no torture's topics - tribe.net

Over the Top ?

Bloke72 — Sat, 05 Jan 2008 02:58:42 GMT

A Government may have the right to enforce its Visa laws.. but this seems over the top
http://www.sott.net/articles/show/145536-A-young-blonde-Icelandic-woman-s-recent-experience-visiting-the-US

posted in no torture - 1 reply

Make the connection

tashidorje — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 10:09:55 GMT

http://www.meat.org/index-1.asp?c=MYMblogaddr112106

posted in no torture - 7 replies

torture inc. torture in US prisons

tashidorje — Sun, 24 Dec 2006 09:05:21 GMT

http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=-2219733305098331331&q=nazi+america

posted in no torture - 6 replies

anti-torture constitutional amendment

demablogue — Wed, 06 Dec 2006 20:40:28 GMT

here's a proposed amendment i posted elsewhere on tribe; if you like it, please forward around widely. for the full analysis of the amendment, please visit:
http://demablogue.typepad.com

-----------------------------------
Amendment XXVIII

Section 1. Amendments V, VI, and VIII shall be understood to apply to all persons, US citizens and non-citizens alike, in times of war as well as in times of peace.

Section 2. Neither the US government nor any branch of the Military or the Intelligence Services shall hold any person without trial or without access to a lawyer, under any circumstances whatsoever.

Section 3. Neither the US government nor any of its agencies shall hold any person, citizen or non-citizen, in any form of secret prison or detention center. Any prison operated by the US government or any of its agencies shall allow access by the media, lawyers, the Red Cross or any other medical agency, and any international watchdog agency wishing to verify the humane conditions therein. These agencies or persons must have access to individual prisoners for private interviews for the purposes of verifying the humane conditions of the prison.

Section 4. Torture of any kind, on any person, citizen or non-citizen, held by the US government or any of its agencies, is espressly forbidden. Torture shall be understood to mean the intentional infliction of any kind of pain or discomfort, physical, mental, or psychological, whether for the purposes of extracting information or not.

Section 5. The US government, or any of its agencies, may not transfer any prisoner, citizen or non-citizen, for any reason, to the custody of any other nation, agency, government or corporation that does not guarantee the same rights and protections specified in this amendment, or that has a verifiable record of torture or other human rights violations.

Section 6. Any prisoners currently held by the US government, or any of its agencies, in conditions prohibited by this amendment, shall be guaranteed trial or released within six months of the passage of this amendment.

posted in no torture - 6 replies

Torture and forced labour for 32 Tibetans who tried to flee their homeland to see the Dalai Lama

Dan — Wed, 07 Feb 2007 21:28:10 GMT

This group was part of a larger group that was intercepted by Chinese border police in late September. They were shot at and two people were killed. The account comes from a 15-year-old boy who was able to escape to India. All those captured were less than 20-year-old. They were imprisoned, beaten, and subjected to forced labour. Their crime: they wanted to go to India to see the Dalai Lama.

Dharamsala (AsiaNews/Agencies) – More than 30 Tibetans captured by Chinese troops in September 30, 2006, on the Nangpa La Pass, near Mount Everest, were tortured with cattle prods and forced to do hard labour, this according to Jamyang Samten, 15, who arrived on Monday at the Tibetan Reception Centre in Dharmsala after escaping from Tibet through Nepal.

The boy said he was one of 75 Tibetans who were making their way over the 5,800 metre-high Nangpa La Pass on September 30 when Chinese border guards opened fire on them, killing Kelsang Namtso, a 17-year-old Buddhist nun, and a 23-year-old man.

The story was taped by a mountaineering expedition and reported world-wide. Of those trying to escape, 41 made it into Nepal and then India; 32 were instead captured by the police. Jamyang was one of them and the first to tell his story.

According to his account, his group, all young and less than 20, hid in the snow until they ran out of food. When they came out they were arrested by the police, put on a truck and taken to some barracks.

For three days those who were 15 and over were interrogated and often beaten. They were then taken to prison in Shigatse, Tibet’s second largest city, where they were again interrogated, beaten and chained to a wall.

They were held there for 48 days during which they did forced labour, digging ditches, building fences and tilling fields, he said.

Jamyang Samten said he was released and went home. But his desire to see the Dalai Lama was so strong that he tried again to escape into India. This time he was successful, paying two Nepalese men to smuggle him over the Nepali border. He then made it to India.

Every year some three to four thousands Tibetans try to illegally escape their homeland to go to India, paying smugglers in Nepal to get them across the border.

They have to do this because it is nearly impossible for Tibetans to get a regular exit permit from Chinese authorities.

In India Tibetans are free to keep their culture and, above all, they can meet their spiritual leader, the Dalai Lama, who lives in Dharamsala, home to Tibet’s government-in-exile.

Kelsang Namtso, the 17-year-old nun killed by Chinese police, wanted to do the same thing. At least half of all those who make the perilous journey are children. Their parents want them to attend a school where they can maintain their Tibetan identity, something impossible in China.

According to the Tibetan government-in-exile, there are some 120,000 Tibetan refugees in India, Nepal and Bhutan. (PB)

posted in no torture - 2 replies

Torture is a Moral Issue

Margot — Wed, 22 Nov 2006 06:21:38 GMT

To endorse this document and encourage others to do so, visit:

http://www.nrcat.org/

posted in no torture - 6 replies

NWO

tashidorje — Wed, 15 Nov 2006 23:20:47 GMT

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=813098892376579867&q=nwo

posted in no torture - 4 replies

in support

Tue, 14 Nov 2006 06:35:37 GMT

I am in support of torturing all of the suspected and alleged until they confess and give up the information we need, if it will save lives, that's a no brainer.

