.

Torture is any act by which severe pain, whether physical or psychological, is intentionally inflicted on a person as a means of intimidation, deterrence, revenge, punishment, sadism, or information gathering. It can be used as an interrogation tactic to extract confessions. Torture is also used as a method of coercion or as a tool to control groups seen as a threat by governments. Throughout history, it has often been used as a method of effecting religious conversion or political “re-education.” Torture is almost universally considered to be an extreme violation of human rights, as stated by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Signatories of the Third Geneva Convention and Fourth Geneva Convention agree not to torture protected persons (enemy civilians and POWs) in armed conflicts, and signatories of the UN Convention Against Torture agree not to intentionally inflict severe pain or suffering on anyone, to obtain information or a confession, to punish them, or to coerce them or a third person. These conventions and agreements notwithstanding, it is estimated by organizations such as Amnesty International that around two out of three countries do not consistently abide by the spirit of such treaties.

Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman
or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
Adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by
General Assembly resolution 39/46 of 10 December 1984
entry into force 26 June 1987, in accordance with article 27 (1)
status of ratifications
declarations and reservations monitoring body

The States Parties to this Convention,

Considering that, in accordance with the principles proclaimed in the Charter of the United Nations, recognition of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,
Recognizing that those rights derive from the inherent dignity of the human person,

Considering the obligation of States under the Charter, in particular Article 55, to promote universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms,

Having regard to article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, both of which provide that no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment,

Having regard also to the Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Being Subjected to Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, adopted by the General Assembly on 9 December 1975,

Desiring to make more effective the struggle against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment throughout the world,

Have agreed as follows:
PART I

Article 1

1. For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
2. This article is without prejudice to any international instrument or national legislation which does or may contain provisions of wider application.

Article 2
1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.
2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political in stability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.

3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.

Article 3 General comment on its implementation
1. No State Party shall expel, return ("refouler") or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.
2. For the purpose of determining whether there are such grounds, the competent authorities shall take into account all relevant considerations including, where applicable, the existence in the State concerned of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights.

Article 4
1. Each State Party shall ensure that all acts of torture are offences under its criminal law. The same shall apply to an attempt to commit torture and to an act by any person which constitutes complicity or participation in torture.
2. Each State Party shall make these offences punishable by appropriate penalties which take into account their grave nature.

Article 5
1. Each State Party shall take such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over the offences referred to in article 4 in the following cases:
(a) When the offences are committed in any territory under its jurisdiction or on board a ship or aircraft registered in that State;
(b) When the alleged offender is a national of that State;

(c) When the victim is a national of that State if that State considers it appropriate.

2. Each State Party shall likewise take such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over such offences in cases where the alleged offender is present in any territory under its jurisdiction and it does not extradite him pursuant to article 8 to any of the States mentioned in paragraph I of this article.
3. This Convention does not exclude any criminal jurisdiction exercised in accordance with internal law.

Article 6
1. Upon being satisfied, after an examination of information available to it, that the circumstances so warrant, any State Party in whose territory a person alleged to have committed any offence referred to in article 4 is present shall take him into custody or take other legal measures to ensure his presence. The custody and other legal measures shall be as provided in the law of that State but may be continued only for such time as is necessary to enable any criminal or extradition proceedings to be instituted.
2. Such State shall immediately make a preliminary inquiry into the facts.

3. Any person in custody pursuant to paragraph I of this article shall be assisted in communicating immediately with the nearest appropriate representative of the State of which he is a national, or, if he is a stateless person, with the representative of the State where he usually resides.

4. When a State, pursuant to this article, has taken a person into custody, it shall immediately notify the States referred to in article 5, paragraph 1, of the fact that such person is in custody and of the circumstances which warrant his detention. The State which makes the preliminary inquiry contemplated in paragraph 2 of this article shall promptly report its findings to the said States and shall indicate whether it intends to exercise jurisdiction.

Article 7
1. The State Party in the territory under whose jurisdiction a person alleged to have committed any offence referred to in article 4 is found shall in the cases contemplated in article 5, if it does not extradite him, submit the case to its competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution.
2. These authorities shall take their decision in the same manner as in the case of any ordinary offence of a serious nature under the law of that State. In the cases referred to in article 5, paragraph 2, the standards of evidence required for prosecution and conviction shall in no way be less stringent than those which apply in the cases referred to in article 5, paragraph 1.

3. Any person regarding whom proceedings are brought in connection with any of the offences referred to in article 4 shall be guaranteed fair treatment at all stages of the proceedings.

Article 8
1. The offences referred to in article 4 shall be deemed to be included as extraditable offences in any extradition treaty existing between States Parties. States Parties undertake to include such offences as extraditable offences in every extradition treaty to be concluded between them.
2. If a State Party which makes extradition conditional on the existence of a treaty receives a request for extradition from another State Party with which it has no extradition treaty, it may consider this Convention as the legal basis for extradition in respect of such offences. Extradition shall be subject to the other conditions provided by the law of the requested State.

3. States Parties which do not make extradition conditional on the existence of a treaty shall recognize such offences as extraditable offences between themselves subject to the conditions provided by the law of the requested State.

4. Such offences shall be treated, for the purpose of extradition between States Parties, as if they had been committed not only in the place in which they occurred but also in the territories of the States required to establish their jurisdiction in accordance with article 5, paragraph 1.

Article 9
1. States Parties shall afford one another the greatest measure of assistance in connection with criminal proceedings brought in respect of any of the offences referred to in article 4, including the supply of all evidence at their disposal necessary for the proceedings.
2. States Parties shall carry out their obligations under paragraph I of this article in conformity with any treaties on mutual judicial assistance that may exist between them.

Article 10
1. Each State Party shall ensure that education and information regarding the prohibition against torture are fully included in the training of law enforcement personnel, civil or military, medical personnel, public officials and other persons who may be involved in the custody, interrogation or treatment of any individual subjected to any form of arrest, detention or imprisonment.
2. Each State Party shall include this prohibition in the rules or instructions issued in regard to the duties and functions of any such person.

