Waterboarding - ogen toe, niets gezien

[Sickboy]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door illwill

Punt is dat als je het onder geen enkele omstandigheden toelaat je met zekerheid kunt zeggen dat je mensen laat sterven indien er zulke omstandigheden zich voordoen om toch maar terroristen te beschermen. Nee, die denkwijze deel ik niet, en ik zou die verantwoordelijkheid ook absoluut niet willen indien er iets zou gebeuren.
Stel je dat dan ook maar eens voor.

Wat ik wel niet begrijp...waarom is er zekerheid dat eronschuldigen worden gemarteld? Je mag pas martelen indien je zekerheid hebt.

En wie bepaalt er wie een terrorist is?Hoe definieer je "terrorist"?Misschien moeten we binnen dertig jaar wel inzien dat Bush een terrorist was?De geschiedenis is toch steeds geschreven door de overwinnaars?

Of nog,hadden de Nazi's de tweede wereldoorlog gewonnen (hypotetisch gesproken) zouden we dan over nazi's spreken en hun misdaden of over bv. bombardementen door de geallieerden ?

[filosoof]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Sickboy

En wie bepaalt er wie een terrorist is?Hoe definieer je "terrorist"?Misschien moeten we binnen dertig jaar wel inzien dat Bush een terrorist was?De geschiedenis is toch steeds geschreven door de overwinnaars?

Of nog,hadden de Nazi's de tweede wereldoorlog gewonnen (hypotetisch gesproken) zouden we dan over nazi's spreken en hun misdaden of over bv. bombardementen door de geallieerden ?

Misschien moeten we binnen dertig jaar wel inzien dat Bush een terrorist was?

Sommigen zulen daar idd. misschien dertig jaar voor nodig hebben

[filosoof]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door de TIJD:

België weigert gevangenen Guantánamo
Ons land is door de Verenigde Staten benaderd om mensen op te vangen die zijn opgesloten in de Amerikaanse terroristengevangenis in Guantánamo. Maar de Belgische regering heeft het verzoek afgewezen. Dat onthult minister van Buitenlandse Zaken Karel De Gucht (Open VLD) in een schriftelijk antwoord aan Spirit-senator Geert Lambert.
(tijd) - 'Toen de Verenigde Staten ons land benaderden, bevond de federale regering zich nog in lopende zaken. En daarom waren we niet in staat op de vraag in te gaan', stelt De Gucht. 'Sindsdien is mijn departement daarover niet meer gecontacteerd door de VS.'

Of ons land zal ingaan op de vraag van de Amerikanen, laat de minister in het midden. 'Als we een nieuwe formele vraag ontvangen, zullen we die onderzoeken', klinkt het.

Toch herinnert De Gucht eraan dat de verantwoordelijkheid over de sluiting van Guantánamo en het lot van de gevangenen die er zich bevinden, toekomt aan de Amerikanen.

Spirit-senator Geert Lambert kreeg pas in januari lucht van de opmerkelijke vraag van de Amerikanen. Tijdens een betoging voor de Amerikaanse ambassade tegen de wantoestanden in Guantánamo vernam de senator van een diplomaat dat sommige Europese landen weigeren Guantánamo-gevangenen die onschuldig blijken te zijn, op te vangen 'onder de voorwaarden van de VS.'

Begin 2005 werden al twee Belgische gevangenen uit Guantánomo overgeleverd aan het Belgische gerecht.LB

08:58 - 15/03/2008
Copyright © De Tijd
Klik voor BRON

Guantánamo-gevangenen die onschuldig blijken te zijn, op te vangen 'onder de voorwaarden van de VS.'

...

Misschien moeten we binnen dertig jaar wel inzien dat Bush een terrorist was?

[filosoof]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door illwill

Punt is dat als je het onder geen enkele omstandigheden toelaat je met zekerheid kunt zeggen dat je mensen laat sterven indien er zulke omstandigheden zich voordoen om toch maar terroristen te beschermen. Nee, die denkwijze deel ik niet, en ik zou die verantwoordelijkheid ook absoluut niet willen indien er iets zou gebeuren.
Stel je dat dan ook maar eens voor.

Wat ik wel niet begrijp...waarom is er zekerheid dat eronschuldigen worden gemarteld? Je mag pas martelen indien je zekerheid hebt.

Als je zekerheid hebt is martelen overbodig, dan breng je ze voor de rechter.

[illwill]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door filosoof

Als je zekerheid hebt is martelen overbodig, dan breng je ze voor de rechter.

Dat doe je later, als levens op het spel staan en je weet dat degene meewerkte aan de aanslagen dan kan martelen een reden zijn dat hij gaat praten en waardevolle info lost.

