I think this is a fairly neutral source that passes no judgements, and a source that all sides quote on these forums. Though, it is highly disturbing that some of the “evidence” on Iraq that Powell is due to present to the UN was acquired through torture. Would that not make such evidence inadmissable in a court of law?
U.S. Should Renounce Torture before Powell Speech to U.N.
Before U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell presents evidence on Iraq’s weapons programs and terror links to the United Nations on Wednesday, the Bush administration should respond to allegations that intelligence has been obtained from detainees through torture, Human Rights Watch said. Recent reports indicate that at least some of the evidence Secretary Powell intends to present was derived from interrogations of detainees held by the United States and its allies in the war on terrorism. A December 26 article in the Washington Post quoted unnamed officials of the Bush administration suggesting that al-Qaida suspects have been tortured or mistreated in U.S. custody in Afghanistan, and that others have been rendered to countries where the United States knew they would likely be tortured. Since the publication of that article, no U.S. official has disavowed its assertions or announced any corrective measures.
In a letter to Secretary Powell, Human Rights Watch asked him to declare that any U.S. official guilty of such practices will be held accountable, that the United States has no interest in intelligence obtained through torture and other internationally condemned techniques, and that Washington will not turn over detainees to countries where they are likely to receive such treatment. “In his State of the Union address, President Bush said the Iraqi government is ‘evil’ because it uses torture,” said Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch. “But torture is evil no matter who is using it. Secretary Powell should not lose this chance to explicitly renounce the use of torture by the U.S. government and its allies.”
The letter said that whatever the truth of the allegations reported by the Washington Post, much of the world now believes the United States is torturing or severely mistreating detainees. “In our work around the world, Human Rights Watch has encountered many government officials and ordinary citizens who are now convinced that the United States is employing a method widely condemned as illegal, immoral, and utterly unreliable for obtaining truthful information from detainees,” said the letter, which is addressed to Secretary Powell and signed by Mr. Roth. “Until this perception is changed, your presentation to the Security Council - to the extent it relies on detainee interrogations - will not inspire the confidence and trust you are seeking.”
Re: U.S. Should Renounce Torture before Powell Speech to U.N. - HRW
That is really quite sad. Is the definition of torture flexible, depending upon who utilizes it?
What a shame that some of the “evidence” Powell will present tomorrow has been derived from a practice that Bush himself accused Saddam Hussein of, in his State of the Union speech. Is this the depth to which a government that prides itself on human rights, should sink to? Surely if your case is that strong, if you believe in its validity that much, then there is no need to rely upon torturing individuals - besides the fact that torture of any kind is illegal anyways. Perhaps, in light of HRW’s comments, tomorrow’s opportunity should be utilized by Powell to articulately express that the US has no interest in information that is obtained via the use of torture against human beings.
“In his State of the Union address, President Bush described with appropriate horror some of the torture techniques reportedly used by Saddam Hussein’s government: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape. He rightly said that “if this is not evil, then evil has no meaning.” Yet what message is sent to the world when the President of the United States condemns torture by Iraq, while unnamed officials of his administration defend, and even gloat about, the use of torture against detainees held, or once held, by the United States?”HRW Letter
A dirty game has as usual started.
Bush is at war for petro product, and Islamic world is once again politicizing religion. For one thing I am sure that after the war when an ordinary killer, a politician of the lowest standard Saddam is removed people of Iraq will dance.
Let us see how much Iraq Army can fight. This army is trained for killing it owns citizens, will not stand one or two days of war.
Let us support Bush! Even if America has its own interest in the region, people of Iraq will have a chance to breath a fresh air, they need very badly.
Re: Re: U.S. Should Renounce Torture before Powell Speech to U.N. - HRW
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Nadia_H: *
*Surely if your case is that strong, if you believe in its validity that much, then there is no need to rely upon torturing individuals - besides the fact that torture of any kind is illegal anyways. Perhaps, in light of HRW's comments, tomorrow's opportunity should be utilized by Powell to articulately express that the US has no interest in information that is obtained via the use of torture against human beings. *
[/QUOTE]
Yes, but if Powell fails to address allegations of American torture, then the "evidence" he presents will be dismissed, as criminally acquired through torture.
Re: Re: Re: U.S. Should Renounce Torture before Powell Speech to U.N. - HRW
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Malik73: *
...then the "evidence" he presents will be dismissed, as criminally acquired through torture.
[/QUOTE]
That would be the legal route, Malik.
i fear it will not be so; the media, particularly over here, will lap up every word of Powell's. This whole current state of affairs is so Orwellian - the defender of human rights utilizes torture practices to obtain information, which will no doubt be duly lapped up and endorsed by diverse admins. The ones who attempt to check the validity of Powell's speech (and how he obtained his evidence) will be strictly marginalized voices.
Re: Re: Re: Re: U.S. Should Renounce Torture before Powell Speech to U.N. - HRW
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Nadia_H: *
That would be the legal route, Malik.
i fear it will not be so; the media, particularly over here, will lap up every word of Powell's. This whole current state of affairs is so Orwellian - the defender of human rights utilizes torture practices to obtain information, which will no doubt be duly lapped up and endorsed by diverse admins. The ones who attempt to check the validity of Powell's speech (and how he obtained his evidence) will be strictly marginalized voices.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, but there has been an unprecedented opposition to this war across the globe, including in the US. One hopes that these good people will continue to pursue Powell, and especially the torture allegations.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: U.S. Should Renounce Torture before Powell Speech to U.N. - HRW
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Malik73: *
Yes, but there has been an unprecedented opposition to this war across the globe, including in the US. One hopes that these good people will continue to pursue Powell, and especially the torture allegations.