Article 11
Each State Party shall keep under systematic review interrogation rules, instructions, methods and practices as well as arrangements for the custody and treatment of persons subjected to any form of arrest, detention or imprisonment in any territory under its jurisdiction, with a view to preventing any cases of torture.
Article 12
Each State Party shall ensure that its competent authorities proceed to a prompt and impartial investigation, wherever there is reasonable ground to believe that an act of torture has been committed in any territory under its jurisdiction.
Article 13
Each State Party shall ensure that any individual who alleges he has been subjected to torture in any territory under its jurisdiction has the right to complain to, and to have his case promptly and impartially examined by, its competent authorities. Steps shall be taken to ensure that the complainant and witnesses are protected against all ill-treatment or intimidation as a consequence of his complaint or any evidence given.
Article 14
1. Each State Party shall ensure in its legal system that the victim of an act of torture obtains redress and has an enforceable right to fair and adequate compensation, including the means for as full rehabilitation as possible. In the event of the death of the victim as a result of an act of torture, his dependants shall be entitled to compensation.
2. Nothing in this article shall affect any right of the victim or other persons to compensation which may exist under national law.

Article 15
Each State Party shall ensure that any statement which is established to have been made as a result of torture shall not be invoked as evidence in any proceedings, except against a person accused of torture as evidence that the statement was made.
Article 16
1. Each State Party shall undertake to prevent in any territory under its jurisdiction other acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment which do not amount to torture as defined in article I, when such acts are committed by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. In particular, the obligations contained in articles 10, 11, 12 and 13 shall apply with the substitution for references to torture of references to other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
2. The provisions of this Convention are without prejudice to the provisions of any other international instrument or national law which prohibits cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment or which relates to extradition or expulsion.

PART II
Article 17

1. There shall be established a Committee against Torture (hereinafter referred to as the Committee) which shall carry out the functions hereinafter provided. The Committee shall consist of ten experts of high moral standing and recognized competence in the field of human rights, who shall serve in their personal capacity. The experts shall be elected by the States Parties, consideration being given to equitable geographical distribution and to the usefulness of the participation of some persons having legal experience.
2. The members of the Committee shall be elected by secret ballot from a list of persons nominated by States Parties. Each State Party may nominate one person from among its own nationals. States Parties shall bear in mind the usefulness of nominating persons who are also members of the Human Rights Committee established under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and who are willing to serve on the Committee against Torture.

3. Elections of the members of the Committee shall be held at biennial meetings of States Parties convened by the Secretary-General of the United Nations. At those meetings, for which two thirds of the States Parties shall constitute a quorum, the persons elected to the Committee shall be those who obtain the largest number of votes and an absolute majority of the votes of the representatives of States Parties present and voting.

4. The initial election shall be held no later than six months after the date of the entry into force of this Convention. At. Ieast four months before the date of each election, the Secretary-General of the United Nations shall address a letter to the States Parties inviting them to submit their nominations within three months. The Secretary-General shall prepare a list in alphabetical order of all persons thus nominated, indicating the States Parties which have nominated them, and shall submit it to the States Parties.

5. The members of the Committee shall be elected for a term of four years. They shall be eligible for re-election if renominated. However, the term of five of the members elected at the first election shall expire at the end of two years; immediately after the first election the names of these five members shall be chosen by lot by the chairman of the meeting referred to in paragraph 3 of this article.

6. If a member of the Committee dies or resigns or for any other cause can no longer perform his Committee duties, the State Party which nominated him shall appoint another expert from among its nationals to serve for the remainder of his term, subject to the approval of the majority of the States Parties. The approval shall be considered given unless half or more of the States Parties respond negatively within six weeks after having been informed by the Secretary-General of the United Nations of the proposed appointment.

7. States Parties shall be responsible for the expenses of the members of the Committee while they are in performance of Committee duties. (amendment (see General Assembly resolution 47/111 of 16 December 1992); status of ratification)

Article 18
1. The Committee shall elect its officers for a term of two years. They may be re-elected.
2. The Committee shall establish its own rules of procedure, but these rules shall provide, inter alia, that:

(a) Six members shall constitute a quorum;
(b) Decisions of the Committee shall be made by a majority vote of the members present.

3. The Secretary-General of the United Nations shall provide the necessary staff and facilities for the effective performance of the functions of the Committee under this Convention.
4. The Secretary-General of the United Nations shall convene the initial meeting of the Committee. After its initial meeting, the Committee shall meet at such times as shall be provided in its rules of procedure.

5. The States Parties shall be responsible for expenses incurred in connection with the holding of meetings of the States Parties and of the Committee, including reimbursement to the United Nations for any expenses, such as the cost of staff and facilities, incurred by the United Nations pursuant to paragraph 3 of this article. (amendment (see General Assembly resolution 47/111 of 16 December 1992); status of ratification)

Article 19
1. The States Parties shall submit to the Committee, through the Secretary-General of the United Nations, reports on the measures they have taken to give effect to their undertakings under this Convention, within one year after the entry into force of the Convention for the State Party concerned. Thereafter the States Parties shall submit supplementary reports every four years on any new measures taken and such other reports as the Committee may request.
2. The Secretary-General of the United Nations shall transmit the reports to all States Parties.

3. Each report shall be considered by the Committee which may make such general comments on the report as it may consider appropriate and shall forward these to the State Party concerned. That State Party may respond with any observations it chooses to the Committee.

4. The Committee may, at its discretion, decide to include any comments made by it in accordance with paragraph 3 of this article, together with the observations thereon received from the State Party concerned, in its annual report made in accordance with article 24. If so requested by the State Party concerned, the Committee may also include a copy of the report submitted under paragraph I of this article.