Voor de rechter brengen heeft niets te maken met het loskrijgen van info.

[filosoof]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Washington Post:

Memo: Laws Didn't Apply to Interrogators

Justice Dept. Official in 2003 Said President's Wartime Authority Trumped Many Statutes

By Dan Eggen and Josh White
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, April 2, 2008; A01



The Justice Department sent a legal memorandum to the Pentagon in 2003 asserting that federal laws prohibiting assault, maiming and other crimes did not apply to military interrogators who questioned al-Qaeda captives because the president's ultimate authority as commander in chief overrode such statutes.
The 81-page memo, which was declassified and released publicly yesterday, argues that poking, slapping or shoving detainees would not give rise to criminal liability. The document also appears to defend the use of mind-altering drugs that do not produce "an extreme effect" calculated to "cause a profound disruption of the senses or personality."

Although the existence of the memo has long been known, its contents had not been previously disclosed.

Nine months after it was issued, Justice Department officials told the Defense Department to stop relying on it. But its reasoning provided the legal foundation for the Defense Department's use of aggressive interrogation practices at a crucial time, as captives poured into military jails from Afghanistan and U.S. forces prepared to invade Iraq.

Sent to the Pentagon's general counsel on March 14, 2003, by John C. Yoo, then a deputy in the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, the memo provides an expansive argument for nearly unfettered presidential power in a time of war. It contends that numerous laws and treaties forbidding torture or cruel treatment should not apply to U.S. interrogations in foreign lands because of the president's inherent wartime powers.

"If a government defendant were to harm an enemy combatant during an interrogation in a manner that might arguably violate a criminal prohibition, he would be doing so in order to prevent further attacks on the United States by the al Qaeda terrorist network," Yoo wrote. "In that case, we believe that he could argue that the executive branch's constitutional authority to protect the nation from attack justified his actions."

Interrogators who harmed a prisoner would be protected by a "national and international version of the right to self-defense," Yoo wrote. He also articulated a definition of illegal conduct in interrogations -- that it must "shock the conscience" -- that the Bush administration advocated for years.

"Whether conduct is conscience-shocking turns in part on whether it is without any justification," Yoo wrote, explaining, for example, that it would have to be inspired by malice or sadism before it could be prosecuted.*
The declassified memo was sent by the Defense and Justice departments late yesterday to Democrats on Capitol Hill, including Sens. Carl M. Levin (Mich.) and Patrick J. Leahy (Vt.), who had seen the document in classified form and pushed for its release.

The document is similar, although much broader, than a notorious memo primarily written by Yoo in August 2002 that narrowly defined what constitutes illegal torture. That document was also later withdrawn.

In his 2007 book, "The Terror Presidency," Jack Goldsmith, who took over the Office of Legal Counsel after Yoo departed, writes that the two memos "stood out" for "the unusual lack of care and sobriety in their legal analysis."

The documents are among the Justice Department legal memoranda that undergirded some of the highly coercive interrogation techniques employed by the Bush administration, including extreme temperatures, head-slapping and a type of simulated drowning called waterboarding.

In 2005, amid public controversy over such methods, Congress limited Defense Department officials to interrogation methods listed in the Army's field manual, which was rewritten to forbid many of the aggressive methods. The CIA was exempted, however, and President Bush vetoed recent legislation that would have applied the same requirements to that agency.

Yoo, now a law professor at the University of California at Berkeley, defended the memo in an e-mail yesterday, saying the Justice Department altered its opinions "for appearances' sake." He said his successors "ignored the Department's long tradition in defending the President's authority in wartime."

"Far from inventing some novel interpretation of the Constitution," Yoo wrote, "our legal advice to the President, in fact, was near boilerplate."

Yoo's 2003 memo arrived amid strong Pentagon debate about which interrogation techniques should be allowed and which might lead to legal action in domestic and international courts.

After a rebellion by military lawyers, then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld in December 2002 suspended a list of aggressive techniques he had approved, the most extreme of which were used on a single detainee at the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The prisoner, military investigators later would determine, was subjected to stress positions, nudity, hooding, exposure to dogs and other aggressive techniques.

Largely because of Yoo's memo, however, a Pentagon working group in April 2003 endorsed the continued use of extremely aggressive tactics. The top lawyers for each military service, who were largely excluded from the group, did not receive a final copy of Yoo's March memo and did not know about the group's final report for more than a year, officials said.

Thomas J. Romig, who was then the Army's judge advocate general, said yesterday after reading the memo that it appears to argue there are no rules in a time of war, a concept Romig found "downright offensive."