[/QUOTE]
You said it Malik,allegations,could it be that there are anti-war groups who would say anything to discredit Powells statement tommorow.I mean look at what Nadia has said upon reading this,isnt it a shame that his allegations tommorow are tainted by this.
I have a question for both Nadia and yourself.Where is the proof?You guys trip over yourselves to believe anything that is against US or UK or whatever but good old Saddam,no he may be bad but wheres the proof,my god it beggars belief.Powell has more morals in his little finger than Saddam and you know it.
Sometimes some of you get so blinded by your anti-Americanism that you seem to lose your capacity for independent thought. You get all hot and bothered when you read a statement like this: "Recent reports indicate that at least some of the evidence Secretary Powell intends to present was derived from interrogations of detainees held by the United States and its allies in the war on terrorism."
First of all, you automatically assume that any information derived from interrogations of detainees must have been the product of torture. Putting that aside for a moment consider the following:
Did you ask yourself just who are the detainees held by the US and its allies in the war on terrorism? The answer, of course, are Taliban, Al Qaeda and members of other terrorist organizations.
Now ask yourself, what could these guys say even under torture that will be addressed by Colin Powell. The only thing they could provide is first hand accounts of links between Al Qaeda or terrorist groups and Iraq.
All indications are that the Al Qaeda/Iraq connections will not be addressed by Powell except in passing. In fact, some of you who are decrying the torture angle in this thread are the very ones denigrating Powell in another thread for not intending on presenting much evidence on this item.
The focus will be on intercepted communications, satellite photos, and the like. Do you think the satellite photos were obtained by torturing terrorists, Al Qaeda members and Taliban? Sounds to me like you’re just trying to discredit any and all evidence the US presents even before it is presented and you know what it is.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: U.S. Should Renounce Torture before Powell Speech to U.N. - HRW
MyVoice,
>>Did you ask yourself just who are the detainees held by the US and its allies in the war on terrorism? The answer, of course, are Taliban, Al Qaeda and members of other terrorist organizations.<<
No, not all of them are. Infact, a few of the detainees were released relatively recently back to Pakistan - they had no associations whatsoever with al Qaeda, the Taliban, or "other terrorist organizations".
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: U.S. Should Renounce Torture before Powell Speech to U.N. - HRW
[QUOTE] Originally posted by Nadia_H: *
**MyVoice*,
>>Did you ask yourself just who are the detainees held by the US and its allies in the war on terrorism? The answer, of course, are Taliban, Al Qaeda and members of other terrorist organizations.<<
No, not all of them are. Infact, a few of the detainees were released relatively recently back to Pakistan - they had no associations whatsoever with al Qaeda, the Taliban, or "other terrorist organizations".
[/QUOTE]
So what Nadia??? Do you think those guys were tortured to supply evidence on Iraq's stockpiles that Colin Powell used this morning?
Calm down, MV. All i was stating is your assertion that "all" the detainees at Guantanamo are al Qaeda or Taliban members, was wrong. They were not all members of terrorist orgs., some of them were released later with proof that they had no ties whatsoever to terrorism. That's all.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: U.S. Should Renounce Torture before Powell Speech to U.N. - HRW
the evidence provided by powell this morning is nothing but lies and fabrication bu drawing a few colored lines and showing a few toy cars can’t justify a war … further … if i were powell and am itching to go and bomb iraQ i’ll use every possible and legal [illeaal more] means to justify my position and stand on going to war with iraQ … don’t 4get history is full of such lies and BS by US of A
Here’s that original report on the Americans extracting information through torture. Its from that blatantly anti-American source, the Washington Post. :rolleyes:
[quote]
U.S. officials oversee most of the interrogations, especially those of the most senior captives. In some cases, highly trained CIA officers question captives through interpreters. In others, the intelligence agency undertakes a "false flag" operation using fake decor and disguises meant to deceive a captive into thinking he is imprisoned in a country with a reputation for brutality, when, in reality, he is still in CIA hands. Sometimes, female officers conduct interrogations, a psychologically jarring experience for men reared in a conservative Muslim culture where women are never in control./quote
If keeping the light on or making them stand or kneel for long purposes is torture,then i say keep torturing them,because if thats what it takes to keep us safe from their mates,then go for it.This is not acid on this skin,electric shocks,mutilation etc tec,This is making them uncomfortable.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Malik73: *Lets not forget Powell's "evidence" is somwhat based on information extracted through this torture, and would be thrown out in a court of law.
[/QUOTE]
Until and unless someone can identify some piece of evidence that Powell cited that was extracted through torture, that is exactly what we should do: i.e. forget about this baseless allegation.
Also, what exactly is evidence that is "somewhat based on information extracted through torture."
If keeping the light on or making them stand or kneel for long purposes is torture,then i say keep torturing them,because if thats what it takes to keep us safe from their mates,then go for it.
[/QUOTE]
Did you forget to read the whole article? Here's two bits you conveniantely missed:-
The **U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights*, the authoritative interpreter of the international Convention Against Torture, has ruled that lengthy interrogation may incidentally and legitimately cost a prisoner sleep. But when employed for the purpose of breaking a prisoner's will, sleep deprivation "may in some cases constitute torture."
The State Department's annual human rights report routinely denounces sleep deprivation as an interrogation method. In its 2001 report on Turkey, Israel and Jordan, all U.S. allies, the department listed sleep deprivation among often-used alleged torture techniques.*
I guess you are saying what the UN and US State Dept legally consider torture is perfectly acceptable to carry out? As Powell has failed to address the call by the HRW on the American use of tortue to extract his "evidence", then Powell's statement is tainted by this from now on.
bu drawing a few colored lines and showing a few toy cars can’t justify a war … further … if i were powell and am itching to go and bomb iraQ i’ll use every possible and legal [illeaal more] means to justify my position and stand on going to war with iraQ … don’t 4get history is full of such lies and BS by US of A 