Article 20
1. If the Committee receives reliable information which appears to it to contain well-founded indications that torture is being systematically practised in the territory of a State Party, the Committee shall invite that State Party to co-operate in the examination of the information and to this end to submit observations with regard to the information concerned.
2. Taking into account any observations which may have been submitted by the State Party concerned, as well as any other relevant information available to it, the Committee may, if it decides that this is warranted, designate one or more of its members to make a confidential inquiry and to report to the Committee urgently.

3. If an inquiry is made in accordance with paragraph 2 of this article, the Committee shall seek the co-operation of the State Party concerned. In agreement with that State Party, such an inquiry may include a visit to its territory.

4. After examining the findings of its member or members submitted in accordance with paragraph 2 of this article, the Commission shall transmit these findings to the State Party concerned together with any comments or suggestions which seem appropriate in view of the situation.

5. All the proceedings of the Committee referred to in paragraphs I to 4 of th is article s hall be con fidential , and at all stages of the proceedings the co-operation of the State Party shall be sought. After such proceedings have been completed with regard to an inquiry made in accordance with paragraph 2, the Committee may, after consultations with the State Party concerned, decide to include a summary account of the results of the proceedings in its annual report made in accordance with article 24.

Article 21
1. A State Party to this Convention may at any time declare under this article that it recognizes the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under this Convention. Such communications may be received and considered according to the procedures laid down in this article only if submitted by a State Party which has made a declaration recognizing in regard to itself the competence of the Committee. No communication shall be dealt with by the Committee under this article if it concerns a State Party which has not made such a declaration. Communications received under this article shall be dealt with in accordance with the following procedure;
(a) If a State Party considers that another State Party is not giving effect to the provisions ofthis Convention, it may, by written communication, bring the matter to the attention of that State Party. Within three months afler the receipt of the communication the receiving State shall afford the State which sent the communication an explanation or any other statement in writing clarifying the matter, which should include, to the extent possible and pertinent, reference to domestic procedures and remedies taken, pending or available in the matter;
(b) If the matter is not adjusted to the satisfaction of both States Parties concerned within six months after the receipt by the receiving State of the initial communication, either State shall have the right to refer the matter to the Committee, by notice given to the Committee and to the other State;

(c) The Committee shall deal with a matter referred to it under this article only after it has ascertained that all domestic remedies have been invoked and exhausted in the matter, in conformity with the generally recognized principles of international law. This shall not be the rule where the application of the remedies is unreasonably prolonged or is unlikely to bring effective relief to the person who is the victim of the violation of this Convention;

(d) The Committee shall hold closed meetings when examining communications under this article;

(e) Subject to the provisions of subparagraph (c), the Committee shall make available its good offices to the States Parties concerned with a view to a friendly solution of the matter on the basis of respect for the obligations provided for in this Convention. For this purpose, the Committee may, when appropriate, set up an ad hoc conciliation commission;

(f) In any matter referred to it under this article, the Committee may call upon the States Parties concerned, referred to in subparagraph (b), to supply any relevant information;

(g) The States Parties concerned, referred to in subparagraph (b), shall have the right to be represented when the matter is being considered by the Committee and to make submissions orally and/or in writing;

(h) The Committee shall, within twelve months after the date of receipt of notice under subparagraph (b), submit a report:

(i) If a solution within the terms of subparagraph (e) is reached, the Committee shall confine its report to a brief statement of the facts and of the solution reached;
(ii) If a solution within the terms of subparagraph (e) is not reached, the Committee shall confine its report to a brief statement of the facts; the written submissions and record of the oral submissions made by the States Parties concerned shall be attached to the report.

In every matter, the report shall be communicated to the States Parties concerned.
2. The provisions of this article shall come into force when five States Parties to this Convention have made declarations under paragraph 1 of this article. Such declarations shall be deposited by the States Parties with the Secretary-General of the United Nations, who shall transmit copies thereof to the other States Parties. A declaration may be withdrawn at any time by notification to the Secretary-General. Such a withdrawal shall not prejudice the consideration of any matter which is the subject of a communication already transmitted under this article; no further communication by any State Party shall be received under this article after the notification of withdrawal of the declaration has been received by the Secretary-General, unless the State Party concerned has made a new declaration.

Article 22
1. A State Party to this Convention may at any time declare under this article that it recognizes the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be victims of a violation by a State Party of the provisions of the Convention. No communication shall be received by the Committee if it concerns a State Party which has not made such a declaration.
2. The Committee shall consider inadmissible any communication under this article which is anonymous or which it considers to be an abuse of the right of submission of such communications or to be incompatible with the provisions of this Convention.

3. Subject to the provisions of paragraph 2, the Committee shall bring any communications submitted to it under this article to the attention of the State Party to this Convention which has made a declaration under paragraph I and is alleged to be violating any provisions of the Convention. Within six months, the receiving State shall submit to the Committee written explanations or statements clarifying the matter and the remedy, if any, that may have been taken by that State.

4. The Committee shall consider communications received under this article in the light of all information made available to it by or on behalf of the individual and by the State Party concerned.

5. The Committee shall not consider any communications from an individual under this article unless it has ascertained that:

(a) The same matter has not been, and is not being, examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement;
(b) The individual has exhausted all available domestic remedies; this shall not be the rule where the application of the remedies is unreasonably prolonged or is unlikely to bring effective reliefto the person who is the victim of the violation of this Convention.

6. The Committee shall hold closed meetings when examining communications under this article.
7. The Committee shall forward its views to the State Party concerned and to the individual.

8. The provisions of this article shall come into force when five States Parties to this Convention have made declarations under paragraph 1 of this article. Such declarations shall be deposited by the States Parties with the Secretary-General of the United Nations, who shall transmit copies thereof to the other States Parties. A declaration may be withdrawn at any time by notification to the Secretary-General. Such a withdrawal shall not prejudice the consideration of any matter which is the subject of a communication already transmitted under this article; no further communication by or on behalf of an individual shall be received under this article after the notification of withdrawal of the declaration has been received by the SecretaryGeneral, unless the State Party has made a new declaration.

