Comments on: Bravo Charles

By: x

Fri, 04 Feb 2005 08:27:01 +0000

Anyway, since it’s clear some basic concepts are hard to get through no matter how often repeated, here’s for reference, to start with: Summary of International and U.S. Law Prohibiting Torture and Other Ill-treatment of Persons in Custody bq. International and U.S. law prohibits torture and other ill-treatment of any person in custody in all circumstances. The prohibition applies to the United States during times of peace, armed conflict, or a state of emergency. Any person, whether a U.S. national or a non-citizen, is protected. It is irrelevant whether the detainee is determined to be a prisoner-of-war, a protected person, or a so-called “security detainee” or “unlawful combatant.” And the prohibition is in effect within the territory of the United States or any place anywhere U.S. authorities have control over a person. In short, the prohibition against torture and ill-treatment is absolute. If anything’s still not clear, I suggest a good dictionary to check the meaning of “and”, “national”, “irrelevant”, “any”, “place”, “absolute”. You’re welcome.

By: x

Fri, 04 Feb 2005 08:19:59 +0000

Oh, and on that last pearl of wisdom – “And clearly you’ve a sharper understanding of international law than the lawyers whoe were advising the interrogators” No, of course, if the Pentagon and CIA had lawyers advising the “interrogators”, then we must obviously grant them the power to rewrite the laws at their own will, to the point of breaking them. Because obviously the military of one country not only holds the judiciary powers of that country (together with the executive, of course!), but is also the absolute abriter of all international law that country ratified. And classified memos, which everyone pretends they didn’t really write or were not official policy anyway, are to replace all other laws. Now that is “sharp” understanding of the law! Jawhol.

By: x

Fri, 04 Feb 2005 08:10:19 +0000

“So my “advice” to you in your case, is to follow the primacy rule – lead with the strongest case of torture – not the weakest like these. I wont help you and it wont help your clients.” We’re not talking of individual lawyers taking up the case of an individual detainee. These people are being denied any recourse to lawyers at all, have you forgot that? We were talking applicability of international conventions and national laws against torture and unlawful detainment. Nothing loony about that, so no need for your cheap pathetic sarcasm. Keep on bitching about the “unseriousness” of the specific incident in this one article, if you prefer. You clearly don’t give two shits about the serious ones either.

By: Giles

Giles — Thu, 03 Feb 2005 17:31:41 +0000

As a clerk in criminal defense it was normally my job to deal with well off swivel eyed loons who’d come in brandishing international conventions and demanding recourse. I’m not expert in international law I’d say, but you seem to know much more about it than me – maybe you’d be better off litigating in person. And clearly you’ve a sharper understanding of international law than the lawyers whoe were advising the interrogators so I’m sure your action is going to be a slam dunk. But is you were ever interested, my point was that I, and alot of other people, would not consider the incidents above to be serious “torture” if they are to be construed as torture at all. So my “advice” to you in your case, is to follow the primacy rule – lead with the strongest case of torture – not the weakest like these. I wont help you and it wont help your clients.