My big question is, is we torturing the right or the wrong people?

posted in no torture - 19 replies

Until the leaders become God Conscious there will always be torture and war and famine.

Sun, 26 Nov 2006 04:08:47 GMT

When we realise that God owns everything we will share with our neighbors. But if we think in terms of I and mine we will selfishly look after our own country, or our own species, or our own race. When we become vegetarians a great cloud of ignorance will be lifted. People of all religions can cooperate together because we all are serving God under different names, or different concepts, but it is all the same God. And beyond all this the ultimate goal is to become free altogether from the endless cycle of birth, death, old age and disease, samsara, that we as spirit souls identifying with the temporary material body are trapped in. Most of the souls are already with God in the spiritual world. It is the minority who are still here on Earth trying to enjoy separately from Him and extending our own concepts of bodily relationships to other people or parties in order to enjoy.

posted in no torture - 4 replies

War Crimes

Margot — Tue, 14 Nov 2006 22:33:13 GMT

Human Rights groups seek criminal investigation in Germany of Rumsfeld and other high-ranking U.S. officials for authorizing torture in the “war on terror”

I found this on tassc.org

War Crimes Complaint Filed on Behalf of 11 Iraqi Victims and a Guantánamo detainee under Doctrine of Universal Jurisdiction

Rumsfeld Resignation Means He Can No Longer Claim Immunity

The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), the Republican Attorneys’ Association (RAV) and others, represented by Berlin Attorney Wolfgang Kaleck, filed a criminal complaint in Germany today alleging that high-ranking U.S. civilian and military officials, including Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, committed war crimes in Iraq and in the U.S.-controlled Guantánamo Bay prison camp. Additional co-plaintiffs include dozens of international human rights groups from various regions in the world, Nobel Peace Prize winners Aldolfo Perez Esquirel and Martín Almada as well as Theo van Boven, the former United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture.

posted in no torture - 4 replies

new tribe

tashidorje — Thu, 23 Nov 2006 01:02:49 GMT

http://tribes.tribe.net/evolveforhumanity

I am now moderating a new tribe to raise awareness about NBC conflict and proliferation as well as raise awareness about land mines and arms trade. This tribe is also being set up to raise awareness of the dangers of nuclear energy and environmmental impact of all the above.

posted in no torture - 1 reply

untorture

Margot — Mon, 06 Nov 2006 05:24:32 GMT

This isn't precisely related, but I thought it was such a good site it ought to be mentioned: an invitation to participate in an historic citizen lobbying effort to create a U.S. Department of Peace. http://www.thepeacealliance.org/

posted in no torture - 3 replies

We have a sadist deciding what's torture

Jimi — Sat, 04 Nov 2006 19:52:24 GMT

George W. Bush: The Decider Chooses Torture
by Chris Rowthorn | Nov 4 2006 - 8:57am
The Smirking Chimp

On October 17, George W. Bush signed the United States Military Commissions Act of 2006. This act frees the United States from having to abide by the Geneva Conventions. It doesn't say so explicitly, but this is what the act will do. Here is the relevant section: "the President has the authority for the United States to interpret the meaning and application of the Geneva Conventions" [Act section 6(a)(3)(A)].

It may sound incredible, but the upshot of the act is this: The Geneva Convention will no longer dictate how America's prisoners are treated. Instead, George W. Bush will. Are we to believe that Bush can be trusted to ensure that the rights of these prisoners will be respected and that they will be treated humanely? Before answering this question, let's take a look at Bush's record with regard to torture, sadism and cruelty.

On May 21, 2000, the New York Times reported that, as a child, Bush and his friends used to torture animals for pleasure, "`We were terrible to animals,' recalled [Bush's boyhood friend Terry] Throckmorton, laughing. A dip behind the Bush borne turned into a small lake after a good rain, and thousands of frogs would come out. `Everybody would get BB guns and shoot them,' Throckmorton said. `Or we'd put firecrackers in the frogs and throw them and blow them up.'" Note that the torture took place on Bush property; had Bush wanted to, he could easily have stopped this sadistic behavior. Instead, since it was his domain, it is more likely that Bush was a ringleader.

Later, while an undergrad at Yale University, Bush was a president of the Delta Kappa Epsilon fraternity, which engaged in initiation procedures described as "sadistic and obscene," including burning pledges with a hot branding iron. When the fraternity's sadistic rituals were uncovered by Yale authorities, Bush, then a Yale senior, defended the practice to the New York Times in an article that appeared on November 7, 1967, saying that the wound was "only a cigarette burn."

Later, after becoming governor of Texas, Bush oversaw the executions of 131 people. In 1998, Bush signed the death warrant for a woman named Karla Tucker, who was executed on February 3, 1998. In an interview with Tucker Carlson that appeared in the September 1999 issue of Talk Magazine, Bush mocked Tucker's last-minute pleas for clemency. In the interview, Bush imitated Tucker with an exaggerated whimper, saying, "Please don't kill me." Even famously right-wing Carlson was shocked at Bush's behavior, and he wrote that as Bush performed this sadistic imitation, "I must look shocked ˜ ridiculing the pleas of a condemned prisoner who has since been executed seems odd and cruel ˜ because he immediately stops smirking." This revolting incident may not prove that Bush has a predilection toward sadism or torture, but it reveals an inability to understand the suffering of another human being, which is a prerequisite to inflicting torture.