Article 23
The members of the Committee and of the ad hoc conciliation commissions which may be appointed under article 21, paragraph I (e), shall be entitled to the facilities, privileges and immunities of experts on mission for the United Nations as laid down in the relevant sections of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations.
Article 24
The Committee shall submit an annual report on its activities under this Convention to the States Parties and to the General Assembly of the United Nations.
PART III
Article 25

1. This Convention is open for signature by all States. 2. This Convention is subject to ratification. Instruments of ratification shall be deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations.
Article 26
This Convention is open to accession by all States. Accession shall be effected by the deposit of an instrument of accession with the SecretaryGeneral of the United Nations.
Article 27
1. This Convention shall enter into force on the thirtieth day after the date of the deposit with the Secretary-General of the United Nations of the twentieth instrument of ratification or accession.
2. For each State ratifying this Convention or acceding to it after the deposit of the twentieth instrument of ratification or accession, the Convention shall enter into force onthe thirtieth day after the date of the deposit of its own instrument of ratification or accession.

Article 28
1. Each State may, at the time of signature or ratification of this Convention or accession thereto, declare that it does not recognize the competence of the Committee provided for in article 20.
2. Any State Party having made a reservation in accordance with paragraph I of this article may, at any time, withdraw this reservation by notification to the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

Article 29
1 . Any State Party to this Convention may propose an amendment and file it with the Secretary-General of the United Nations. The SecretaryGeneral shall thereupon communicate the proposed amendment to the States Parties with a request that they notify him whether they favour a conference of States Parties for the purpose of considering an d voting upon the proposal. In the event that within four months from the date of such communication at least one third of the States Parties favours such a conference, the SecretaryGeneral shall convene the conference under the auspices of the United Nations. Any amendment adopted by a majority of the States Parties present and voting at the conference shall be submitted by the Secretary-General to all the States Parties for acceptance.
2. An amendment adopted in accordance with paragraph I of this article shall enter into force when two thirds of the States Parties to this Convention have notified the Secretary-General of the United Nations that they have accepted it in accordance with their respective constitutional processes.

3. When amendments enter into force, they shall be binding on those States Parties which have accepted them, other States Parties still being bound by the provisions of this Convention and any earlier amendments which they have accepted.

Article 30
1. Any dispute between two or more States Parties concerning the interpretation or application of this Convention which cannot be settled through negotiation shall, at the request of one of them, be submitted to arbitration. If within six months from thc date of the request for arbitration the Parties are unable to agree on the organization of the arbitration, any one of those Parties may refer the dispute to the International Court of Justice by request in conformity with the Statute of the Court.
2. Each State may, at the time of signature or ratification of this Con vention or accession thereto, declare that it does not consider itself bound by paragraph I of this article. The other States Parties shall not be bound by paragraph I of this article with respect to any State Party having made such a reservation.

3. Any State Party having made a reservation in accordance with paragraph 2 of this article may at any time withdraw this reservation by notification to the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

Article 31
1. A State Party may denounce this Convention by written notification to the Secretary-General of the United Nations. Denunciation becomes effective one year after the date of receipt of- the notification by the Secretary-General .
2. Such a denunciation shall not have the effect of releasing the State Party from its obligations under this Convention in regard to any act or omission which occurs prior to the date at which the denunciation becomes effective, nor shall denunciation prejudice in any way the continued consideration of any matter which is already under consideration by the Committee prior to the date at which the denunciation becomes effective.

3. Following the date at which the denunciation of a State Party becomes effective, the Committee shall not commence consideration of any new matter regarding that State.

Article 32
The Secretary-General of the United Nations shall inform all States Members of the United Nations and all States which have signed this Convention or acceded to it of the following:
(a) Signatures, ratifications and accessions under articles 25 and 26;
(b) The date of entry into force of this Convention under article 27 and the date of the entry into force of any amendments under article 29;

(c) Denunciations under article 31.

Article 33
1. This Convention, of which the Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian and Spanish texts are equally authentic, shall be deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations.
2. The Secretary-General of the United Nations shall transmit certified copies of this Convention to all States.

[This message has been edited by Boondawg (edited 09-20-2006).]

omg.. What the **** is wrong with some of you. I guess you can't imagine it if your wife or someone close was deemed a 'threat', tortured, locked up in a foreign country, can you? No, of course not, because you're white, and it can't happen to you. It's your neighbour (who is innocent) or someone removed from you. It always is. Something has to change.

They are sheepsez being lead to the slaughter.
They have no concernes for anyone but themselves. It's the "it won't happen to me" mentality.

quote Originally posted by JohnnyK: omg.. What the **** is wrong with some of you.

It won't. And it won't happen to you either. We could just as easy say it's your paranoia complexes that make you fear it might. I *still* haven't seen any alternatives.

quote Originally posted by 84Bill: They have no concernes for anyone but themselves.

Isn't that true for everyone?

quote Originally posted by Taijiguy: I *still* haven't seen any alternatives.

quote Originally posted by Boondawg: OK. 1. Screw information gathering. Trust only our EYES and our WITS. People lie. NEVER trust your EARS. 2. Fight OUR war. Make a plan, put it on the ground (not behind secret prison doors), engage it, see it through. 3. Prisonors are imprisoned by the people of the land they are fighting on, in the country they are fighting, and tried by that very same country. If they can be tried at all. I'm not sure if it is a crime to follow orders and/or fight in a war. (not terrorists, soldiers.) If not, imprision them untill war's end, then let that countrie's new powers decide what to do about them. Ask yourself this: Do soldiers deserve respect? Why? For the job they do? Or is it becouse they fight honorably? Does that go for ALL soldiers, reguardless of what side they are on? Can soldiers fight honorably, reguardless of the side they are on? Is torture honorable? If a side fights dishonorably, should an honorable man abandon his honor? Soldier, Baker, Candlestick maker. Men are men. It's thier ACTIONS that make them honorable. The SAME goes for the countries of Men.

quote Originally posted by Taijiguy: It won't. And it won't happen to you either.

