FRIHOST • FORUMS • SEARCH • FAQ • TOS • BLOGS • DIRECTORY
You are invited to Log in or Register a Frihost Account!

US interrogators may have killed dozens

   Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Discuss World News
 


handfleisch
So if establishing torture as policy is not to be liable for prosecution, how about just plain murder?

More so, even if there hadn't been any torture and murder, Bush officials should be condemned for ignoring the basic democratic right of habeas corpus and shredding the Geneva conventions. It's a paradox that the torture scandal is, in effect, distracting from this fact.

Quote:


http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/05/06/us-interrogators-killed-dozens-human-rights-researcher-and-rights-group-say/

US interrogators may have killed dozens, human rights researcher and rights group say

United States interrogators killed nearly four dozen detainees during or after their interrogations, according a report published by a human rights researcher based on a Human Rights First report and followup investigations.

In all, 98 detainees have died while in US hands. Thirty-four homicides have been identified, with at least eight detainees — and as many as 12 — having been tortured to death, according to a 2006 Human Rights First report that underwrites the researcher’s posting. The causes of 48 more deaths remain uncertain.

The researcher, John Sifton, worked for five years for Human Rights Watch. In a posting Tuesday, he documents myriad cases of detainees who died at the hands of their US interrogators. Some of the instances he cites are graphic.
angel2redrose
o no
deanhills
handfleisch wrote:
So if establishing torture as policy is not to be liable for prosecution, how about just plain murder?

More so, even if there hadn't been any torture and murder, Bush officials should be condemned for ignoring the basic democratic right of habeas corpus and shredding the Geneva conventions. It's a paradox that the torture scandal is, in effect, distracting from this fact.

Quote:


http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/05/06/us-interrogators-killed-dozens-human-rights-researcher-and-rights-group-say/

US interrogators may have killed dozens, human rights researcher and rights group say

United States interrogators killed nearly four dozen detainees during or after their interrogations, according a report published by a human rights researcher based on a Human Rights First report and followup investigations.

In all, 98 detainees have died while in US hands. Thirty-four homicides have been identified, with at least eight detainees — and as many as 12 — having been tortured to death, according to a 2006 Human Rights First report that underwrites the researcher’s posting. The causes of 48 more deaths remain uncertain.

The researcher, John Sifton, worked for five years for Human Rights Watch. In a posting Tuesday, he documents myriad cases of detainees who died at the hands of their US interrogators. Some of the instances he cites are graphic.

The heading of the article said "may have killed". So one would probably assume if you are in a democratic country that the cases would need to be investigated first to ascertain what the facts are. And then if there is probable cause, a hearing held before final judgment is passed? Ditto the charges against Bush officials.
coolclay
Not when it comes to leftist conspiracy theorists, with them everything is absolute, and democracy is evil.
LimpFish
I must say that I personally doubt this information... seems unlikely to me. But that's my personal opinion...
Solon_Poledourus
Quote:
In all, 98 detainees have died while in US hands. Thirty-four homicides have been identified, with at least eight detainees — and as many as 12 — having been tortured to death, according to a 2006 Human Rights First report that underwrites the researcher’s posting. The causes of 48 more deaths remain uncertain.

Can we assume that this info has been confirmed by another source? If so, this could be disastrous.
coolclay wrote:
Not when it comes to leftist conspiracy theorists, with them everything is absolute, and democracy is evil.

Only as absolute as the right wings assumption that our country can do no wrong. I'm not sure I'd jump to the assumption that this is a "leftist conspiracy theory", most human rights groups have no political party loyalties, they just try to see that peoples' human rights are not sent through the shredder. Your statement just makes you seem like the opposite side of the coin, where on one side you have the leftist conspiracy theorists who think democracy is evil, and on the other you have the right wing loyalists who think their country can do no wrong. Let's get some more info on this news topic before we call it an absolution of leftist conspiracy theorists.
deanhills wrote:
The heading of the article said "may have killed".

But it also stated that "34 homicides have been identified". Which, if true, is proof of murder. Though this info should be confirmed by another source before we make any assumptions.
deanhills wrote:
So one would probably assume if you are in a democratic country that the cases would need to be investigated first to ascertain what the facts are. And then if there is probable cause, a hearing held before final judgment is passed? Ditto the charges against Bush officials.

Well, if there were people murdered during confinement while under Bushs' watch, then the safe assumption is that Bush officials need to be punished. Of course investigations would be undertakend and trials would be held, that's the assumption of innocence until proof of guilt. If this story is true, I think it would be a sad irony that those who we would haul before a judge and jury would be benefitting from the very same human and American rights that they denied to the murdered prisoners for which they are being investigated in the first place.
LimpFish wrote:
I must say that I personally doubt this information... seems unlikely to me. But that's my personal opinion...