By: x

Thu, 03 Feb 2005 10:33:24 +0000

giles, this is becoming extremely tedious – the specific conventions against torture do have “automatic direct applicability” in all countries where they have been ratified and further transformed into national law. How many different ways of putting that do you need? That’s fact, it doesn’t take a lawyer or the State Department to figure out because it’s the basics of the way laws function. No one is denying the jurisdiction or applicability of those anti-torture laws, not even the US government, not even the torture memos managed to pull that off because it’s impossible. You either abolish a law or if you maintain it, you have to respect it. What the US government tried to do is, first try and claim that the powers of the US president during a war can extend to bypassing all laws, national ones first and foremost; that was the torture memos. Parallel to that effort, which only came to the surface later, the other approach was to politically delegitimise anything “international” (while conveniently dismissing, as you do, the fact it’s also translated into national law), that was the Rumsfeld comments on the Geneva conventions as relates to the very existence of Guantanamo. Comments that later, when the Abu Ghraib scandal came out, were sort of recanted. The other effort consisted simply in not giving a rat’s ass about compliance with laws, especially when they have an international reach, something the US government is very good at, and something it has an easy game of, because of that bedrock of nationalistic acritical patriotism within public opinion that has been even more easily manipulated in the last few years. Lastly, the most effective effort at sidestepping the legal questions is to simply deny that torture is being perpetrated as policy, deny that the cases that have emerged are the responsibility of those in command. The “just a few bad apples” trick. But none of these political games change the fact of the applicability of conventions against torture. At most, Guantanamo is being claimed as a sort of “emergency” exception – again, a political approach, not a legal one, the legal aspect is simply being swept under the carpet; but no one has claimed the right to officially forsake all anti-torture laws, because that would require abrogation of laws. Just because a government flaunts or sidesteps legal requirements, doesn’t mean those requirements are no longer there. Do you understand that? An executive can do its best (worst) to try and blur the separation of powers, but it cannot pretend laws do not exist. So, there is no “weak legalistic argument” and no question of “what if it doesnt come within any international jurisdiction”. Again, there is also national jurisdiction. “Will you then conclude that this torture was morally ok?” Oh man. It is very hard to try and follow or even guess what reasoning you are adopting here. Please just go and read up about this whole issue of conventions and laws against torture, otherwise it’s impossible to even have the foundation of a rational exchange. You’re making up a lot of ridiculous non-objections, which have no basis in reality. Do you need anyone to explain to you how laws work, from the grounds up? Or how morality is related to laws? Or what ratified international law means? “Does the fact that the death penalty in the US and China is legal make it ok?” Obviously not, duh, but that is not the same thing as torture. The US did not sign up to any conventions to ban the death penalty so it retains the right, overtly, to have it in its legal system. So the debate on the death penalty in the US is still open at the political level because it is perfectly legal in the US. The debate on torture is not open because torture is illegal! Do you see the difference betwen something banned under your own legal system and something that’s overtly part of that very same legal system? come on. “So I’m not engaging in the legalistic arguement simply because I find it so morally vacuous. ” Ha. I can’t believe this. You’re not engaging in any argument at all, giles. Moral, political, or legal – I haven’t seen anything in your comments except inane attempts to evade the whole issue. “You cant stop all abuse and so you need to decide which are the most serious and target accordingly. The use of fake red ink ranks,well, about no one million in terms of seriousness when compared to the tortures that happened last year around the world. This post not only insults those who were maimed and tortured to death, it tivialises the whole concept of human rights.” Really? The nerve. If I was a cynical bastard, I’d even admire this. You’re once again conveniently obsessing on this one story of the “red ink”, missing its context and meaning, ignoring the whole surrounding reports of people being beaten to death, hung from ceilings, prodded like cattle, not to mention the very fact they’re detained indefinitely with no charges and no trial, ie. unlawufully, something you yourself said you consider “wrong”, and then have the nerve to adopt that very ridiculous “there’s always worse” excuse. So the US should be immune from any criticism and its violations ignored, because the Kazahki regime does worse? If I kill one person, can I point to someone else who killed twenty, will the police let me off? If that’s how you think the law works, then good luck. Preaching about trivialising human rights, no less. I’m beyond disgusted by now. You have no idea how sick it sounds to hear Americans defend or minimise abuses their government commits in the name of “freedom” “liberty” “democracy”. But hey, I’m grateful for the honesty at least. It’s more than your government does.

By: Giles

Giles — Thu, 03 Feb 2005 04:00:10 +0000

The point about Jurisdiction is simply that you have to establish it before you can invoke international laws; there arent any(many?) international laws that have automatic direct applicability. So my point is simply – do you think you’re a better lawyer than the state dept – who have, I suspect thought about the issue in rather more depth than you. Secondly, again the legalistic arguement is rather weak; what if it doesnt come within any international jurisdiction? Will you then conclude that this torture was morally ok? If the Iraq war was legally justified does that make it ok? Does the fact that the death penalty in the US and China is legal make it ok? So I’m not engaging in the legalistic arguement simply because I find it so morally vacuous. Re the Kazaks (nb the morrocans did the same thing 10 years ago) – the point is that enforcing human rights involves allocating scarce rescources. You cant stop all abuse and so you need to decide which are the most serious and target accordingly. The use of fake red ink ranks,well, about no one million in terms of seriousness when compared to the tortures that happened last year around the world. This post not only insults those who were maimed and tortured to death, it tivialises the whole concept of human rights.

By: x

Wed, 02 Feb 2005 22:58:43 +0000

giles, I’ll be polite: what I don’t understand is how you can expect to be taken seriously when you refer to vague “jurisdiction problems for international law”, and leave it at that, as if, by the power of your verbal positing of these problems, international law on torture, and its national applications, magically disappear into the void. It’s fact, not my “opining”, but fact, that even the US government cannot deny, try as they might (and, again, it’s interesting how they had to keep switching the approach), that torture is precisely defined and banned under laws the US is subject to, both international (conventions, treaties) and national. That is the one “problem”, the elephant in the room that you’re pretending not to see. Precise laws are being broken by governments who ratified them (the UK government too, they do a good job of reproaching the US and getting their citizens out of Guantanamo, but then they still have their own smaller-scale equivalents). Are you just flat out denying this is happening at all, or you just don’t want to think about it? And yeah, like Uncle Kvetch, I’m curious about that Kazahki reference too. What does it have to do with anything? I only hope you weren’t trying to imply that US standards of respect for human rights and international law should be measured against one of the countries with the worst violations of same, where they jail dissenters and close down entire opposition parties and journalists get killed. Because if it’s always going to be “America, at least not as bad as that” where “that” is anything from Saddam to non-democratic Central Asian regimes, well, there’s just no point wasting more time. By definition, nothing is ever going to be as bad as that which is worse. This simple truism doesn’t grant the US impunity and immunity from breaking its own laws, not to mention, principles, but since you don’t see laws and ethics as related, we can skip that part… Out of curiosity, giles, if you don’t mind me asking, how old are you?

