[afx114]

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/729edac0-a3d3-11da-83cc-0000779e2340.html?nclick_check=1

A human rights group accused the Bush administration on Wednesday of failing to take responsibility for the nearly 100 detainees who have died in US custody, including eight who were tortured to death, since August 2002.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4738008.stm

Almost 100 prisoners have died in US custody in Iraq and Afghanistan since August 2002, according to US group Human Rights First.

…

Of the 98 deaths, at least 34 were suspected or confirmed homicides, the programme said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/20/international/asia/20abuse.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5088&en=4579c146cb14cfd6&ex=1274241600

At the interrogators’ behest, a guard tried to force the young man to his knees. But his legs, which had been pummeled by guards for several days, could no longer bend.

…

Several hours passed before an emergency room doctor finally saw Mr. Dilawar. By then he was dead, his body beginning to stiffen.

http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/11/14/051114fa_fact

According to witnesses, Jamadi was walking and speaking when he arrived at the prison. He was taken to a shower room for interrogation. Some forty-five minutes later, he was dead.

[afx114]

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/729edac0-a3d3-11da-83cc-0000779e2340.html?nclick_check=1

A human rights group accused the Bush administration on Wednesday of failing to take responsibility for the nearly 100 detainees who have died in US custody, including eight who were tortured to death, since August 2002.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4738008.stm

Almost 100 prisoners have died in US custody in Iraq and Afghanistan since August 2002, according to US group Human Rights First.

…

Of the 98 deaths, at least 34 were suspected or confirmed homicides, the programme said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/20/international/asia/20abuse.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5088&en=4579c146cb14cfd6&ex=1274241600

At the interrogators’ behest, a guard tried to force the young man to his knees. But his legs, which had been pummeled by guards for several days, could no longer bend.

…

Several hours passed before an emergency room doctor finally saw Mr. Dilawar. By then he was dead, his body beginning to stiffen.

http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/11/14/051114fa_fact

According to witnesses, Jamadi was walking and speaking when he arrived at the prison. He was taken to a shower room for interrogation. Some forty-five minutes later, he was dead.

[afx114]

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/729edac0-a3d3-11da-83cc-0000779e2340.html?nclick_check=1

A human rights group accused the Bush administration on Wednesday of failing to take responsibility for the nearly 100 detainees who have died in US custody, including eight who were tortured to death, since August 2002.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4738008.stm

Almost 100 prisoners have died in US custody in Iraq and Afghanistan since August 2002, according to US group Human Rights First.

…

Of the 98 deaths, at least 34 were suspected or confirmed homicides, the programme said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/20/international/asia/20abuse.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5088&en=4579c146cb14cfd6&ex=1274241600

At the interrogators’ behest, a guard tried to force the young man to his knees. But his legs, which had been pummeled by guards for several days, could no longer bend.

…

Several hours passed before an emergency room doctor finally saw Mr. Dilawar. By then he was dead, his body beginning to stiffen.

http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/11/14/051114fa_fact

According to witnesses, Jamadi was walking and speaking when he arrived at the prison. He was taken to a shower room for interrogation. Some forty-five minutes later, he was dead.

[afx114]

I wonder if asking whether or not torture works is even relevant to the issue at hand. It seems to me that if we signed a treaty against the use of torture, we are bound by that treaty to not torture. It doesn’t matter if it worked or not, if we torture — regardless of the results — we are breaking an international treaty. Read the full treaty yourself here.

The United States ratified the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment on October 21st 1994. Article 2 of this Senate ratified and binding Convention states that:

1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.

Is Gitmo classified as a “territory under [The United States’] jurisdiction?” If so, we are bound under Article 2 to take action to prevent torture. Does that include trying and punishing those who do or did torture in order to discourage others from doing it? Where do “black sites” apply, if at all?

2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political in stability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.

It is pretty clear that war or imminent threat of attack is not a legal excuse to torture. Was 9/11 a “public emergency” and/or a “threat of war?” Of course it was, but that is not an excuse to torture according to this treaty.

3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.

It can’t be stated much more plainly than that – The Nuremberg Defense is clearly thrown out the window here.

So it appears as if many of our questions have already been answered by this legally binding treaty signed by the US. If you want to argue against them, that’s fine, but you’ve got a big fat treaty signed by your country that says otherwise. The next logical step then is that the US is not bound by any treaties which it has signed, and that we can disregard treaties as we see fit. Is that really a road that we want to go down?

[afx114]

I wonder if asking whether or not torture works is even relevant to the issue at hand. It seems to me that if we signed a treaty against the use of torture, we are bound by that treaty to not torture. It doesn’t matter if it worked or not, if we torture — regardless of the results — we are breaking an international treaty. Read the full treaty yourself here.

The United States ratified the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment on October 21st 1994. Article 2 of this Senate ratified and binding Convention states that:

1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.

Is Gitmo classified as a “territory under [The United States’] jurisdiction?” If so, we are bound under Article 2 to take action to prevent torture. Does that include trying and punishing those who do or did torture in order to discourage others from doing it? Where do “black sites” apply, if at all?

2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political in stability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.