It seemed unlikely to me that the United States of America would find itself redefining the word "torture" in order to use such a tactic legally. But it's happening right now. I know it's hard to cope with, but we don't live in a country that is incapable of this kind of thing. Nobody does.
deanhills
Solon_Poledourus wrote:
It seemed unlikely to me that the United States of America would find itself redefining the word "torture" in order to use such a tactic legally. But it's happening right now. I know it's hard to cope with, but we don't live in a country that is incapable of this kind of thing. Nobody does.
War is ugly to begin with. Kind'a irony when you are out in the field, you have been trained to kill the enemy and you are supposed to shoot and kill them. Everyone seems to think that is OK. And then when they become your prisoner, you have to treat them with kid gloves. Like that incidence with the Somali pirates. Perhaps better to kill everyone and not take prisoners. Prisoners could be used in ways that are beneficial for themselves to the detriment of the United States Military in overall, who gets tainted by all the stories that are making the rounds. Take the story that we had to read in this thread for example. I wish there could be a way to punish the people responsible for this story if it is proven to be untrue. Or parts of it false. Think it is high time that examples are made of them.
Solon_Poledourus
deanhills wrote:
Kind'a irony when you are out in the field, you have been trained to kill the enemy and you are supposed to shoot and kill them. Everyone seems to think that is OK. And then when they become your prisoner, you have to treat them with kid gloves.
It's one thing when you take a prisoner of war out in the battlefield. Most of the detainees at GITMO were not taken during combat, they were kidnapped. And I don't think anyone advocates the "kid gloves" treatment. It's just that when somebody becomes a prisoner, they are powerless, and to abuse them goes against our code of conduct.
deanhills wrote:
Like that incidence with the Somali pirates. Perhaps better to kill everyone and not take prisoners.
When caught in the commission of a crime that threatens lives, I think that's the best choice.
deanhills wrote:
Prisoners could be used in ways that are beneficial for themselves to the detriment of the United States Military in overall, who gets tainted by all the stories that are making the rounds. Take the story that we had to read in this thread for example.
Yes, these stories will certainly bolster any person or group who wants to harm America.
deanhills wrote:
I wish there could be a way to punish the people responsible for this story if it is proven to be untrue. Or parts of it false. Think it is high time that examples are made of them.
Well, I read through the report from Human Rights First, and it seems legit. There are human rights groups, as well as military personnel involved in the study. I'm sure there would be lawsuits for slander and character defamation, not to mention falsely accusing military officers of murder, coming from government and military sources were this story false. The sad truth is, this is a breakdown in military policy. The ones that should be punished are the perpetrators of these acts, not the ones who report on it.
LimpFish
i'd say that the main problem is that military forces are created and trained to operate on a battle field, and in modern times like these there are less battle fields and more terrorism. thats why gitmo exists Id say. cuz with the geneva convention like it is, terrorists are not really considered soldiers, but they are still out to kill innocent people. so what do you do? sit on your hands, or kidnap them and try to prevent it? obviously there are only two options here, and unfortunately they are both bad.
deanhills
Solon_Poledourus wrote:
deanhills wrote:
Kind'a irony when you are out in the field, you have been trained to kill the enemy and you are supposed to shoot and kill them. Everyone seems to think that is OK. And then when they become your prisoner, you have to treat them with kid gloves.
It's one thing when you take a prisoner of war out in the battlefield. Most of the detainees at GITMO were not taken during combat, they were kidnapped. And I don't think anyone advocates the "kid gloves" treatment. It's just that when somebody becomes a prisoner, they are powerless, and to abuse them goes against our code of conduct.
This is not what I meant. Even when these guys were kidnapped, they were kidnapped in a presumed capacity of being the enemy. By people who have been trained to kill the enemy. Everyone knows what the odds would have been if the situation had been reversed. Although of course one wrong does not make another wrong right. it just seems that combatants and detainees are so close to one another along enemy lines. It has to take very careful training in the differences between the two situations to make sure they wear a different hat when they work with "detainees".

Solon_Poledourus wrote:
deanhills wrote:
Like that incidence with the Somali pirates. Perhaps better to kill everyone and not take prisoners.
When caught in the commission of a crime that threatens lives, I think that's the best choice.
True. But one could argue that they were vulnerable too? I'm saying this with a devil's advocat hat on as I do believe they did the right thing. what I am trying to say is that there is such a fine line dividing "killing" and "capturing". The moment they "captured" all guns were off. Yet that adrenaline must have still been rushing from the act of killing "the enemy" and freeing the hostages.
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:

Solon_Poledourus wrote:
deanhills wrote:
Like that incidence with the Somali pirates. Perhaps better to kill everyone and not take prisoners.
When caught in the commission of a crime that threatens lives, I think that's the best choice.
True. But one could argue that they were vulnerable too? I'm saying this with a devil's advocat hat on as I do believe they did the right thing. what I am trying to say is that there is such a fine line dividing "killing" and "capturing". The moment they "captured" all guns were off. Yet that adrenaline must have still been rushing from the act of killing "the enemy" and freeing the hostages.

That's why they prefer to simply use the word 'neutralize'. ^.^
Solon_Poledourus
deanhills wrote:
This is not what I meant.
Got it.
deanhills wrote:
True. But one could argue that they were vulnerable too?
Indeed.
ocalhoun wrote:
That's why they prefer to simply use the word 'neutralize'. ^.^
Aye.
Related topics

Random dude survives USA's black site
islam is...
Beam weapons, a new way of warfare?
President bush
The Middle East Conflict
America is you, no matter who you are
John Kerry's Comments are a Cheap Shot at US Troops!
A question of faith - is faith immoral?
Do you have a soul?
Why God allows ?????
Why do They do What They do..?
The Real Reason - Israel Attacks Gaza
What you think about our president?
Bush Poll
War of the Worlds
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Discuss World News

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2007 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.