USA - General discussion (Part 1)

[haku]

US officialize Special Military Tribunals

This is a pivotal step fo the US.

First of all because the US have now given themselves the right to put on trial non-US citizens for (alleged) crimes committed on non-US soil, and since at the same time the US do not recognize the International Criminal Court and refuse that US citizens could be tried there (the US have gone as far as to threaten to invade The Hague, Netherlands if a US citizen was ever detained there), the US have de facto put themselves above the UN and international law and effectively extended their judicial sovereignty over the entire world (superseding the International Criminal Court).

Second because those tribunals will be allowed to use evidence obtained through coercion (torture) against the detainees, which of course pretty much annihilate the US credibility as a human rights advocate worldwide, how will the US be able to condemn a country for using torture in its jails (and look credible) when they allow that very same thing at home?

And third because it creates two categories of detainees, those with rights, and those with less rights (you can keep quiet if talking could incriminate you if you're in the first category, you will be tortured to make you talk if you're in the second category; you have the right to a fair and speedy trial in the first, you can be detained for years without charges in the second; you have the right to see the evidence against you in the first, you can only see what they allow you to see in the second, etc, etc, etc). It's easy to see how law enforcement can use this as leverage when they arrest people.

[freddie]

That article says torture or any acts that would constitute as war crimes are prohibited...

[haku]

Originally Posted by freddie

That article says torture or any acts that would constitute as war crimes are prohibited...

You must not have read a lot about that law. What the US have done is redefine the definition of torture and add a new concept of 'coercive questioning' (just like they created that new concept of 'enemy combatant' which allowed them to send people to Guantanamo outside US and international law).
And what is the difference between torture and coercive questioning? Well, we don't really know, the US president can decide alone which questioning methods are torture and which are coercive questioning.
We do know that coercive questioning involves violence on prisoners. So let's see, is the NYPD for example allowed to use coercive questioning on a murder suspect? No. Why? Because it's torture.
So the same questioning methods that are illegal on US citizens because they violate their rights are allowed on non-US citizens detained in Guantanamo. Why? Because non-US citizens are not human?

No other democracies in the world would allow the questioning methods used in Guantanamo (and certainly not the British which are their closest allies, not even when they had to figth the IRA, not even when they had to fight the nazis), they all consider those methods as torture, the US have crossed a line here.

And i'm really worried when people consider that violent interrogation techniques like sleep deprivation, forced hypothermia or waterboarding are not torture, seriously.



Other frightening news today: the US have adopted a new space policy which is paving the way for them to take military control of space.

"The United States will preserve its rights, capabilities, and freedom of action in space... and deny, if necessary, adversaries the use of space capabilities hostile to US national interests."

Obviously once the US have military control of space and can deny access to space to other nations, we will be all screwed and they will have won.

[freddie]

But there IS a clear definition out there of what torture and war crimes are (we've had those ever since the the end of WW2) and it strictly says that coercive questioning involves all things which are not by definition torute or war crimes. Coercive questioning can mean a lot of things, but one thing it cannot mean is torture. No one can redefine international standards for what torture is.

[spyretto]

Sorry, freddie it's common knowledge that the U.S. uses similar interrogation and propaganda techniques as their enemies do.
That's why they don't have many free-thinking sympathisers around the world, people are really fed up with that "holier-than-thou" attitude of theirs.

[haku]

Originally Posted by freddie

Coercive questioning can mean a lot of things, but one thing it cannot mean is torture.

Coercive questioning is torture, all human rights organizations agree on that, but even if you don't agree that coercive questioning is torture, it is a violation of human rights anyway.

The police is not allowed to use coercive questioning on suspects because it violates their rights, the army is not allowed to use coercive questioning on prisoners of war because it violates their rights, so surely, if neither the police nor the army are allowed to use those methods, it means they clearly violate human rights. So why are those same methods considered acceptable when used on 'enemy combatants'? (A status which is not recognized by the international community) Why are those people entitled to less rights (if any rights at all) than other people? There is no justification.