Tell that to Nazi Germany.
People watched & kept silent as thier neighbors were drug off in broad daylght, simply becouse thier religion was deemed a threat to the government.
Men, Women, & Children.

[This message has been edited by Boondawg (edited 09-20-2006).]

quote Originally posted by intlcutlass: Why would we be a threat? What did we do?

I heard you threatened to kill the President of the United States.

(yes, it's in poor taste, but maybe someone will think I'm serious and that you pose a threat. For your sake, I hope not)

[This message has been edited by Formula88 (edited 09-20-2006).]

quote Originally posted by Boondawg: We questioned our Governments methods? Which was deemed (not by proof, or law, but by 'opinion') "Terroristic"?

OK.... I'll awnser like this...

35 Y/o male --- wife two kids
Homeowner- 3cars, and a cat.
Pay my bills.

8-5 Mon-Fri @ work 8 hrs
11-7 EVERYDAY Sleep 8 hrs
The remaining time-- play with kids, and fix up my house, and cars.....
Weekends-- Watch kids

What part of my life has even a hint of terrorism, or a threat to national security.... (although I do have to pay that parking ticket)....


If your not doing anything, what reason do they have to look at you....

Your not running guns , R U?

quote Originally posted by intlcutlass: Your not running guns , R U?

I don't know. Are you? How do I know you don't take your kids with you on weekend "road trips" to deliver guns, drugs, etc? How do I even know those are your kids?

Maybe you do need to be investigated afterall.

See, what you're failing to grasp is you don't have to do anything to look suspicious. All that needs happen is someone think you're suspicious. A bogus or inaccurate tip to DHS. Maybe you look a little bit like someone who is suspicious. Could take months of interrogation to find out for sure if you're the right person or not.

Sound ridiculous? Well, it happened to Maher Arar.

I noticed you didn't say what religion you are. Are you Muslim? If not, we need proof. You're going to have to take a Loyalty Oath to be sure.

*Still* not seeing any suggestions for alternative methods of interrogation.

I also can't help but wonder how many of the guys who oppose "torture" have made sacrifices for their country, and how many haven't.

[This message has been edited by Taijiguy (edited 09-20-2006).]

Depends on what that concern really is.

What good is accomplished by terrorizing a few people in order to "stop terrorism?" Evidentally some feel it is necessary to snatch "some" people off the streets just so they can feel safer...

The bright side is you are white and don't fit the profile. No problem?

quote Originally posted by intlcutlass: Isn't that true for everyone?

It would seem you disagree... maybe I'll drop a quarter and see how you feel a few days from now after your life has been ripped apart.

[This message has been edited by 84Bill (edited 09-20-2006).]

quote Originally posted by Formula88: Are you? How do I know you don't take your kids with you on weekend "road trips" to deliver guns, drugs, etc? How do I even know those are your kids? what you're failing to grasp is you don't have to do anything to look suspicious. Sound ridiculous?

No , what I am failing to grasp is if I don't look suspicious, and don't do anything, and have nothing to hide (in other words... come on in officer, how can I help you?, sure feel free to look around, just mind my dirty socks)

What reason would they have to look any further?

Muslim.... nope, I don't think I could ever get that angry over a dissent in religous platforms.


Just to put a more realistic spin on what we have here.... I HAVE been investigated by the FBI...for my clearence in the Navy....

I have delt with the NIS....(can't say why)...

Forgot to mention.... Had a friend in NSA....

If they are looking at you.... ask yourself why... Be honest with them....


Back to the comedy:
As it turns out, I am about to be detained... It seems I am guilty of harboring terrorists.... they are 2 and 6 years old..... they had plotted to cage the cat.....THATS JUST WRONG.

[This message has been edited by intlcutlass (edited 09-20-2006).]

quote Originally posted by Taijiguy: I also can't help but wonder how many of the guys who oppose "torture" have made sacrifices for their country, and how many of us have.

Don't you think that's kind of a "low blow"?
If I read the your "wonder" right, you are insinuating that unless you "served", you have no right (or opinion) to question our government or our military on thier motives & methods?

Those rights are gaurenteed me, reguardless of my service.

Were the civilian Women who worked in the factories during previous wars "serving thier country"?

But yes, in a sense, I served.
1. I registered for the draft.
2. I worked as a mechanic for the National Guard for 4 years as a civilian hire.

quote Originally posted by Taijiguy: It won't. And it won't happen to you either. We could just as easy say it's your paranoia complexes that make you fear it might.

It's not about paranoia. And no, it probably won't happen to me. Doesn't make it any better for that guy, who didn't do anything.

quote Originally posted by JohnnyK: It's not about paranoia. And no, it probably won't happen to me. Doesn't make it any better for that guy, who didn't do anything.

So give me another option. I notice how so far, NO ONE has provided ANY kind of answer. Just rhetorical and redundant protests.

quote Originally posted by Taijiguy: So give me another option. I notice how so far, NO ONE has provided ANY kind of answer. Just rhetorical and redundant protests.

How about don't interogate?
Catch um', jail um', and hold them until the wars end, then try them.

How do we get the truth out of crimanals in the U.S.?
We don't.
We ask them, they lie, we lie-detector them, we take them to court and show they lied, it goes againest them, they get convicted.
Simple.

"Are you involved in terrorist activities?"
"No."
"The lie detector shows you're lieing, which means you ARE involved, and you will be tried as such."

Not perfect, but better then torture.

P.S. Not having an effective legal way to do something does not give someone the right to break the law or deny someone thier human rights.

[This message has been edited by Boondawg (edited 09-20-2006).]

I see you ignored my last post and instead are trying to diflect the truth.

You say "I have nothing to hide."

Mr. Arar had nothing to hide.

Want to trade places with him and KNOW the reality of what he went through?

Can you handel the TRUTH?

I somehow doubt it.

quote Originally posted by intlcutlass: What reason would they have to look any further?