It has hardly surprising, then, that when he became president of the United States, Bush would actively seek ways to remove the legal restrictions on torture. The events of 9-11 provided the pretext he needed. In January, 2002, acting White House counsel Alberto Gonzales sent a memo to Bush arguing that the United States ought to torture prisoners in the war on terror (Gonzales called this a "new paradigm") and that the war on terror rendered legal restrictions on torture (the Geneva Conventions) obsolete. We can't be sure of Bush's exact response, but he must have agreed, because in August, 2002, the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, which acts as legal counsel to the White House, issued the now-famous "Torture Memo," which cleared the way for the CIA to commit torture. Specifically, it allows any act of mental or physical torture that does not lead to "serious physical injury such as death or organ failure."

Put more clearly, what happened was this: Bush's lawyer told him that United States forces should commit torture. A few months later, the White House legal counsel released a document which laid out the legal framework for committing torture (and getting away with it). In short: Someone must have said to the Bush, "We've got to torture prisoners" and the Bush must have responded, "Okay, but let's figure out a way to make it legal."

Of course, knowing Bush's predilection toward torture, and his statements on the subject post 9-11, it is quite possible that Bush initiated the whole process, and that Gonzales was merely responding to a Bush initiative to find a way to make torture legal.

This brings us to 2006.

Bush recently said, "The United States does not torture. It's against our laws and it's against our values." This is just another shameless lie from Mr. Bush. The fact is, the Bush administration actively sought ways for American forces to commit torture. The paper trail is crystal clear on this. It is not a judgment call or matter of opinion. It is established fact.

The results of Mr. Bush's words and actions are clear for all to see: the torture and abuse of the prisoners in Abu Ghraib, including cases of prisoners tortured to death (with photographs to prove it). And, of course, Abu Ghraib is only the most famous of many well-documented cases of American forces committing torture in "the war on terror." Thus, Bush's claim that "The United States does not torture" is pure fantasy.

Now, Congress has passed and Bush has signed the United States Military Commissions Act of 2006. This act gives George W. Bush the legal authority to decide how America's prisoners can and should be treated.

When we look back over George W. Bush's record -- torturing small animals as a child; defending (and probably inflicting) torture as a college student; mocking a condemned woman; and seeking to make it legal for American forces to commit torture -- we can only conclude that Mr. Bush will not just allow torture, he will order torture.

In short, the United States Congress has just given a known sadist, a man who is clearly incapable of human feeling, a man whose administration is known to have actively pursued the legal means to torture, the power to decide how America's prisoners should be treated. Ask yourself one question: If you were a prisoner of American forces, would you feel comfortable knowing that George W. Bush would decide how you would be treated? I wonder how the frogs of Crawford, Texas, would answer that one.
_______

About author Chris Rowthorn is an American journalist based in Kyoto, Japan. He has written for the Japan Times and Kansai Time Out.

posted in no torture - 5 replies

voting

Margot — Sun, 05 Nov 2006 13:08:40 GMT

Just want to urge everyone again to check your senators' and representatives votes on the Military Commissions Act before casting your ballots.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00259
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll491.xml

Someone said to me yesterday (about US Rep. Salazar--Dem. Colorado--voting Aye), "You're right; it was wrong. But I'm not a single-issue voter." To me, however, this single issue undermines our country so seriously that anything else a candidate might say or do doesn't matter. These people voted for torture, turning back the history of our country to attack the principles on which it was founded. It's a travesty that any of them should hold public office after doing so.

posted in no torture - 0 replies

useful links--TAKE ACTION

Margot — Tue, 31 Oct 2006 02:49:23 GMT

http://tassc.org/
http://denouncetorture.amnestyusa.org/site/c.huITL9MVJxE/b.1678543/k.BE00/Home.htm
www.amnesty.org/torture
http://stoptorturenow.org/site/weblog.php

ELECTED LEADERS' VOTES ON THE MILITARY COMMISSIONS ACT:
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll491.xml
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00259

posted in no torture - 11 replies

check this video out

tashidorje — Fri, 03 Nov 2006 09:00:48 GMT

http://www.atc.org.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=199&Itemid=89

human rights violations on tibetan plateau by PLA

posted in no torture - 2 replies

Rabbinic letter on torture

Margot — Fri, 03 Nov 2006 11:11:50 GMT

Rabbinic Letter on Torture

January 27, 2005
Shevat 17, 5765

Dear President Bush and Members of Congress,

On behalf of Rabbis for Human Rights North America, we write out of a deep sense of concern about the erosion of America's longstanding commitment that torture is absolutely reprehensible.

All of us have been shocked by the published pictures of the behavior of some American soldiers at Abu Ghraib. We applaud the fact that this administration is prosecuting some of the worst offenders there as well as several soldiers who were responsible for the deaths of Afghani prisoners under their protection in that other theater of war.

What is most disturbing, though, is that the documents that have been made public as these cases move forward demonstrate that the use of torture has been approved at the highest levels of the Administration, that commanders in the field have permitted much of this behavior, that directives from the Department of Defense appear to advocate the use of torture, and that even today the position of the Administration is that the members of Al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups are not covered by the provisions of the Geneva Convention. Recent reports from the Red Cross and from FBI agents, for example, raise new concerns about American treatment of detainees at Guantanamo.

We are not addressing the technical legal arguments that characterize this discussion. Rather, we want to express our moral concerns about the human situation - concerns that stem from the heart of America's values, the essence of democracy, and the soul of Jewish tradition.