It is pretty clear that war or imminent threat of attack is not a legal excuse to torture. Was 9/11 a “public emergency” and/or a “threat of war?” Of course it was, but that is not an excuse to torture according to this treaty.

3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.

It can’t be stated much more plainly than that – The Nuremberg Defense is clearly thrown out the window here.

So it appears as if many of our questions have already been answered by this legally binding treaty signed by the US. If you want to argue against them, that’s fine, but you’ve got a big fat treaty signed by your country that says otherwise. The next logical step then is that the US is not bound by any treaties which it has signed, and that we can disregard treaties as we see fit. Is that really a road that we want to go down?

[afx114]

I wonder if asking whether or not torture works is even relevant to the issue at hand. It seems to me that if we signed a treaty against the use of torture, we are bound by that treaty to not torture. It doesn’t matter if it worked or not, if we torture — regardless of the results — we are breaking an international treaty. Read the full treaty yourself here.

The United States ratified the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment on October 21st 1994. Article 2 of this Senate ratified and binding Convention states that:

1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.

Is Gitmo classified as a “territory under [The United States’] jurisdiction?” If so, we are bound under Article 2 to take action to prevent torture. Does that include trying and punishing those who do or did torture in order to discourage others from doing it? Where do “black sites” apply, if at all?

2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political in stability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.

It is pretty clear that war or imminent threat of attack is not a legal excuse to torture. Was 9/11 a “public emergency” and/or a “threat of war?” Of course it was, but that is not an excuse to torture according to this treaty.

3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.

It can’t be stated much more plainly than that – The Nuremberg Defense is clearly thrown out the window here.

So it appears as if many of our questions have already been answered by this legally binding treaty signed by the US. If you want to argue against them, that’s fine, but you’ve got a big fat treaty signed by your country that says otherwise. The next logical step then is that the US is not bound by any treaties which it has signed, and that we can disregard treaties as we see fit. Is that really a road that we want to go down?

[afx114]

I wonder if asking whether or not torture works is even relevant to the issue at hand. It seems to me that if we signed a treaty against the use of torture, we are bound by that treaty to not torture. It doesn’t matter if it worked or not, if we torture — regardless of the results — we are breaking an international treaty. Read the full treaty yourself here.

The United States ratified the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment on October 21st 1994. Article 2 of this Senate ratified and binding Convention states that:

1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.

Is Gitmo classified as a “territory under [The United States’] jurisdiction?” If so, we are bound under Article 2 to take action to prevent torture. Does that include trying and punishing those who do or did torture in order to discourage others from doing it? Where do “black sites” apply, if at all?

2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political in stability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.

It is pretty clear that war or imminent threat of attack is not a legal excuse to torture. Was 9/11 a “public emergency” and/or a “threat of war?” Of course it was, but that is not an excuse to torture according to this treaty.

3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.

It can’t be stated much more plainly than that – The Nuremberg Defense is clearly thrown out the window here.

So it appears as if many of our questions have already been answered by this legally binding treaty signed by the US. If you want to argue against them, that’s fine, but you’ve got a big fat treaty signed by your country that says otherwise. The next logical step then is that the US is not bound by any treaties which it has signed, and that we can disregard treaties as we see fit. Is that really a road that we want to go down?

[afx114]

I wonder if asking whether or not torture works is even relevant to the issue at hand. It seems to me that if we signed a treaty against the use of torture, we are bound by that treaty to not torture. It doesn’t matter if it worked or not, if we torture — regardless of the results — we are breaking an international treaty. Read the full treaty yourself here.

The United States ratified the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment on October 21st 1994. Article 2 of this Senate ratified and binding Convention states that:

1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.

Is Gitmo classified as a “territory under [The United States’] jurisdiction?” If so, we are bound under Article 2 to take action to prevent torture. Does that include trying and punishing those who do or did torture in order to discourage others from doing it? Where do “black sites” apply, if at all?

2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political in stability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.

It is pretty clear that war or imminent threat of attack is not a legal excuse to torture. Was 9/11 a “public emergency” and/or a “threat of war?” Of course it was, but that is not an excuse to torture according to this treaty.

3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.

It can’t be stated much more plainly than that – The Nuremberg Defense is clearly thrown out the window here.

So it appears as if many of our questions have already been answered by this legally binding treaty signed by the US. If you want to argue against them, that’s fine, but you’ve got a big fat treaty signed by your country that says otherwise. The next logical step then is that the US is not bound by any treaties which it has signed, and that we can disregard treaties as we see fit. Is that really a road that we want to go down?

[afx114]

There is a talk on KPBS right now exactly about this very subject:

http://www.kpbs.org/radio/these_days;id=14411

New research gives a clue that technology and the vast information it provides may actually be changing and re-tooling the way the brains of younger people work. The generation called millennials, who grew up alongside the digital technology explosion, are displaying faster-decision making skills, and of course, an affinity for the workings of high-tech devices.

But that doesn’t necessarily leave the rest of us out in the cold. My guest says using high-tech devices may be a good way for adults to keep their brains young. And those young people, with all that fast cognition, may eventually have to brush up on that face to face communicating.