Any reason they want.. ANY REASON THEY WANT! ANY REASON THEY WANT!
You arent in control.. THEY ARE.

Yep, still here.... for now.

quote Originally posted by intlcutlass: Your still here---- the US has not taken you out..... J/k....sort off.....

quote Originally posted by Boondawg: How about don't interogate? Catch um', jail um', and hold them until the wars end, then try them. How do we get the truth out of crimanals in the U.S.? We don't. We ask them, they lie, we lie-detector them, we take them to court and show they lied, it goes againest them, they get convicted. Simple. "Are you involved in terrorist activities?" "No." "The lie detector shows you're lieing, which means you ARE involved, and you will be tried as such." Not perfect, but better then torture. P.S. Not having an effective legal way to do something does not give someone the right to break the law or deny someone thier human rights.

Sorry bro', that's the same kind of touchy-feely PC bullcrap that's ruining this country. Besides, if you consider terrorists to be "human", and thus deserving of "human rights", then we REALLY don't live in the same universe.

All the more reason for "terrorists" to HATE YOU.

quote Originally posted by Taijiguy: sorry bro', that's the same kind of touchy-feely PC bullcrap that's ruining this country. Besides, if you consider terrorists to be "human", and thus deserving of "human rights", then we REALLY don't live in the same universe.

quote Originally posted by Taijiguy: Besides, if you consider terrorists to be "human", and thus deserving of "human rights", then we REALLY don't live in the same universe.

You're right, I guess we don't.
Becouse, they are indeed "human", and thus deserving of "human rights".
Reguardless of the monsterous things they are doing, which I hate with a passion.
Believe me, I despise terrorist and thier methods.

But this subject not about THEM, it's about US.

quote Originally posted by Taijiguy: Sorry bro', that's the same kind of touchy-feely PC bullcrap that's ruining this country.

And since when did Human Rights become "touchy-feely PC bullcrap"?

[This message has been edited by Boondawg (edited 09-20-2006).]

quote Originally posted by Boondawg: And since when did Human Rights become "touchy-feely PC bullcrap"?

About the same time 'terrorist' became a buzzword and fear and hate was used as a governing method.

quote Originally posted by Taijiguy: Sorry bro', that's the same kind of touchy-feely PC bullcrap that's ruining this country. Besides, if you consider terrorists to be "human", and thus deserving of "human rights", then we REALLY don't live in the same universe.

Was Maher Arar a terrorist? Does he deserve "human rights?"

You say terrorists don't deserve human rights, so presumably it's ok to torture them. But we're torturing them to get information to prove they're terrorists. If they aren't terrorists, don't they have human rights?

I believe in The Constitution of the United States of America.
I believe in the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution that says....

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Now if you don't believe in the Constitution, that's your perogative. But if you think upholding the Constitution is "touchy-feely PC bullcrap" then yes, we do indeed live in separate universes.

I agree that it I personally probably don't have anything to worry about in the current political climate. My concern is not just my own rights, but everyone's. Becasue if I wait until they come for me, by then it's too late to do anything.

And before you start asking us what sacrifices others have made, why don't you tell us what sacrifices YOU'VE made?

quote Originally posted by Formula88: And before you start asking us what sacrifices others have made, why don't you tell us what sacrifices YOU'VE made?

I put my life on hold for 8 years to punch holes in the Atlantic Ocean on a ballistic missile sub so you could sleep better at night, and have the freedom to lecture me about the constitution. You?

The latest news:

Does Torture Really Work?

Sept. 20, 2006 - It’s probably not too farfetched to say that what most Americans know about torture comes from watching the TV show “24.” (There is even a Web site called The Jack Bauer Torture Report.) Jack and his comrades and enemies have at various moments on the Fox television program used electrical wires, heart defibrillators, old-fashioned bone breaking and chemical injections to wrest information from their captives. In one episode, Agent Bauer forced a terrorist to watch streaming video—staged—of his child’s execution. The terrorist talked.

But how does it really work? The current debate over torture, specifically President Bush’s efforts to gain congressional approval for certain interrogation techniques, is a confusing morass of stonewalling, half-truths and moral posturing wrapped up in politics and legalisms. The whole truth remains concealed behind a veil of government secrecy. Nonetheless, it is possible to piece together a picture of the how torture is actually used by the United States. And it doesn’t look much like the episodes on “24.”

U.S. officials do not use the word torture to describe their own methods. Instead, American intelligence officials speak of “aggressive interrogation measures,” sometimes euphemistically known as “torture lite.” According to human-rights activists who have consulted with Senate staffers involved in the negotiations, Bush administration officials are trying to redefine the Geneva Conventions, which bans “cruel practices,” to allow seven different procedures: 1) induced hypothermia, 2) long periods of forced standing, 3) sleep deprivation, 4) the “attention grab” (forcefully seizing the suspect’s shirt), 5) the “attention slap,” 6) the “belly slap” and 7) sound and light manipulation. As NEWSWEEK reported this week in its story The Politics of Terror, a harsh technique called “waterboarding,” which induces the sensation of drowning, would be specifically banned.

These procedures, apparently including waterboarding, have been used on several so-called High Value Targets—alleged top Al Qaeda operatives in captivity. Without getting into specifics, President Bush has stated that his administration’s interrogation and detention program has been necessary to foil plots and save lives.

But is that true? In recent interviews with NEWSWEEK reporters, U.S. intelligence officers say they have little—if any—evidence that useful intelligence has been obtained using techniques generally understood to be torture. It is clear, for instance, that Al Qaeda operations chief Khalid Shaikh Mohammed (KSM) was subjected to harsh interrogation techniques, including waterboarding. His interrogators even threatened, à la Jack Bauer, to go after his family. (KSM reportedly shrugged off the threat to his family—he would meet them in heaven, he said.) KSM did reveal some names and plots. But they haven’t panned out as all that threatening: one such plot was a plan by an Al Qaeda operative to cut down the Brooklyn Bridge—with a blow torch. Intelligence officials could never be sure if KSM was holding back on more serious threats, or just didn’t know of any.