We understand that the most fundamental ethical principle, which results from our belief in God as Creator of the world and Parent of all humanity, is that every human being is seen as reflecting the Image of God. Torture shatters and defiles God's Image. The purpose of torture is to remove a person's pride, humiliate them, or make their lives so painful that they say or do whatever the interrogator wants. Torture 'works' by attempting to deprive a human being of will, spirit, and personal dignity. The humanity of the perpetrators is inevitably compromised by the use of torture.

Jewish tradition calls for humane treatment even of one's adversaries. In the Book of Exodus (23:4), the Bible teaches, "When you encounter an enemy's ox or donkey, you must take it back to him." Here the religious test is, strikingly, not how one would treat a friend, but how one relates to one's enemy.

Classical Rabbinic texts are rigorous in prohibiting acts of humiliation. In Jewish tort law, an additional penalty is assessed against one who has physically injured another person when it is found that the victim also suffered, humiliation (boshet), while being wounded. Even verbal humiliation is said to be the equivalent of shedding blood. We are particularly appalled by the infliction of sexual humiliation on prisoners under United States custody. Jewish tradition upholds a high standard of personal modesty. Indeed the Bible's term for prohibited sexual behavior is to "uncover the nakedness" of another. However, even non-sexual acts that overpower a person and attempt to break their will and diminish their dignity are acts of humiliation that Jewish tradition abhors. It is significant that nowhere in the 3000-year long corpus of Jewish law is there any allowance for acts of physical coercion in interrogations.

Consider the ruling of the Supreme Court of Israel, which outlawed the use of torture in interrogations, despite the fact that terrorist organizations have Israel's annihilation as their expressed goal, carry out attacks that murder scores of men, women, and children, and do not distinguish between civilian and military targets. Despite this constant reality of cruelty and merciless savagery, the Supreme Court of Israel found no reason why tactics other than face-to-face interrogation should be allowed against any prisoner. After the fact, if/when an interrogator is charged with a violation, he is permitted to raise a defense of necessity - i.e., his actions were necessary to prevent an imminent attack endangering human life; but no permission is given before the fact, even in a country facing life-threatening terror.

At the conclusion of their decision, the Israeli jurists acknowledge that forswearing inhumane means such as torture, even for honorable ends,
"…is the destiny of democracy, as not all means are acceptable to it, and not all practices employed by its enemies are open before it. Although a democracy must fight with one hand tied behind its back, it nonetheless has the upper hand. Preserving the rule of law and recognition of an individual's liberty constitutes an important component in its understanding of security. At the end of the day, they strengthen its spirit and its strength and allow it to overcome its difficulties."

We therefore plead, first of all, that the United States of America and all members of this Administration adopt a policy which states in unequivocal terms that the use of any tactics of physical abuse, the deprivation of food, water, sleep, disorientation, or purposive humiliation of a prisoner is prohibited. This must be a basic understanding for the treatment of any captive, whether or not he or she originates from a country or belongs to a group that is a signatory to the Geneva conventions.

Secondly, we note that in the trial of Specialist Charles A. Graner, Jr., his defense lawyers have argued that he was simply following the lessons he had learned in civilian life as a prison guard. It is shocking to think that the prelude to Abu Ghraib may have been the treatment of our people in our own prisons. The demonstration of the administration's commitment to human dignity must begin at home, to insure that the same principles of human dignity we are urging the administration to adopt regarding foreign captives be equally applied to American prison inmates. Otherwise, we become what we claim to abhor.

As Jewish leaders representing all the movements of our Jewish community, in consonance with world consensus and with the teachings of Jewish tradition in every age, we call for complete repudiation and prohibition of torture for any purpose, in any instance. Furthermore we call for full investigation of all allegations of torture committed in settings under United States control and for proper legal sanctions to be applied against individuals who are found to have committed acts of torture.

We call on you as leaders of our country to ensure that the United States ban the use of torture in any and every setting under United States jurisdiction.

We look forward to hearing your views on this question and hope that you will provide much needed moral leadership for our nation.

With blessings of Shalom,

Rabbi Gerry Serotta
Chair

Rabbi Brian Walt
Executive Director

Rabbi Ellen Lippmann, N.Y.
Rabbi Simkha Weintraub N.Y
Rabbi Alana Suskin, Washington D.C.
Rabbi Edward Feld, MA
Rabbi Roberto Graetz, CA
Rabbi Joyce Galaski, CA
Rabbi Mordechai Liebling, PA
Rabbi Arthur Waskow, PA

There are actually 780 signatures on this letter. And a link to take action! http://www.stoptorture.rhr-na.org/?option=com_content&task=view&id=25&Itemid=66

posted in no torture - 0 replies

boycott Starbucks

Margot — Fri, 03 Nov 2006 05:14:45 GMT

http://forum.mpacuk.org/showthread.php?t=17264

posted in no torture - 0 replies

Close Guantanamo

Margot — Fri, 03 Nov 2006 05:08:31 GMT

Sign this petition:
http://www.amnestybahrain.org/Petition.htm

posted in no torture - 0 replies

The Methods of Nonviolent Action

Margot — Fri, 03 Nov 2006 04:52:36 GMT

I love this link:
http://www.peacemagazine.org/198.htm

Brainstorm and act! You are wonderful. New members, welcome, and thank you so much for acting!