You know better than i do (you've studied law right?) that any confession or evidence obtained under coercion or duress will be declared null in a court of law, any judge will throw it away. Also, a defendant has the right to remain silent if what they say could incriminate themself. Those are basic principles of the western judiciary system, and those principles are violated everyday in Guantanamo. Guantanamo detainees will be convicted using confessions and evidence obtained by force from them, those evidence would never hold in an American tribunal, and that's why the US need to create those special military ones to secure guaranteed convictions no matter what.

There's a fundamental reason why the police is not allowed to use coercive questioning on suspects (besides it being inhumane), it's because people are considered innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, and western democracies concider that using violent techniques on someone who may be innocent is not acceptable, that's another of our basic principles. And that principle is also violated everyday in Guantanamo, and here we're touching the root of the problem, Guantanamo detainees have already been declared guilty even though they've never been charged of anything, they were declared guilty the day they were sent to Guantanamo, and from there, anything done to them became acceptable, the US have managed to convince themselves that violating the human rights of a guilty person is not nearly as bad as violating the human rights of an innocent one.
Those special military tribunals won't judge, they will simply sentence pre-guilty people to death.

[freddie]

This is the direct quote from that article:

The bill forbids treatment of detainees that would constitute war crimes - such as torture, rape and biological experiments - but gives the president the authority to decide which other techniques interrogators can use.

OTHER techiques. Implying torture is de facto excluded from president's choice of desired interrogation techniques. If coercive questioning would also mean torture this bill would be opposing itself which is ridiculous.

I'm not saying there aren't any legal issues with it. Far from it. Anytime a country starts using sui generis law which to an extent opposes international practices there are tons of legal problems. But international law isn't like the law of a country. It's not followed or forced upon in such a represive manner since we're dealing with different legal subjects here (countries as opposed to people). It's often a matter of diplomacy and adaptation rather than strict following of guidelines (as we know through it's young history UN had a bucketful of resolutions and declarations breached, with no real consequences, but rather settling matters through appeasement policies from all sides). International law tends to be problematic by default since you can't force a soverign country into doing something it doesn't want to (North Korea and Iran are nice examples of this). I think the biggest problem US is facing regarding bills like this one is the fact these detainees have deficient court rights.

[haku]

Well, i've received a lot of work and i don't have much time, but before i leave i just wanted to post this text from Amnesty International detailing exactly how the Military Commissions Act is a grave violation of human rights.

Among other things, the Act:

Strips the US courts of jurisdiction to hear or consider habeas corpus appeals challenging the lawfulness or conditions of detention of anyone held in US custody as an "enemy combatant". Judicial review of cases are severely limited. The law applies retroactively, and thus may result in more than 200 pending appeals filed on behalf of Guantanamo detainees being thrown out of court.

Permits the executive to convene military commissions to try "alien unlawful enemy combatants", as determined by the executive under a dangerously broad definition, in trials that will provide foreign nationals so labeled with a lower standard of justice than US citizens accused of the same crimes. This violates the prohibition on the discriminatory application of fair trial rights.

Permit the use in military commission trials of evidence extracted under cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Gives the military commissions the power to hand down death sentences after trials that did not meet international standards.

Permits the executive to determine who is an "enemy combatant" under any "competent tribunal" established by the executive, and endorses the Combatant Status Review Tribunal (CSRT), the wholly inadequate administrative procedure that has been employed in Guantanamo to review individual detentions.

Prohibits any person from invoking the Geneva Conventions or their protocols as a source of rights in any action in any US court.

Narrows the scope of the War Crimes Act by not expressly criminalizing acts that constitute "outrages upon personal dignity, particularly humiliating and degrading treatment" banned under international law. Amnesty International believes that the USA has routinely failed to respect the human dignity of detainees in the "war on terror".

Endorses the administration’s "war paradigm" – under which the USA has selectively applied the laws of war and rejected international human rights law. The legislation backdates the "war on terror" to before the 11 September 2001 in order to be able to try individuals in front of military commissions for "war crimes" committed before that date.

I know that pro-Americans don't like Amnesty International and dismiss anything it says, but personally i think this organization is doing a great job at denouncing human rights violation everywhere in the world.

This is the page on the Military Commissions Act and how it violates human rights.
And this is the portal on human rights violations in the Guantanamo camp and the so-called "war against terror", a real eye opener.

