US 'erodes' global human rights

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2005-01-13 03:51pm

Violations of human rights by the US are undermining international law and eroding its role on the world stage, a leading campaign group says.

Human Rights Watch says the US can no longer claim to defend human rights abroad if it practises abuses itself.

It urges the creation of an independent US commission to examine prisoner abuse at Iraq's US-run Abu Ghraib jail.

Washington says it has condemned the abuse and is investigating allegations in Iraq and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

'Rights betrayal'

HRW says the US can no longer claim the moral high ground and lead by example.

It cites coercive interrogation techniques at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib jail as particularly damaging.

The group, the largest US-based rights organisation, says the actions of the US in such detention centres have undermined Washington's credibility as a proponent of human rights and a leader of the war against terror.

"Its embrace of coercive interrogation [is] part of a broader betrayal of human rights principles in the name of combating terrorism," HRW says.

The group calls for the Bush administration to set up a fully independent investigative commission, similar to the 9/11 Commission, to look into the Abu Ghraib allegations.

It also urges a special prosecutor to be appointed to determine what went wrong and to hold those responsible to account.

US State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said eight investigations had already been completed and junior soldiers were being prosecuted.

"We do not condone torture or abuse of prisoners," he said.

"The actions of the administration have been quite clear in prosecuting this and investigating it and bringing it to light."

Last August, an independent commission came to the conclusion that the American soldiers who ran the Iraqi jail were mainly to blame.

Trials of a group of soldiers accused of being at the heart of the Baghdad prison scandal are under way at a military court in Texas.

'Inaction' criticised

Last week the US defence department announced a new investigation into allegations of prisoner abuse at Guantanamo Bay.

However, according to the report, the impact of the abuse scandals has already seriously damaged the US's role as champion of human rights, reverberating worldwide.

When the US classified what was happening in Sudan's Darfur region as genocide it was immediately accused by the country's government of using Darfur as part of "a global American assault on Islam and Arabs", the report notes.

HRW criticises the US and other Western powers for handing the situation to the relatively inexperienced African Union.

"The situation cries out for the involvement by major military powers but they have chosen to be unavailable," the report says.

"Continued inaction risks undermining a fundamental rights principle: that the nations of the world will never let sovereignty stand in the way of their responsibility to protect people from mass atrocities."

BBC

SyntaxVorlon · Post by **SyntaxVorlon** » 2005-01-13 04:01pm

Here's me, embarassed for my country.

Admiral_K · Post by **Admiral_K** » 2005-01-13 04:29pm

My view is, if you knowingly and willingly work with terrorist organizations you give up your "human rights". I'm in favor of extracting information from these scum by any means neccessary.

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2005-01-13 04:33pm

Admiral_K wrote:My view is, if you knowingly and willingly work with terrorist organizations you give up your "human rights". I'm in favor of extracting information from these scum by any means neccessary.

Ah, is that the Republican party line in your mouth or Rumsfelds cock? It's hard to tell from this angle.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2005-01-13 04:34pm

Admiral_K wrote:My view is, if you knowingly and willingly work with terrorist organizations you give up your "human rights". I'm in favor of extracting information from these scum by any means neccessary.

And we know that these people "knowingly and willingly work with terrorist organizations" based on what? Their conviction in a fair trial? Sorry, Ashcroft doesn't see the need for that. So how do you know you're dealing with a guilty man? The fact that he eventually confesses under torture? Kid, give me a transformer and some clip-on electrodes and I can make you confess to anything.

Big Phil · Post by **Big Phil** » 2005-01-13 04:38pm

Admiral_K wrote:My view is, if you knowingly and willingly work with terrorist organizations you give up your "human rights". I'm in favor of extracting information from these scum by any means neccessary.

Should we therefore torture people who protest abortion clinics for "terrorizing" the patients and employees? Let's round them up, torture them until we know all their plans, and then round the rest of them up and torture them some more. It's a pretty arbitrary definition.

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2005-01-13 04:39pm

Darth Wong wrote:
Admiral_K wrote:My view is, if you knowingly and willingly work with terrorist organizations you give up your "human rights". I'm in favor of extracting information from these scum by any means neccessary.
And we know that these people "knowingly and willingly work with terrorist organizations" based on what? Their conviction in a fair trial? Sorry, Ashcroft doesn't see the need for that. So how do you know you're dealing with a guilty man? The fact that he eventually confesses under torture? Kid, give me a transformer and some clip-on electrodes and I can make you confess to anything.

It reminds me of a point made by a british police officer in a documentary not long after 9/11. He was very big on the point that terrorists are criminals, and should be treated as such. They commit crimes for whatever reason, justice is blind it doesnt matter if you murdered for kicks, money or ideology, you're still a murderer in the eyes of the law.

Thus two words : Due process.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2005-01-13 04:40pm

Admiral_K wrote:My view is, if you knowingly and willingly work with terrorist organizations you give up your "human rights". I'm in favor of extracting information from these scum by any means neccessary.