posted in no torture - 0 replies

One easy action

Margot — Thu, 02 Nov 2006 17:30:46 GMT

Wonderful no torture Tribe members, please know that this is NOT an endorsement of any 2008 Presidential candidate. But, it seems to me that a quick and easy way to let a couple of lawmakers know how we feel about their actions regarding torture is to comment on their votes on the heinous Military Commisssions Act. Sen. Hillary Clinton voted NO. You can commend her for this show of integrity at http://clinton.senate.gov/contact/
Sen. John McCain voted AYE. You can say, HOW COULD YOU? at http://mccain.senate.gov/index.cfm?fuseaction=Contact.Home
You can contact your state's federal lawmakers, as well, after checking out their votes at http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00259 and http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll491.xml

posted in no torture - 1 reply

charming

Margot — Wed, 01 Nov 2006 03:30:00 GMT

http://nogeorgewbush.tribe.net/thread/7cfd75a5-0a8d-429e-a751-6c4ab9598c3b

posted in no torture - 0 replies

Physicians for Human Rights

Margot — Wed, 01 Nov 2006 02:25:09 GMT

http://www.phrusa.org/research/torture/

Maybe the best website.

posted in no torture - 0 replies

Questions for Candidates on U.S. Torture Policy and Practices

Margot — Tue, 31 Oct 2006 20:41:56 GMT

from http://www.nrcat.org/

“Well, this is just terrible.” “I feel sick about this.” “What’s this country coming to?” These comments reflect the reactions from all across the United States to passage of the president’s Military Commissions Act of 2006, which repudiates important U.S. Geneva Convention obligations, grants presidential authority to carry out abusive interrogations in secret prisons, and allows indefinite detention with no hope of any independent judicial review.

Congress is now in recess while members campaign, in their home districts and states, for the November elections. How do the federal candidates of all political parties in your home district and state respond to questions about U.S.-sponsored torture? What are their positions on the various issues concerning torture? extraordinary rendition? adherence to the Geneva Conventions? You can find out, using these Questions for Candidates.

These questions can be used in two ways:

“Bird-dogging”: Federal candidates need to know that torture is an important issue to the voters in their district and state. If questions about torture are asked often at public meetings, candidates will develop policy positions on the issue, and those in the audience will have the benefit of the exposure to the issues as well. Find out from each candidate’s campaign headquarters when the candidate will appear at public events. You and your friends who share a concern about torture can take turns attending these events and use the question-and-answer time to ask one or more of the attached questions. It would be helpful to join forces with a number of people for this project so that the candidates come to understand that many people have these concerns. This process also spurs candidates to take a public position on the issue.

Questionaire: Send the whole questionnaire to campaign headquarters of each candidate in your district. Be politely persistent in your efforts to urge each candidate’s campaign staff to return the completed questionnaire.

Return to Top

Background

Since the beginning of the U.S. military campaign in Afghanistan, none of the senior Pentagon and administration officials in the chain of command have been held accountable for policy decisions that led to the continued use of “harsh interrogation techniques.” As former CIA General Counsel Jeffrey H. Smith recently told the Washington Post regarding accusations of illegal activities by CIA officials, "The fault here is with more senior people who authorized interrogation techniques that amount to torture" and should now be liable, instead of "the officers who carried [them] out."

In addition,

President Bush has announced that he intends to continue a CIA program that detains individuals in secret prisons without access to the protections of the International Red Cross;

U.S. personnel have sent captured individuals to other countries where they are likely to be tortured through a process known as “extraordinary rendition;”

Recent legislation denies the habeas corpus safeguard to the hundreds of individuals detained at Guantanamo Bay without charges and to anyone captured and designated as an “enemy combatant.” Habeas corpus is the procedure by which a prisoner can challenge the legality of his or her imprisonment.

In the Hamdan decision, the U.S. Supreme Court held that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions – the baseline standard for treatment and trial of individuals in an armed conflict – applies to all individuals detained by the U.S., even those classified as “enemy combatants”.

Return to Top

Questions for Candidates on U.S. Torture Policy and Practices

We want to know where you stand on U.S. torture policy and practices. We would appreciate your answers to the following questions:

1. The U.S. Congress approved Senator John McCain’s amendment last year to ban torture by all U.S. government agencies. This move recognized that a ban on torture is not only a moral necessity but also essential to ensure the same protections for U.S. soldiers. Recent legislative action, however, allows harsh interrogation techniques to be used by non-military interrogators. Will you support future legislation that bans all U.S.-sponsored torture, with no exceptions and directs all U.S. agents to abide by the Geneva Conventions?

2. The federal War Crimes Act of 1996 defines a war crime as any “grave breach” of the Geneva Conventions’ Common Article 3. This standard ensures that those who commit such abuses, including against our own troops, do not go unpunished. Do you believe the United States should maintain an unwavering commitment to Common Article 3?

3. The president acknowledged the existence of a CIA program that indefinitely detains “enemy combatants” in secret sites outside the rule of law and without access to the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). Individuals detained in such locations are afforded no safeguards of due process and may be subject to unchecked abuses. Will you call upon the United States to cease all secret detentions and provide the ICRC access to all U.S. prisoners, as required by our international treaty obligations?

4. Under the practice of “extraordinary rendition,” the United States transports individuals from one country to another without judicial oversight to face criminal charges in the receiving country. Diplomatic assurances from the receiving government are designed to protect the human rights of the detainee, but many officials have confirmed that the U.S. has no capacity to ensure humane treatment under these circumstances. Do you support a prohibition on transfers of individuals in U.S. custody to other countries where they are likely to be tortured regardless of assurances otherwise?

5. Recent legislation will permit—for the first time in the history of the United States— individuals to be convicted based on evidence obtained through abuse or torture (admitted through hearsay evidence). Will you oppose this practice, even for trials involving terrorism suspects?