There has long been a split between the FBI, which favors (and has long experience with) slower, more benign interview techniques, like establishing long-term, personal relationships between interrogator and subject. Responsibility for KSM was given to the CIA, which had much less experience with interrogations before 9/11, but was more gung-ho. In the months and years after 9/11, the intelligence community feared a second wave of attacks and wanted quick results.

Ron Suskind, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist whose book, “The One Percent Doctrine,” stands as the most thorough examination of CIA interrogations thus far, paints a very skeptical picture in his depiction of the interrogations of top Al Qaeda officials. Meanwhile, some experts on torture say the debate over acceptable techniques helped create the 2004 scandal at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. In a manner of speaking, Abu Ghraib had nothing to do with the intelligence community’s rules on interrogation. The Abu Ghraib abuses were the work of poorly trained, overwhelmed prison guards. Nonetheless, they were operating in an environment in which it was generally understood that “the gloves were off” when it came to interrogating prisoners. That is the problem with even a limited set of exceptions to an outright ban on torture or “torture lite.” If even some exceptions are made, they can be seen as a license by guards and interrogators. Who is to say that interrogators will stop at a “belly slap” or an “attention grab” if they are permitted to lay hands on the prisoners in a darkened cell? Administration officials have said that “less than five” Al Qaeda officials were subjected to those authorized “aggressive” techniques. But Special Forces soldiers and CIA operatives were roughing up so many prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan that at least a score died.

The Bush administration has tried another approach to end-run critics: farming out torture. For years, American intelligence handed over prisoners to be interrogated by other security services less squeamish about squeezing information out of suspects. These so-called renditions picked up after 9/11. The very first high-ranking Al Qaeda operative captured—Abu Faraj al-Libbi-was first interrogated by the FBI. But when the FBI wanted to use its normal, go-slow methods, the prisoner was turned over to the CIA—who promptly turned him over to the Egyptians. (NEWSWEEK has reported that as al-Libbi was led to a plane routed for Egypt, a CIA operative whispered in his ear that he planned to “f--- your mother”.) Under the no-doubt rough care of the Egyptians, al-Libbi talked of plots and agents. The information was used to make the case for war against Iraq. As recounted in "Hubris," a new book by NEWSWEEK's Michael Isikoff and David Corn, there was only one problem: al-Libbi later recanted, saying that he had lied to stop the torture.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14924664/site/newsweek/

quote Originally posted by Taijiguy: I put my life on hold for 8 years to punch holes in the Atlantic Ocean on a ballistic missile sub so you could sleep better at night, and have the freedom to lecture me about the constitution. You?

So you joined the military. Had a job. Good for you. Did you get injured? Lose any body parts? Any buddies get killed?
You spent 8 years in the military, for which you were paid, given room and board, and training, plus GI benefits after you got out.

I haven't served in the military, although I was a civil servant with NASA for about 5 years. Like you, I had a job that gave me benefits and a paycheck, and some training, although not as extensive as your military training, I'm sure. Although a civilian job, like you my top level boss was the President of the United States.

I did not lecture you about the Constitution. You have already made it perfectly clear that your personal views are contradictory to the 5th Amendment. That's your right and one of the freedoms you so proudly protected during your 8 years of "sacrifice." If my making mention of that angers you, don't ask why I mentioned it. Ask yourself why you find yourself at odds with the Constitution while apparently considering yourself a good American citizen.

Anyone can do that, all one needs to do is sign on a dotted line..

Just because you rode around in a boat underwater does not mean you are someone special or that you have done anything special. While the fact that you served is noteworthy it isn't anything special.

While you claim to be a "defender of the Constitution", your blatent disregard for the rights and protections granted to all citizens and guests is appauling to say the very least and is certinly cause for stern lecturing.

quote Originally posted by Taijiguy: I put my life on hold for 8 years to punch holes in the Atlantic Ocean on a ballistic missile sub so you could sleep better at night, and have the freedom to lecture me about the constitution. You?

quote Originally posted by Taijiguy: I put my life on hold for 8 years to punch holes in the Atlantic Ocean on a ballistic missile sub so you could sleep better at night, and have the freedom to lecture me about the constitution. You?

You know what? I haven't.. Doesn't mean an innocent man wasn't beaten and tortured. But it's ok.. Shotgun approach. We'll do that to everyone. And if not, well, it was only one (ya right) guy, that you didn't even know.

quote Originally posted by Formula88: So you joined the military. Had a job. Good for you. Did you get injured? Lose any body parts? Any buddies get killed? You spent 8 years in the military, for which you were paid, given room and board, and training, plus GI benefits after you got out. I haven't served in the military, although I was a civil servant with NASA for about 5 years. Like you, I had a job that gave me benefits and a paycheck, and some training, although not as extensive as your military training, I'm sure. Although a civilian job, like you my top level boss was the President of the United States. I did not lecture you about the Constitution. You have already made it perfectly clear that your personal views are contradictory to the 5th Amendment. That's your right and one of the freedoms you so proudly protected during your 8 years of "sacrifice." If my making mention of that angers you, don't ask why I mentioned it. Ask yourself why you find yourself at odds with the Constitution while apparently considering yourself a good American citizen.

That's a pretty picture you paint, too bad it's all uninformed speculation, and mostly untrue. I was paid, but so little that I qualified for welfare and food stamps. Room and board? Mmm, I wasn't "given" anything. They had to put me someplace. Training? Yeah, but only in a field that served the Navy. Not much demand for a guy who can blow up entire countries in the civilian sector. And GI benefits? Try again. I have NO benefits.
I don't find myself at odds with the Constitution. I firmly believe that in times of war, when necessary, there may be times for an exception. Anyone who thinks there should NEVER be any exceptions to a rule are not being very realistic. I would challenge that everyone on this board would bend, or break a rule, if it serves their personal agenda. To be critical of others who would also do so are completely hypocritical.

quote Originally posted by Red88FF: Well this is quite possibly the stupidest thing I have ever read on this forum! For Christ sakes! didn't you read a word he said? Any American worth a pinch of Sh!t would lay down his life to save a thousand of his fellow countrymen! Somehow I get he impression you would not though! It is all numbers guy! Even in our own legal system that you seem to think the enemy deserves, we convict, jail and sometimes execute innocent people.. for the greater good.