Martin S. Lederman, a former lawyer with the Office of Legal Counsel who now teaches law at Georgetown University, said the Yoo memo helped create a legal environment that allowed prisoner abuses at Abu Ghraib.

"What else could have been the source of belief in Iraq that the gloves were off and all laws could be disregarded with impunity?" Lederman asked. "It created a world in which everyone on the ground believed the laws did not apply. It was a law-free zone."
In a 2004 memo for the Navy inspector general's office, then-General Counsel Alberto J. Mora objected to the ideas that cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment could be allowed at Guantanamo and that the president's authority is virtually unlimited.

Mora wrote that he spoke with Yoo at the Pentagon on Feb. 6, 2003, and that Yoo "glibly" defended his own memo. "Asked whether the President could order the application of torture, Mr. Yoo responded, 'Yes,' " Mora wrote. Yoo denies saying that.

Staff researcher Julie Tate contributed to this report.
BRON

*wat dus bijna onbewijsbaar zou zijn zonder bekentenis van de beul.


Wie de memos wil lezen:
http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-s...LCMemo1-19.pdfthe various federal crimes that apply in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States: assault, 18 U.S.C. § 113 (2000); maiming, 18 U.S.C. § 114 (2000); and interstate' stalking, 18 U.S.C. § 2261A(2000). De herroeping:
http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-s...CMemo20-39.pdf
Members of the Armed Forces are subject to military discipline under the DeMJ anyplace outside the United States for conduct that would constitute a felony if committed within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States. Those accompanying or employed by the Armed Forces can be prosecuted in an Article ill court for their conduct outside the United States that would constitute a felony offense if committed within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States. Finally, members of the Armed Forces and those accompanying or employed by the military are punishable for misdemeanor offenses in an Article ill court when they commit such offenses within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction ofthe United States.
As a general matter, GTMO and other U.S. military bases outside the United States fall within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States.17 Section 7(9) of Title 18 of the U.S. Code provides, in relevant part, that the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States includes:
offenses committed by or against a national of the United States .., on the premises of United States ... military ... missions or entities in foreign States, including the buildings, parts of buildings, and land appurtenant or ancillary thereto or used for purposes of' those missions or entities, irrespective of ownership.
18 U.S.C.A. § 7(9)(A). 18 By its terms, this section applies to GTMO and other U.S. military bases in foreign states, although no court has interpreted the scope ofsection 7(9)'s reach. 19.

Toch ging en gaat "waterboarding " voort...
De juiste term voor zoiets is "oorlogsmisdaad"
Wir haben es nicht gewust...??

[filosoof]

.

[filosoof]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Human Rights Watch:

'CIA liet 14 verdachten martelen in Jordanië'
Gepubliceerd: 08/04/2008 14:31
Update: vandaag 14:36

De CIA heeft zeker veertien terreurverdachten vervoerd naar Jordanië om hen daar te laten martelen en ondervragen. De mensenrechtenorganisatie Human Rights Watch zegt dit dinsdag in een rapport.

Sinds de aanslagen van 11 september 2001 tot zeker 2004 sloot de Jordaanse inlichtingendienst verdachten op en martelde hen in opdracht van de CIA, stelt het rapport. De CIA vervoerde in die periode terreurverdachten naar een handvol landen, maar volgens het rapport kreeg Jordanië de meeste verdachten.
BRON

De juiste termen voor zoiets zijn: ontvoerd en "oorlogsmisdaad"
Wir haben es nicht gewust...?? Sommige CIA-vluchten maakten tussenlandingen in België

[filosoof]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door CNN:

Military details methods used on Afghan detainees
Story Highlights
Pentagon: Afghan detainees were slapped by U.S. military interrogators in 2003

Interrogators used techniques taught during survival training, papers say

Documents focus on death of Afghan detainee, who died in U.S. custody

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Military interrogators assaulted Afghan detainees in 2003, using investigation methods they learned during self-defense training, Pentagon documents released Wednesday show.

Detainees at the Gardez Detention Facility in southeastern Afghanistan reported being made to kneel outside in wet clothing and being kicked and punched in the kidneys, nose and knees if they moved, according to the documents.

A 2006 Army review concluded that the detainees were not abused but that the incident revealed "misconduct that warrants further action."

The documents, which were turned over Wednesday evening to the American Civil Liberties Union, focus on the 2003 death of Afghan detainee Jamal Nasser, who died in U.S. custody at the Gardez facility.

The documents detail interrogation techniques used on eight detainees, including Nasser, who were suspected of weapons trafficking.

