Former General Accuses White House of War Crimes
Thread Starter
Registered User
iTrader: (2)
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,650
From: Mountains
Car Info: 2007 Nissan Frontier
Former General Accuses White House of War Crimes
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...061801546.html
More details on the report:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...061900085.html
Full report by Physicians for Human Rights
http://brokenlives.info/
Andrew Sullivan's blog
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.co...not-tor-1.html
This stuff makes me sick. Is this really what anyone wants our country to stand for?
The two-star general who led an Army investigation into the horrific detainee abuse at Abu Ghraib has accused the Bush administration of war crimes and is calling for accountability.
In his 2004 report on Abu Ghraib, then-Major General Anthony Taguba concluded that "numerous incidents of sadistic, blatant, and wanton criminal abuses were inflicted on several detainees." He called the abuse "systemic and illegal." And, as Seymour M. Hersh reported in the New Yorker, he was rewarded for his honesty by being forced into retirement.
In his 2004 report on Abu Ghraib, then-Major General Anthony Taguba concluded that "numerous incidents of sadistic, blatant, and wanton criminal abuses were inflicted on several detainees." He called the abuse "systemic and illegal." And, as Seymour M. Hersh reported in the New Yorker, he was rewarded for his honesty by being forced into retirement.
More details on the report:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...061900085.html
Full report by Physicians for Human Rights
http://brokenlives.info/
Andrew Sullivan's blog
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.co...not-tor-1.html
This stuff makes me sick. Is this really what anyone wants our country to stand for?
Who cares? Those bastards should have burned. PHR is just another band of American hating, terrorist sympathizers, that were awarded credentials by a biased media. The public has no business being informed about the aspects of war. Obviously they can't handle it.
iClub Silver Vendor
iTrader: (25)
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 15,494
From: Participating in some Anarchy!
Car Info: 2005 LGT wagon
Registered User
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 5,686
From: I was up above it, now I'm down in it
Car Info: New Government Motors SUV!
VIP Member
iTrader: (14)
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 8,675
From: Wherever Sucks the Most
Car Info: 2003 WRX, 2008 Camry
I wonder how competent they would have wanted the lead general of the investigation to be in the first place? Gotta love the post-service whistle blowers. I'm sure he was forced into retirement like every other officer that did not make rank.
Thread Starter
Registered User
iTrader: (2)
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,650
From: Mountains
Car Info: 2007 Nissan Frontier
Originally Posted by Preface
The profiles of these elven former detainees, none of whom were ever charged with a crime or told why they were detained
The public has no business being informed about certain aspects of the war? Hell yes we do. It is our money going into that **** hole, and I sure as **** want to know how its being used. Do you really think the founding fathers would have thought that is a good idea? And no, I sure as hell cannot handle it. Torture is wrong. Plain and simple.
Thats not the point. Why should we drop down to their level? Just because they are committing obviously unjust and immoral acts doesn't mean we should. And the lasting physical and emotional effects of torture place it in the same basket as beheadings and IEDs. Its not just torture, pain, and its over. There are lasting effects that can destroy a persons life and livelihood.
I find it hard to reconcile the use of torture with the values this country is founded upon. Last time I checked, the bill of rights still read:
Originally Posted by The Eighth Amendment
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted
This report makes me sick because I believe that it is not in keeping with our values. Just because the enemy does it does not make it okay.
-Jeff
(NYT piece from today, analyzing the role of torture and its effectiveness:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/22/washington/22ksm.html)
And here is the HRW summary of the Geneva conventions on torture (with links to the actual document)
Originally Posted by HRW
The primary source of international humanitarian law (also called the laws of war) is the four Geneva Conventions of 1949, which the United States ratified in 1955. The Third Geneva Convention concerns prisoners-of-war; the Fourth Geneva Convention safeguards so-called “protected persons,” most simply described as detained civilians. Detainees must at all times be humanely treated (Geneva III, art. 13, Geneva IV, art. 27). Detainees may be questioned, but any form of “physical or mental coercion” is prohibited (Geneva III, art. 17; Geneva IV, art. 31). Women shall be protected from rape and any form of indecent assault (Geneva IV, art. 27).
Torture or inhuman treatment of prisoners-of-war (Geneva III, arts. 17 & 87) or protected persons (Geneva IV, art. 32) are grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, and are considered war crimes (Geneva III, art. 130; Geneva IV, art. 147). War crimes create an obligation on any state to prosecute the alleged perpetrators or turn them over to another state for prosecution. This obligation applies regardless of the nationality of the perpetrator, the nationality of the victim or the place where the act of torture or inhuman treatment was committed (Geneva III, art.129; Geneva IV, art. 146).
Detainees in an armed conflict or military occupation are also protected by common article 3 to the Geneva Conventions. Article 3 prohibits “[v]iolence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; …outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment.”
Even persons who are not entitled to the protections of the 1949 Geneva Conventions (such as some detainees from third countries) are protected by the “fundamental guarantees” of article 75 of Protocol I of 1977 to the Geneva Conventions. The United States has long considered article 75 to be part of customary international law (a widely supported state practice accepted as law). Article 75 prohibits murder, “torture of all kinds, whether physical or mental,” “corporal punishment,” and “outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment, … and any form of indecent assault.”
Torture or inhuman treatment of prisoners-of-war (Geneva III, arts. 17 & 87) or protected persons (Geneva IV, art. 32) are grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, and are considered war crimes (Geneva III, art. 130; Geneva IV, art. 147). War crimes create an obligation on any state to prosecute the alleged perpetrators or turn them over to another state for prosecution. This obligation applies regardless of the nationality of the perpetrator, the nationality of the victim or the place where the act of torture or inhuman treatment was committed (Geneva III, art.129; Geneva IV, art. 146).
Detainees in an armed conflict or military occupation are also protected by common article 3 to the Geneva Conventions. Article 3 prohibits “[v]iolence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; …outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment.”
Even persons who are not entitled to the protections of the 1949 Geneva Conventions (such as some detainees from third countries) are protected by the “fundamental guarantees” of article 75 of Protocol I of 1977 to the Geneva Conventions. The United States has long considered article 75 to be part of customary international law (a widely supported state practice accepted as law). Article 75 prohibits murder, “torture of all kinds, whether physical or mental,” “corporal punishment,” and “outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment, … and any form of indecent assault.”
Thread Starter
Registered User
iTrader: (2)
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,650
From: Mountains
Car Info: 2007 Nissan Frontier
And it is also illegal by US law:
US War Crimes act of 1996:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...1----000-.html
Or the federal anti-torture statue
http://www.capdefnet.org/fdprc/conte..._usc_2340A.htm
(sourced again from HRW)
US War Crimes act of 1996:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...1----000-.html
Or the federal anti-torture statue
http://www.capdefnet.org/fdprc/conte..._usc_2340A.htm
(sourced again from HRW)
Registered User
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 5,686
From: I was up above it, now I'm down in it
Car Info: New Government Motors SUV!
So we broke our own laws in a war with another country. I'm fine with that. I can't see the other country extending any values to me if I was held captive.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
soggynoodles
Sacramento & Reno
29
Sep 10, 2004 10:53 AM