Well, I wouldn't say they give up their human rights, but they do forgo their right to be treated like normal POWs if they are part of an organization that operates outside of the Geneva Convention. The problem is the fact that so many of the people who are held on this basis are probably completely innocent and aren't being given any sort the legal protections they're entitled to.

Enforcer Talen · Post by **Enforcer Talen** » 2005-01-13 04:59pm

still number 1.

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » 2005-01-13 05:05pm

The whole problem with the argument 'these are really bad dudes and they gave up their human rights' is that we're treating SUSPECTS this way, not guys who have been convicted of something through due process. That's what makes me most uncomfortable.

As they said in TROOPS: "All suspects are guilty ... otherwise, they wouldn't be suspects, would they?"

That is *not* an American creed, and I don't want it to be.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2005-01-13 07:56pm

Joe wrote:
Admiral_K wrote:My view is, if you knowingly and willingly work with terrorist organizations you give up your "human rights". I'm in favor of extracting information from these scum by any means neccessary.
Well, I wouldn't say they give up their human rights, but they do forgo their right to be treated like normal POWs if they are part of an organization that operates outside of the Geneva Convention. The problem is the fact that so many of the people who are held on this basis are probably completely innocent and aren't being given any sort the legal protections they're entitled to.

Agree whole heartedly, though that just leaves the small problem of the Administration giving them *prisoners* a tribunal to put them in a 'illegal combatent' status. So Bush is still fucking it up. I have no problem with alot of what he's doing, just stand their ass up infront of the tribunial and sort out the ones we want and then seat'em, as per the GC.

On the OP, there is currently a court martial going on for Abu Ghraib fiasco and I feel confindent that the bitch and her boyfriend will be found guilty and serve quite a few years making big rocks into small rocks.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2005-01-13 08:05pm

I'm confident that a lot of heads will roll over Abu Ghraib. But none of the ones who were actually responsible for it in the first place. There's no evidence of torture being official DoD policy, but all these officers who oversaw it at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo obviously got the idea that it was OK somewhere higher up.

Admiral_K · Post by **Admiral_K** » 2005-01-13 08:15pm

Darth Wong wrote:
Admiral_K wrote:My view is, if you knowingly and willingly work with terrorist organizations you give up your "human rights". I'm in favor of extracting information from these scum by any means neccessary.
And we know that these people "knowingly and willingly work with terrorist organizations" based on what? Their conviction in a fair trial? Sorry, Ashcroft doesn't see the need for that. So how do you know you're dealing with a guilty man? The fact that he eventually confesses under torture? Kid, give me a transformer and some clip-on electrodes and I can make you confess to anything.

You want to give terrorists a fair trial? Its not possible to combat terrorism as you would normal crime. You don't need to have enough evidence to convict someone in a "fair trial" to know what they've done. These are people who were for the most part captured out on the battlefield fighting with terrorist groups. Its not like we are radomly kicking in doors and grabbing people because they are "jews" or "muslims".

I'm not saying that the Bush administration hasn't fucked up and gotten some innocents, but innocent people go to jail everyday for other reasons. I believe by and large most of the people we've gotten are terrorists and or terrorist supporters. I don't believe we are randomly torchuring anyone.

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2005-01-13 08:21pm

Think about that. You said 'you don't need enough evidence to convict someone at a fair trial to know what they've done'.

Think about that.

How do you know what they've done, if you can't prove it? Spider-sense? The towel on their head? A history of listening to punk music?

Due process prevents misuse of power.

You even contradict yourself; you admit that innocent people are imprisoned, then wave it off. Then you claim that 'most' of them are terrorists. Then you claim noone is tortured 'at random'. From this I understand that you support detaining and torturing people, without trial, as long as it isn't 'random'.

Admiral_K · Post by **Admiral_K** » 2005-01-13 08:23pm

SancheztheWhaler wrote:
Admiral_K wrote:My view is, if you knowingly and willingly work with terrorist organizations you give up your "human rights". I'm in favor of extracting information from these scum by any means neccessary.

Should we therefore torture people who protest abortion clinics for "terrorizing" the patients and employees? Let's round them up, torture them until we know all their plans, and then round the rest of them up and torture them some more. It's a pretty arbitrary definition.

Well I guess I should've been more specific in my definition. If you knowingly and willingly work with terrorist groups who particpate in the intentional murder of civilians in order to "terrorize" their government towards some behavior, you give up your "human rights".

Marksist · Post by **Marksist** » 2005-01-13 08:26pm

If you knowingly and willingly work with terrorist groups who particpate in the intentional murder of civilians in order to "terrorize" their government towards some behavior, you give up your "human rights".

You have to prove they are working with terrorist groups.

BoredShirtless · Post by **BoredShirtless** » 2005-01-13 08:28pm

Admiral_K wrote:You want to give terrorists a fair trial?

Unless caught in the act of terrorising, and I can assure you most kept in Cuba were not, you NEED a fucking trial to find out whether they ARE terrorists!