6. By making War Crimes Act changes that are retroactive to Sept. 11, 2001, Congress has immunized all top government officials and CIA agents against prosecution for interrogation policies that resulted in the abuses at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, and in secret government torture cells around the globe. Should top government officials, private contractors, and CIA officials be given blanket immunity for their past conduct?

7. More than two years after the Abu Ghraib photos were published — and nearly four years after the first abuse-related deaths in U.S. custody as part of the “war on terror” — we are still not in a position to say that we know how this situation came about so that we can ensure that such abuses never happen again. Do you support the establishment of an independent commission to investigate U.S. detention and interrogation policies and practices since Sept. 11, 2001, and to hold those who authorized and carried out abuses accountable?

8. Under recent legislation, the president will be permitted to authorize acts that are prohibited by Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions and the Army Field Manual on Intelligence Interrogations, without the possibility of court review of this authority. This strips the courts of their historical and constitutional role as a check on the executive branch. Do you oppose this broad expansion of executive powers, allowing the president to choose to follow or not follow international treaties, and that will side-step the authority of our courts system?

posted in no torture - 0 replies

Islam and torture

Margot — Tue, 31 Oct 2006 03:27:27 GMT

Islam's Position on Torture and Custodial Deaths
By Fida Mohammad, Ph. D.
Portales, New Mexico

The Quran and 'sunna' are already the supreme law of the land, which is known as Pakistan. Any law that contravenes Quran and Sunna is null and void.

Keeping the above in mind, let us say that torture and custodial killings are un-Islamic, and hence criminal acts. Ironically, even the legal system Pakistan inherited from her masters (British) also forbids such acts.

According to Cr.PC. Section 16:

(1) No police or other person in authority shall offer or make, or cause to be offered or made, any such inducement, threat or promise as is mentioned in the Evidence Act, 1872, Section 24. In the Evidence Act of 1872, which was amended in 1984, Section 24 is now Article 37 and reads:

A confession made by an accused person is irrelevant in criminal proceeding, if making of the confession appears to the Court to have been caused by any inducement, threat or promise having reference to the charge against the accused person, proceeding from a person in authority and sufficient, in the opinion of the Court, to give the accused person grounds which would appear to him reasonable for supposing that by making it he would gain advantage or avoid any evil of a temporal nature in reference to the proceedings against him.

Before going further let us define 'torture'. According to the United Nations definition, "torture is the severe infliction of physical pain or mental suffering."

Although torture is directed against the body, its target is to break the human will, ultimately to destroy a person's and Allah-bestowed dignity and free will.

Voluntariness of confession in American legal system is established by the Miranda rights. A police officer is legally obligated to read Miranda rights to a suspect before any questioning in a custodial envirnonment.

Any time during an interview (Interrogation has negative connotation in Pakistan) a suspect can invoke Miranda rights and at that moment interview must cease. Under Miranda rights police officer must inform a suspect of his or legal rights: "you have the right to remain silent; whatever you say can and will be used as evidence against you in the court of law; if you have your attorney, call your attorney, if you don't have one we will provide one free of charge."

The basic aim of the Miranda Rights (warning) is to protect an accused from torture and other psychological abuses."

The Holy Qu'ran states: "0, ye who believe! Enter not houses other than your own without first announcing your presence and invoking peace upon the people therein. That is better for you, that you may be heedful ... and if you find no one therein, still enter not until permission hath been given, and if it be said unto you: go back just now: then go back; for it is purer for you.' Allah knoweth what you do" (Surat al-Nur XXIV:27, 28).

Thus, according to the Qur'anic text, entry into the dwelling is prohibited unless consent is given by the inmates. This prohibition is not limited to places actually occupied by the owner; it applies also to the owner's property during his absence. This is explicit in the verse cited above which precludes entry without "permission," and requires consent.

This right also extends to one's clothing in that no one has the right to inspect the clothing of another person to determine what may be concealed therein, without reason and without permission. It thereby embodies the proscription against unreasonable searches of the person. The inviolability of the dwelling is linked with the inviolability of the person, for the latter derives from the former as a manifestation of individual freedom. It is meaningless to protect the house without protecting the owner as well"(Al-Saleh).

The most important pillar of individual rights in Islam is the Principle of Presumption of Innocence. From its inception Islamic law has recognized the presumption of innocence as a right inherent to all people. The Holy Prophet(PBUH) said: "Prevent punishment in case of doubt."

In Islamic law, a conviction must be based upon assurance and certainty of guilt and not on mere probability. Hence any doubt is resolved in favour of the accused. If the judge has reasonable doubt of guilt based on all the evidence before him, he must conclude that the accused is not guilty. This principle is based on the saying of the Prophet: "Prevent punishment in case of doubt. Release the accused if possible, for it is better that the ruler be wrong in forgiving than wrong in punishing." (Al-Saleh)

Guarantees of the Accused During Interrogation:

In Islamic jurisprudence confessional statement could be used to prove guilt. According to Ma'amoun M. Salama and Osman Abd-el-Malek al-Saleh:

Interrogation under Islamic law differs from simple questioning. Besides charging the suspect with a crime, interrogation requires confronting him with the established evidence against him, and discussing that evidence so that he may either refute it or confess because of it. A very crucial right of the accused in the investigation of Hudud crimes is the right to refuse questioning and the right to remain silent. An accused who exercises this right is guaranteed that his silence will not be used as incriminating evidence against him. Hudud crimes can be proved only by means of an avowal or other positive evidence and never by means of the accused's silence. Refusal to answer questions is, therefore, inadmissible evidence to convict the accused.