I've put my life on the line plenty of times for others, this isn't even related. Our legal system as you pointed out is flawed and still makes mistakes... and you want to sidestep the safeguards we do have in place? Take away the checks and balances of an open society, allow secret prisons, torture, etc because we MIGHT be safer... unless we are the ones sucked into that system. Once you head down that slope there isn't any coming back... if a government is allowed to disappear people, people are going to disappear. This is everything we hated about the Soviet Union, now we are emulating them?

I'm laying it on the line for you right now... I don't want to see you or any other person secretted away, imprisoned with no charges, no counsel, no rights, being tortured and possibly killed. Stating that in this day and age might get me on one of those lists, just standing up for yourself and others had that effect in the McCarthy era. This is the government doing things they know aren't legal, and then telling us when they get caught that they aren't breaking the law, they are trying innovative solutions and the supreme court can kiss their asses. Get caught and then ask permission for what Congress forbid doing, what the Supreme Court forbid.

What do we owe this Canadian for destroying his life? This goes a bit beyond going to prison after a trial and then getting released because new evidence proves your innocent. We are starting with guilty until confession and we WILL get that confession. When we are wrong who/what do we owe? How do we heal those wounds? Oh yeah, multiply that by dozens or hundreds of Iraqi civilians getting similar treatment each day, when we have squads busting into homes looking for people that the troops can't ID because they don't speak the language... so haul em all in. Lock em up until we figure out how bad we screwed up and if they are still alive just let em go... no apology, no compensation.

quote Originally posted by Taijiguy: I don't find myself at odds with the Constitution. I firmly believe that in times of war, when necessary, there may be times for an exception. Anyone who thinks there should NEVER be any exceptions to a rule are not being very realistic. I would challenge that everyone on this board would bend, or break a rule, if it serves their personal agenda. To be critical of others who would also do so are completely hypocritical.

You say you are not at odds yet you say there may be times for exception which will put you at odds with it.

MAY I REMIND YOU.
You affirmed an oath to defend the U.S. Constitution AT ALL TIMES without exception.

[This message has been edited by 84Bill (edited 09-20-2006).]

quote Originally posted by Taijiguy: That's a pretty picture you paint, too bad it's all uninformed speculation, and mostly untrue. I was paid, but so little that I qualified for welfare and food stamps. Room and board? Mmm, I wasn't "given" anything. They had to put me someplace. Training? Yeah, but only in a field that served the Navy. Not much demand for a guy who can blow up entire countries in the civilian sector. And GI benefits? Try again. I have NO benefits. I don't find myself at odds with the Constitution. I firmly believe that in times of war, when necessary, there may be times for an exception. Anyone who thinks there should NEVER be any exceptions to a rule are not being very realistic. I would challenge that everyone on this board would bend, or break a rule, if it serves their personal agenda. To be critical of others who would also do so are completely hypocritical.

You make it sound like such a hardship. Such a sacrifice. Would working in the Peace Core qualify as a sacrifice? How about the AmeriCorp*NCCC? You know, volunteer jobs that people to solely to help others - without pay, without benefits. Or does only military service count, since that's what you did?

The Constitution doesn't mention that it should be waived during times of war. But even so, wouldn't that require a declaration of war?
If we can waive the Constitution for the War on Terror, can we also waive it for the War on Drugs?

If it works out well, we can also make exceptions for the War on Poverty. Ship out all those homeless bums so we don't have to worry about them anymore.

I'm a little alarmed that you think it's alright to "bend" the Constitution.

I had a dialogue with someone on the forum (I forget who) some time ago.

They thanked me for my military service to this country.

I said, "no thanks were needed since anyone can do what I did."

They responded and said something like, "it was still a sacrefice that you made if only for your time."

I said, "Well thanks but it was my honor to serve you."


Edit:
I feel PRIVILAGED to have been given the opportunity to serve in the U.S. Army.
Thats all the thanks I will ever need.

[This message has been edited by 84Bill (edited 09-20-2006).]

quote Originally posted by Formula88: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, <FONT COLOR="yellow">nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.</FONT>

That is for the United states not everyone in the world, that is from OUR constitution. They (foreigners) may have some kind of rights if apprehended on US soil, but I don't think they should.

quote Originally posted by Taijiguy: OK, so once in a while someone "innocent" gets caught in the crossfire and may suffer unjustly. Is that one person's suffering worth the thousands of lives that have otherwise been saved by the process that was used on him, and actually culled valuable information that prevented another attack?

Tell me how many lives were "saved" due to the torture and imprisonment of Maher Arar, a Canadian who worked as a computer consultant. Dick all.

And tell me Taijiguy, how many lives will be saved when it's YOU who is being tortured and imprisoned. As a one of those "bleeding-heart" people you so abhor, I'll try and get a collection together here at the forum to send you a sympathy/get well card during your incarceration. I realize that really shouldn't be necessary though, as you'll be feeling so proud about saving all those lives with the information you'll be spilling during one of your torture sessions...

While Mr. Arar IS NOT a U.S. Citizen, he was a guest.

As a GUEST he is to be granted all the protections under the United States Constitution as if he were a naturalized Citizen.

Maybey you treat your guests like dogshit but I don't and I sure as hell don't want my government (WHO SWORE an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution) doing it.

quote Originally posted by Red88FF: That is for the United states not everyone in the world, that is from OUR constitution. They (foreigners) may have some kind of rights if apprehended on US soil, but I don't think they should.