Its not possible to combat terrorism as you would normal crime.

And why the fuck not?

You don't need to have enough evidence to convict someone in a "fair trial" to know what they've done.

BWAHAHAHA!!!!

These are people who were for the most part captured out on the battlefield fighting with terrorist groups.

Prove it.

Its not like we are radomly kicking in doors and grabbing people because they are "jews" or "muslims".

And who said you were?

I'm not saying that the Bush administration hasn't fucked up and gotten some innocents, but innocent people go to jail everyday for other reasons. I believe by and large most of the people we've gotten are terrorists and or terrorist supporters. I don't believe we are randomly torchuring anyone.

Then you live in a fantasy, where American Commandos can take out 50 Arabs and the US government stands for truth and justice!

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2005-01-13 08:30pm

Admiral_K wrote:
Well I guess I should've been more specific in my definition. If you knowingly and willingly work with terrorist groups who particpate in the intentional murder of civilians in order to "terrorize" their government towards some behavior, you give up your "human rights".

Stand them up infront of a military tribunial, per the GC. If convicted, they are an illegal combatent and not elegable for the protections of the GC. Then sweat them.

Still, I'm in total favor of even then, our goverment protect some semblence of their dignity and well being. I don't want torture used, at least not as SOP.

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2005-01-13 08:30pm

Marksist wrote:You have to prove they are working with terrorist groups.

Ah, but you dont need to prove anything if you already know they're guilty...or at least not someone you like the look of...

BoredShirtless · Post by **BoredShirtless** » 2005-01-13 08:33pm

Admiral_K wrote:Well I guess I should've been more specific in my definition. If you knowingly and willingly work with terrorist groups who particpate in the intentional murder of civilians in order to "terrorize" their government towards some behavior, you give up your "human rights".

Then you're no better then them, and will help perpetuate the cycle.

BoredShirtless · Post by **BoredShirtless** » 2005-01-13 08:38pm

Keevan_Colton wrote:
Marksist wrote:You have to prove they are working with terrorist groups.
Ah, but you dont need to prove anything if you already know they're guilty...or at least not someone you like the look of...

Admiral K is assuming the guys and gals in Guantameno are terrorists. To call someone a terrorist, you need to either catch them in the act, or have proof then show that proof in a trial. Since he's against trials, he must therefore assume they were all caught in the act. Which is obviously total bullshit.

EmperorChrostas the Cruel · Post by **EmperorChrostas the Cruel** » 2005-01-13 08:40pm

Stark asked:
Think about that. You said 'you don't need enough evidence to convict someone at a fair trial to know what they've done'.

Think about that.

How do you know what they've done, if you can't prove it? Spider-sense? The towel on their head? A history of listening to punk music?
Stark shows he doesn't understand the legal system.

Criminal trials have a level of proof far greater than that of civil trials, yet would you dispute the results of a civil trial because it didn't meet the burden of proof required for a criminal case?
The level of proof is "beyond reasonable doubt", rather than preponderance of evidence, and requires a unanimous verdict, rather than majority vertdict.

Thus the level of proof required to win a civil case, or even prove a logical point, is insufficience in many cases to win a criminal conviction.

This COMPETELY ignors rules of evidence, (turn over the list of your agents/informers who plan to testify to the defence, yah right!) and exclusionary rule.
Evidence illegaly obtained is useles for a criminal trial, yet still quite valid for DETERMINING THE THRUTH!

If you could subject the terrorist to the level of proof in a civil case, no "discovery" of classified assets, (are we to extract and transport foriegn informers to the USA for trial) and no cross exam in person of classified assets. (Bringing them to court in and of itself can reveal who the agent is, via a "coincidental" disapearance during the trial.)

BoredShirtless · Post by **BoredShirtless** » 2005-01-13 08:44pm

EmperorChrostas the Cruel, would it kill you to learn how to quote?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2005-01-13 11:15pm

EmperorChrostas the Cruel wrote:Criminal trials have a level of proof far greater than that of civil trials, yet would you dispute the results of a civil trial because it didn't meet the burden of proof required for a criminal case?

If these people were even getting the benefit of trials using the standard of evidence found in civil cases, you might have a point. However, since they are getting no trial at all, your point is moot.

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2005-01-14 01:50am

Admiral_K wrote:
SancheztheWhaler wrote:
Admiral_K wrote:My view is, if you knowingly and willingly work with terrorist organizations you give up your "human rights". I'm in favor of extracting information from these scum by any means neccessary.

Should we therefore torture people who protest abortion clinics for "terrorizing" the patients and employees? Let's round them up, torture them until we know all their plans, and then round the rest of them up and torture them some more. It's a pretty arbitrary definition.
Well I guess I should've been more specific in my definition. If you knowingly and willingly work with terrorist groups who particpate in the intentional murder of civilians in order to "terrorize" their government towards some behavior, you give up your "human rights".

The problem with this line of reasoning is that you would make yourself into that which you despise.