Torture and inhuman practices are strictly forbidden in Islam. However, in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan some of the torturers boast that "with a big stick even a dead person would speak."

Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif is not satisfied with the Islamic clauses of the Constitution, and wants to make it more Islamic by a new constitutional amendment. It is surprising in a sense that Pakistanis have not yet seen the fruits of what is already in the Constitution and now the people of Pakistan are to be subjected to with some heavy doses of Islam, ostensibly to benumb thier critical senses.

The author teaches interrogation and has a Ph.D. in the field. Torture and interrogation are not the same thing; for real interrogation one need skills in communication both verbal and non-verbal.

In our country, one doesn't need any qualifications; all one needs is lack of humanity and no conscience.

Interrogation conducted by sadists will obviously be physical in nature, and victim will be on the receiving end. Citizens of the Islamic Republic are treated worst than animals.

Perhaps, we are not aware that in civilised societies even animals have rights. In the United States of America, according to the New Mexico Criminal and Traffic Manual, 1994, Cruelty to animal consists of:

torturing, tormenting, depriving of necessary sustenanace, cruelly beating, mutilating, cuelly killing or overdriving animal;
unnecessarily failing to provide an animal with proper food or drink; or
cruelly driving or working any animal when such animal is unfit for labor. . . Injury to animal.

Injury to animals consists of willfully and maliciously poisoning, killing or injuring any animal . . . Whoever commits injury to animals is guilty of misdemeanor.

That is the status of Animal Rights in 'kafir'America versus of khalifat ullah in the Islamic Republic.

According to Amnesty International Report, in Pakistan, dozens of people reportedly die in custody, in many cases following alleged torture. Medical reports are falsified.

An interrogator once explained to the author, the role of medical officers in the following words: as long as somebody is breathing, for the medical officer he is fit for interrogation [torture]. We cooperate with doctors and they cooperate with us. Sometime we beat an accused to the extent that he cannot stand, so we carry him on a stretcher to hospital and doctor writes 'okay.' Once in a while, the condition of the accused is so bad that we cannot not take him to hospital. What we do is take another healthy prisoner to the doctor. The doctor does not care about the identity of who we are presenting; he simply writes 'okay'. It is routine.

After talking to many interrogators in Pakistan, the following list of the various types of torture administered to suspects in police custody was compiled. The list is not exhaustive, nor could it be. There could always be new methods depending on the sadistic imagination of the interrogators:

Tieing the thighs with ropes and then pulling them in opposite directions.
Anal insertion, e.g., with batons, sticks, wooden penises of various sizes, large reddishes; and ice.
Burning the body with cigarette butts.
Forced exercise until complete exhaustion ensues.
Covering the face with a basket filled with human feces.
Beating with fists and sticks.
Rape (both homosexual and heterosexual, basically for humiliation).
Pulling nails.
Laying on ice slabs.
Putting hot chilies in the anus.
Inserting a hot rod in the anus.
Choking and suffocation in cold water during winter.
Sleep derivation.
Electric shocks.
Hanging upside down.

In the Islamic Republic of Pakistan rape by law-enforcement agents both homosexual and heterosexual are very common. In order to humiliate baton covered with chillies or other objects are iserted in the victim's rectum.

According to the Amnesty International reports, torture, including rape, and various forms of ill-treatment were frequently inflicted on political and criminal detainees to extract confessions, and in some cases to obtain information about suspected government opponents.

At least eight women were allegedly raped by police while in custody. In July, two women were reportedly beaten with leather thongs in Mandi Bahauddin Saddar police station, Punjab province (Pakistan). They were then reportedly stripped and raped by six or seven police officers in turn, who also thrust sticks into their vaginas. . . In Sindh province (Pakistan) an inquiry was called into the alleged rape of Saima Anjum, a 16-year old criminal suspect, by police at Landhi in December 1988. Police officers were said to have beaten and raped her, and forced chilies into her uterus (1990, p. 183).

Now the question arises, why a country which pretends to be more Islamic than Islam, resorts to these barbaric un-Islamic practices? Practice of torture could motivated by many factors. In country like Pakistan, primary factor behind torture is to protect the power of politico-militro-bureaucratic oligarchy.

Torture creates a political culture of silence, whereby people accept the political status-quo as a fate.

Torture is a political act prompted by the insecurity of ruling classes. Ruling classes who have a legitimacy crisis always have the fear of losing power, and that fear becomes an obsession with possession and the use of power. Confessions extracted through torture inscribe the political power of the ruling elites on the bodies of political dissidents.

It has been found that one cannot use criminal means to fight crimes. If that is the case, then there is no difference between criminals in uniform and criminals without uniform, both carry AKó47.

If, Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif is interested in Sharia, then he must remember that it came to us through Mohammad (PBUH) and not Machiavelli. Machiavelli wrote "Prince" and not the Quran and Sunna. Crime is the anti-thesis of Islam.

Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) was Rahmat-ulil-Al-amin, and he was not a Marcus, Shah of Iran, Pinochete or Stalin. Islam is very clear, there is no such thing "crime for the good of Islam." Unfortunately Pakistani wolves use Islam as a camouflage for thier criminal ends.

How can one believe in a confession in which the accused dies. How can one believe in a testimony in which others are implicated while the implicator dies without publically expressing his confession.

