle lines are drawn, and perhaps be a precursor to who will be the next Chief Justice.

 

SB

[KipWellsFan]

Just as I dislike leftist conspiracy-theory freaks like Noam Chomsky.  I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one (although I agree that what they did to Padilla (or any other US citizen in his situation) was wrong).

 

EDIT: State-run media certainly can get away with pursuing political agendas.  The BBC has always maintained an anti-Bush sentiment.  The CBC (also state-run) took that a step further by running a program called The Fifth Estate, which was essentially a vicious attack on the Fox News Channel.

 

I'd like to correct what you said about the Fifth Estate. The Fifth Estate is similar to the PBS program frontline. It is a show which features documentaries on all things. So no Frontline is not a vicious attack on Fox News, but one of the documentaries shown does attack Fox News called Sticks and Stones. And I think it's a pretty good one. You can see it online here.

 

http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/sticksandstones.html

[LowerCaseRepublican]

Jose Padilla can kiss my ass...there's enough info out there for me to know that. They can hold him forever for all I care.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0601042padilla1.html

 

If they have all this information then here is a novel idea -- Bring charges against him & try him in court.

[YASNY]

The ACLU, in this case, is doing EXACTLY what it should be doing. It's making sure the leaders of our nation don't get drunk with their own power. Keep them in check. Make them stop and think before doing something they shouldn't. Hell yes. on this one they are right.

 

Now NAMBLA is a totally different story.