The Army review found that abuse did not cause Nasser's death. But the documents include interviews with some interrogators who acknowledged slapping the detainees -- a technique they learned during survival training at the Army's SERE school. SERE stands for Survive, Evade, Resist and Escape.

"You say you gave permission for (redacted) to hit detainees during interrogations; did you have a memorandum or order from your higher headquarters authorizing that?" a military criminal investigator asked one of the interrogators, according to a November 2004 transcript among the more than 300 pages of documents.

"No, I did not have a memorandum and had not seen one," the interrogator answered, according to the transcript. "I used tactics that were used in SERE."

The investigator continued: "Did you see (redacted) hit detainees during the interviews?"

"Yes, open or closed slaps, not punches," the interrogator answered.

In another interview that day, according to the documents, the Army investigator asks whether "you ever heard of a tactic of pouring cold water or a water and snow mix on persons captured?"

"They do spray cold water on prisoners," the interrogator answered, referring to SERE lessons. That interrogator was unaware, however, of men in his unit pouring cold water over the detainees, as the Afghans later complained.

ACLU attorney Amrit Singh said such interrogation techniques are taught at SERE schools only to show soldiers how to withstand them from enemy captors. She called the methods, when used together, a form of torture.

"They were intended to be defensive methods, not offensive methods," Singh said. "This raises serious questions about the interrogation methods that were being applied in Afghanistan."

SERE methods were also used on detainees by military interrogators in Iraq and at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, Singh said.

The Pentagon and the Army did not immediately respond to requests for comment Wednesday evening.

The 2004 criminal inquiry of Nasser's death was among a string of probes into alleged abuse of prisoners in U.S. jails in Afghanistan.

Trying to deflect the kind of scandal that followed the abuse of prisoners at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, the commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan ordered a review of their secretive network of about 20 jails at bases across Afghanistan.

Nasser was among eight detainees who were held at Gardez for between 18 and 20 days. The Army concluded he died of a stomach ailment.

Copyright 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.




Links referenced within this article:

ACLU
http://topics.edition.cnn.com/topics...iberties_union
Pentagon
http://topics.edition.cnn.com/topics/the_pentagon
Associated Press
http://edition.cnn.com/interactive_legal.html#AP
American Civil Liberties Union
http://topics.edition.cnn.com/topics...iberties_Union
The Pentagon
http://topics.edition.cnn.com/topics/The_Pentagon
Guantanamo Bay
http://topics.edition.cnn.com/topics/Guantanamo_Bay

Find this article at:
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/as...ref=rss_latest

© 2008 Cable News Network.

WAT ging Bush naar Afganistan en Irak brengen? Democratie en beschaving?
Wie d�*t nog gelooft is echt naïef.
Tot nu werden die berichten enkel door kleinere media openbaar gemaakt maar als de mainstraim media als CNN het beginnen te publiceren zou er wel reactie vh publiek kunnen volgen.

[longhorn]

Toch goed nieuws, Filosoof, dat de Amerikanen een herhaling proberen te vermijden. In uw land van herkomst zou dit wellicht in de doofpot verdwijnen en zou de pers dergelijke zaken niet mogen publiceren.

[Akufen]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door longhorn

Toch goed nieuws, Filosoof, dat de Amerikanen een herhaling proberen te vermijden. In uw land van herkomst zou dit wellicht in de doofpot verdwijnen en zou de pers dergelijke zaken niet mogen publiceren.

Juist, en wie hadden ze weer juist gestraft na die vorige folter-foto's? De verantwoordelijke? Of een mentaal gehandicapte die gemakkelijk beïnvloedbaar was en bevelen opvolgde?

[illwill]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Akufen

Juist, en wie hadden ze weer juist gestraft na die vorige folter-foto's? De verantwoordelijke? Of een mentaal gehandicapte die gemakkelijk beïnvloedbaar was en bevelen opvolgde?

De verantwoordelijke.

[Akufen]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door illwill

De verantwoordelijke.

Bewijzen?

[illwill]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Akufen

Bewijzen?

Ik geef dezelfde soort bewijzen als jij.

[Akufen]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door illwill

Ik geef dezelfde soort bewijzen als jij.

Ik wacht.

[illwill]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Akufen

Ik wacht.

Ik ook.

[Akufen]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door illwill

Ik ook.

Ik was eerst.

[illwill]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Akufen

Ik was eerst.

Idd, daarom dat je ook als eerste een bewijs moet geven. Jij hebt als eerste een bewering geplaatst. Niet ik.

[Txiki]

Een vraagje aan alle pro-folteringen hier: hebben jullie vrienden die ooit gefolterd geweest zijn?

[Savatage]

Nope, ik trek niet op met terroristen.