By: Uncle Kvetch

Uncle Kvetch — Wed, 02 Feb 2005 18:12:40 +0000

If you dont understand the problems of jurisdiction and international law, maybe you should steer clear of opining on the law, x? If you’re not going to rebut the substance of X’s comments, Giles, maybe you should steer clear of commenting at all. It just makes you look silly: “Oh yeah? Well you don’t know what you’re talking about. So THERE!” You still haven’t told me how the Kazakhstan government’s “boiling alive” of a suspected terrorist is at all relevant to this discussion. Are you going to just let it hang there and twist in the wind?

By: Uncle Kvetch

Uncle Kvetch — Wed, 02 Feb 2005 18:11:08 +0000

By: Giles

Giles — Wed, 02 Feb 2005 15:39:22 +0000

If you dont understand the problems of jurisdiction and international law, maybe you should steer clear of opining on the law, x?

By: x

Wed, 02 Feb 2005 08:54:34 +0000

arguements about international law are normally pointless simply because prosecutions invariably end up revolving around jursidictional issues, not the substantive ones Have no idea wtf that’s supposed to mean, but, as regards “jurisdiction”, I don’t know which part isn’t clear to you about the fact that international laws are not only applicable for all countries that ratified them, but also made into further national laws. The US government has gone from trying to claim they can take their own exceptions to both intl. and national law (declaring neverending war on a neverending enemy, then extending the President’s power in that “war”), to trying to claim that there are no systematic abuses whatsoever anyway apart from a few bad apples who no one in command told to do what they did, so all is fine and dandy on the legal front. All these excuses do not have any impact on jurisdiction matter. Once you have a law, you either respect it or break it, but until you abolish it, it’s still valid. As for anti-torture laws not having anything to do with morality… what can I say? Can it get more insane than this?

By: Giles

Giles — Tue, 01 Feb 2005 23:01:14 +0000

No the point I’m making is that when making a case its normally best to lead with your strongest points/cases. The problem with the fake menstrual blood is that as far as I can see its one of the weakest instances that could be immagined. Leading a prosecution with this instance therefore tends to weaken the case not strengthen it. Which is why I found the post odd – there are better stories out there, why lead with the weakest one if it’ll just undermine the case. Odd I think. x sure there are definitions of torture out there but in my epxerience, arguements about international law are normally pointless simply because prosecutions invariably end up revolving around jursidictional issues, not the substantive ones. whetehr its legal or illegal under international law is therefore normally a moot issue – it doesnt affect the reality or morality of the situation.

By: Uncle Kvetch

Uncle Kvetch — Tue, 01 Feb 2005 19:19:03 +0000

3&4 “Anyone” seems to be identified as representative of their religion by you, not their compatriots. You see what I find odd is that recently the Kazaks boiled alive an Al Qaida leader, and yet I’ve heard not a peep about whehter this was provaicative or not. I have no idea what you mean by this. Boiling people alive is not “provocative”—it’s ghastly. Full stop. Is that the fact that it’s done, in this case, by Muslims some kind of validation of your opinion? For the life of me I can’t figure out why.

By: x

Tue, 01 Feb 2005 18:41:56 +0000

Lastly – you’re coming up with absurd and unnecessary analogies, the reported incidents are clear already. Article I of the UN Convention against Torture, and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment: bq. torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions. Even if we chose to conveniently obsess only on the “fake menstrual blood” incident, and interestingly ignore all the other allegations, since they provide a lot less material for racist mockery and juvenile jokes, the problem is not “women being guards went agains these guys beleifs etc.”, dear Giles. The problem is the use of overt intimidation, coercion and degradation by public officials. The means they chose in this one incident are indeed exploiting religious superstitions, but that’s not what makes them degrading treatment, it’s the methods. Like I said, and interestingly no one in the “it’s only red ink” chorus took that in, if I, a woman, was subjected to the same treatment by another woman police officer, you bet I’d consider it degrading, degrading to the role of officials in the first place. I don’t know any other woman who would have no problem with a police officer treating her like that. If it had happened to any white non-Muslim American citizen in any ordinary police station in the US, you’d hear screams of outrage all the way to the White House. Then again, if I was in Guantanamo, I would only wish the most degrading form of treatment was limited to officers pretending to smear their bodily fluids on you and rubbing their butts on your face. What about the forest behind that tree? Any chance?

By: x

Tue, 01 Feb 2005 18:23:08 +0000

“I cant rebut x’s points untill I know what legal definition she’s using for torture. And on legal definitions I’d rather leave it to the courts an lawyers.” Giles, my dear, I can assure you I’m not the one with a personal definition of torture here. I can also assure you it’s not individual courts or lawyers who hold the magic key to the definition business, either. Definitions are set primarily at international level in the Geneva Conventions and the UN Conventions against torture. Each nation that ratified these conventions has also coded them into national law. In Europe, there’s also the European conventions on human rights which add another layer between the international and national law. So you see there are at lest three levels of strictly legal definitions to consider before we even get into the business of discussing our own personal preferences or views or exceptions, which would hold no relevance whatsoever anyway. So, again: it does not matter what you or I or Mr Bush thinks is torture. The US, like dozens of other nations is bound to international conventions and national laws that do define it very clearly. The fact those laws are being broken in Guantanamo (and in the UK too) does not mean they do not apply. Is that so difficult to process mentally?