[nath]

Originally Posted by haku

I know that pro-Americans don't like Amnesty International and dismiss anything it says,

Ne serait-ce pas une idée préconçue bien facile?

[freddie]

Exactly. I like Amnesty International myself. They're a credible organization, even for pro Americans. And I never denied everything the US does is in full compliance with international law. But not being in compliance with international law regarding the status of foreign detainees is different from accusing someone of systematic goverment lead and condoned torture when the bill clearly states it is infact not admissable. I'm sure there have been torture techniques implemented on prisoners at some point, but those were isolated incidents which weren't goverment condoned and were AGAINST the law... and people were put on trial for it.

[haku]

Truck and SUV sales on the rise again in the US thanks to cheaper fuel. At least the true objectives of the war in Iraq are giving positive results for the car industry.

[prospector]

Originally Posted by haku

Truck and SUV sales on the rise again in the US thanks to cheaper fuel. At least the true objectives of the war in Iraq are giving positive results for the car industry.

That's a new trend in USA after deflation fears

[freddie]

At least Toyota Prius is still popular.

[spyretto]

George W Bush told the American people to vote Republicans for congress because "the country is at war" and only the Republicans know how to handle war. How can one deny such a crudely put yet so undeniable fact? Only if one is in denial.
It worked for him before and it should work again

[freddie]

What else is he going to say? War against terror is his leit motif. it's what kept him in the office for the second term. He needs that "war" as much as islamic extremists need him. It's a grotesque symbiosis.

[spyretto]

Originally Posted by freddie

What else is he going to say? War against terror is his leit motif. it's what kept him in the office for the second term. He needs that "war" as much as islamic extremists need him. It's a grotesque symbiosis.

I'm just pointing out that his naive and overly simplistic argument still works for the American people, that's all. It's in the same vain with the "you're with us or against us" rhetoric.
All that remains to be seen is for how long this will keep the Republicans in office. Ending the war is not in their best interest, that is to say.

[Khartoun2004]

I would just like to point out that the recent elections prove that Americans are sick of Bush and we want him out. Nancy Pelosi (who is sure to be the first female speaker of the house) has outlined a first 100hours agenda for the house in 2007. Including an overhaul of the entire Iraq policy.

I'm just waiting for the stupid media to declare Virginia and Montana Democratic before I start celebrating a democratic sweep of the Senate also. But they're just delaying the inevitable. So don't under-estimate Americans. We're not all nascar watching, beer drinking morons... only the ones in the south.

[coolasfcuk]

Originally Posted by spyretto

I'm just pointing out that his naive and overly simplistic argument still works for the American people, that's all.

i love how the people that dont even live here or havent even been here once are trying to predict such results..... maybe you spoke a bit too early there, spy... or is that what you were hoping for?

All that remains to be seen is for how long this will keep the Republicans in office. Ending the war is not in their best interest, that is to say.

KKhartoun2004, i guess we are still waiting on the Montana and Virginia votes, but as of right now with 99% counted in Montana the D is leading by fewer than 2000 votes and in Virginia the D is also leading after 99% count ... keep your fingers crossed
see spy, there is pretty big chance that Republicans will take a huge double loss ... wow, you didnt want that either, eh?

[dradeel]

Originally Posted by Khartoun2004

I would just like to point out that the recent elections prove that Americans are sick of Bush and we want him out.

Aaah... this is looking very good before the next president election. I'm happy to see these results. Let's just hope the Democrats will win the last two spots in the Senate.

[Khartoun2004]

Originally Posted by coolasfcuk

KKhartoun2004, i guess we are still waiting on the Montana and Virginia votes, but as of right now with 99% counted in Montana the D is leading by fewer than 2000 votes and in Virginia the D is also leading after 99% count ... keep your fingers crossed
see spy, there is pretty big chance that Republicans will take a huge double loss ... wow, you didnt want that either, eh?

OMG! I know and now fucking Virginia is holding a recount. Oy Vey, I guess the days of knowing the outcome of an election the next day are over ( fucking Bush). I have renewed faith in my fellow Americans though and I'm proud to call myself an American again. I stayed up until about 6:30am and then I totally crashed. I hope they call the elections soon... I'm dying to know the outcome.