Pigs are ahead of the curve as usual!

[afx114]

There is a talk on KPBS right now exactly about this very subject:

http://www.kpbs.org/radio/these_days;id=14411

New research gives a clue that technology and the vast information it provides may actually be changing and re-tooling the way the brains of younger people work. The generation called millennials, who grew up alongside the digital technology explosion, are displaying faster-decision making skills, and of course, an affinity for the workings of high-tech devices.

But that doesn’t necessarily leave the rest of us out in the cold. My guest says using high-tech devices may be a good way for adults to keep their brains young. And those young people, with all that fast cognition, may eventually have to brush up on that face to face communicating.

Pigs are ahead of the curve as usual!

[afx114]

There is a talk on KPBS right now exactly about this very subject:

http://www.kpbs.org/radio/these_days;id=14411

New research gives a clue that technology and the vast information it provides may actually be changing and re-tooling the way the brains of younger people work. The generation called millennials, who grew up alongside the digital technology explosion, are displaying faster-decision making skills, and of course, an affinity for the workings of high-tech devices.

But that doesn’t necessarily leave the rest of us out in the cold. My guest says using high-tech devices may be a good way for adults to keep their brains young. And those young people, with all that fast cognition, may eventually have to brush up on that face to face communicating.

Pigs are ahead of the curve as usual!

[afx114]

There is a talk on KPBS right now exactly about this very subject:

http://www.kpbs.org/radio/these_days;id=14411

New research gives a clue that technology and the vast information it provides may actually be changing and re-tooling the way the brains of younger people work. The generation called millennials, who grew up alongside the digital technology explosion, are displaying faster-decision making skills, and of course, an affinity for the workings of high-tech devices.

But that doesn’t necessarily leave the rest of us out in the cold. My guest says using high-tech devices may be a good way for adults to keep their brains young. And those young people, with all that fast cognition, may eventually have to brush up on that face to face communicating.

Pigs are ahead of the curve as usual!

[afx114]

There is a talk on KPBS right now exactly about this very subject:

http://www.kpbs.org/radio/these_days;id=14411

New research gives a clue that technology and the vast information it provides may actually be changing and re-tooling the way the brains of younger people work. The generation called millennials, who grew up alongside the digital technology explosion, are displaying faster-decision making skills, and of course, an affinity for the workings of high-tech devices.

But that doesn’t necessarily leave the rest of us out in the cold. My guest says using high-tech devices may be a good way for adults to keep their brains young. And those young people, with all that fast cognition, may eventually have to brush up on that face to face communicating.

Pigs are ahead of the curve as usual!

[afx114]

Now that more details are trickling out, it’s all starting to make sense. It appears as if torture was used in an attempt to extract information that would tie Al Qaeda to Iraq in order to justify the invasion.

Of course, there was no link between Al Qaeda and Iraq, which probably explains why people like KSM had to be waterboarded 180+ times. I wonder if these guys figured that if they pushed hard enough that he would say anything, even that he was buddies with Saddam? That break would certainly justify the invasion in the minds of the administration and almost certainly in the majority of the US public. “See, we had to go into Iraq… to get Al Qaeda. Remember 9-11?”

Paul Krugman said it well:

Let’s say this slowly: the Bush administration wanted to use 9/11 as a pretext to invade Iraq, even though Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. So it tortured people to make them confess to the nonexistent link.

There’s a word for this: it’s evil.

Apparently the ‘success’ claimed by torture backers had to do with figuring out the power structure of Al Qaeda rather than any sort of pending attack upon America.

I just wish they’d release all of the info so that we can let the chips fall where they may.

Do any of these new details change anyones positions on torture? I suppose you could have different answers for both this specific case and torture in general.

I also wonder if the ‘do not prosecute’ crowd would have had the same argument in regards to the Japanese we executed following WWII for waterboarding American POWs.

[afx114]

Now that more details are trickling out, it’s all starting to make sense. It appears as if torture was used in an attempt to extract information that would tie Al Qaeda to Iraq in order to justify the invasion.

Of course, there was no link between Al Qaeda and Iraq, which probably explains why people like KSM had to be waterboarded 180+ times. I wonder if these guys figured that if they pushed hard enough that he would say anything, even that he was buddies with Saddam? That break would certainly justify the invasion in the minds of the administration and almost certainly in the majority of the US public. “See, we had to go into Iraq… to get Al Qaeda. Remember 9-11?”

Paul Krugman said it well:

Let’s say this slowly: the Bush administration wanted to use 9/11 as a pretext to invade Iraq, even though Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. So it tortured people to make them confess to the nonexistent link.

There’s a word for this: it’s evil.

Apparently the ‘success’ claimed by torture backers had to do with figuring out the power structure of Al Qaeda rather than any sort of pending attack upon America.

I just wish they’d release all of the info so that we can let the chips fall where they may.

Do any of these new details change anyones positions on torture? I suppose you could have different answers for both this specific case and torture in general.

I also wonder if the ‘do not prosecute’ crowd would have had the same argument in regards to the Japanese we executed following WWII for waterboarding American POWs.

[Author]

Posts