Torturers, aren't you afraid of Allah, have you ever thought about the day of judgment, what if in future your sons, daughters or wife are subjected to the things which you practice on others. Would you like it? If not, don't do it toothers.

posted in no torture - 0 replies

world citizens reject torture

Margot — Tue, 31 Oct 2006 03:16:38 GMT

World Citizens Reject Torture, BBC Global Poll Reveals

Questionnaire/Methodology

A majority of people around the world are opposed to torture even if its purpose is to elicit information that could save innocent lives from terrorism, according to a BBC World Service poll of more than 27,000 people in 25 different countries.

The poll shows that 59 percent of the world’s citizens are unwilling to compromise on the protection of human rights while 29 percent think governments should be allowed to use some degree of torture in order to combat terrorism.

Most Americans (58%) are against any use of torture. But opposition to torture in the United States is less robust than in Europe. The percentage of Americans favoring the practice in certain cases (36%) is one of the highest among the 25 countries polled.

The survey of 27,407 respondents across 25 countries was conducted for the BBC World Service by the international polling firm GlobeScan together with the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland. GlobeScan coordinated fieldwork from May through July 2006.

Steven Kull, director of the Program on International Policy Attitudes, notes, “The dominant view around the world is that terrorism does not warrant bending the rules against torture.”

GlobeScan President Doug Miller, adds, “The poll reveals a public opinion climate in which human rights violations by governments are likely to cause outrage, especially in Western Europe.”

Less Support in Countries Suffering Attacks

There is, however, somewhat less support for outlawing torture in several countries that have suffered terrorist attacks or political violence.

India is the only country surveyed where slightly more respondents (32%) favor relaxing the rules against torture than not (23%). India has a long history of terrorism and political violence, including a 2001 attack on its Parliament. This survey was completed before July 11, 2006 when terrorists bombed seven crowded commuter trains in Mumbai. Interestingly, there is no difference in the views of Hindus and Muslims in India on this question.

The largest percentage endorsing torture was found in Israel. Forty-three percent say some degree of torture should be allowed, though slightly more (48%) think the practice should be prohibited. Israeli responses vary significantly by religion. A majority of Jewish respondents (53%) favor allowing governments to use torture to obtain information while 39 percent want clear rules against it. In contrast, Muslims in Israel (who represented 16 percent of total responses in that country) are overwhelmingly (87%) against any use of torture.

Italians are the most opposed to the use of torture with 81 percent against, followed by three-quarters of respondents in Australia and France, 74 percent in Canada, 72 percent in the UK, and 71 percent in Germany.

Majorities in 19 Countries Favor Ban

Countries polled were Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Egypt, France, Germany, Great Britain, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Israel, Italy, Kenya, Mexico, Nigeria, Philippines, Poland, Russia, South Korea, Spain, Turkey, Ukraine, and the US.

Majorities in 19 countries supported upholding the rule against torture as did pluralities in five countries.

All of the countries surveyed are parties to the Geneva Conventions that contain Article 3 forbidding torture as well as other forms of abuse. All but one of the countries surveyed are also parties to the more recent Convention Against Torture that goes further in explicitly prohibiting torture. India, which has signed but not yet ratified it, is the exception.

In addition to India and Israel, there were four other countries where those rejecting torture fell short of a majority: Russia (43% reject torture, 37% accept), Nigeria (49% reject, 39% accept), China (49% reject, 37% accept), and Mexico (50% reject, 24% accept).

There is little variation in the worldwide averages by income or education. But support for a ban on torture increases slightly with age: 57 percent of those younger than 35 years old were against torture compared to 61 percent of those 35 and older. Men are five points more likely to accept some use of torture than are women. As for religion, Israel is the only country where statistically significant differences exist between major religious groups on this question.

Respondents were asked the following question:

Most countries have agreed to rules that prohibit torturing prisoners. Which position is closer to yours?

• Terrorists pose such an extreme threat that governments should now be allowed to use some degree of torture if it may gain information that saves innocent lives.

• Clear rules against torture should be maintained because any use of torture is immoral and will weaken international human rights standards against torture.

In total 27,407 citizens in Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Egypt, France, Germany, Great Britain, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Israel, Italy, Kenya, Mexico, Nigeria, Philippines, Poland, Russia, South Korea, Spain, Turkey, Ukraine and the United States were interviewed between 26 May and 6 July 2006. Polling was conducted for the BBC World Service by the international polling firm GlobeScan and its research partners in each country. In 7 of the 25 countries, the sample was limited to major urban areas. The margin of error per country ranges from +/-2.5 to 4 percent. For more details, please see the Questionnaire/Methodology.

posted in no torture - 0 replies

Christians against torture

Margot — Tue, 31 Oct 2006 03:14:41 GMT

A Christian Call to Stop Torture
http://www.paxchristiusa.org/news_events_more.asp?id=1002

There is no debate on where the social teachings of the Catholic Church lie on the issue of torture:

“International judicial instruments concerning human rights correctly indicate a prohibition against torture as a principle which cannot be contravened under any circumstances.”
--Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church

“The thought of Jesus being stripped, beaten and derided until his final agony on the cross should always prompt a Christian to protest against similar treatment of their fellow beings. Of their own accord, disciples of Christ will reject torture, which nothing can justify, which causes humiliation and suffering to the victim and degrades the tormentor.”
--Pope John Paul II

posted in no torture - 0 replies

No Torture

Margot — Tue, 31 Oct 2006 03:07:01 GMT

You're invited to join a new tribe dedicated to completely ending the United States of America's unconstitutional and immoral practice of and collusion in torture.

http://tribes.tribe.net/stopalltorture

posted in no torture - 0 replies