Doctors participated in torture of suspects after 9/11, taskforce finds
theguardian.com
theguardian.com
Does your superior officer make a direct order to do it? That's no excuse whatsoever, you're still guilty.
Is it required for national security? Still no excuse, the ends don't justify the means. If 'terrorists would win' otherwise, well, then they'd 'win' but not indemnify you.
Has your nation passed laws making it explicitly legal? Still no excuse, it's still illegal and you can and should be prosecuted for that.
If the current world order is unwilling to pursue it in practice, then our children and grandchildren will do it - there's no statute of limitations, and people involved in these USA actions can expect the same "retirement" as the elderly Nazis who were prosecuted in recent years.
Victors don't have war crimes leveled against them.
That's not true; for instance, the International Criminal Tribunal for the Fomer Yugoslavia (ICTY) has indicted members of pretty much every side of the various wars in the breakup of Yugoslavia.
That's actually rather the point of international war crimes tribunals not exclusively associated with the victors of a particular conflict or their allies, both conflict-specific ones like ICTY and standing ones like the International Criminal Court.
Its true that the development of institutions which allow war crimes to be prosecuted, in at least some cases, as something other than victor's justice is a development of the last couple of decades.
Croatia had military support from US: "In March 1994, the Washington Agreement was signed,[39] ending the Croat–Bosniak War, and providing Croatia with US military advisors from Military Professional Resources Incorporated (MPRI).[40]"
and "Gotovina and Markač were acquitted on appeal in November 2012."
Moreover, US at that time also effectively supported Bosniaks, for which Al Quaeda warriors fought in Bosnia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnian_mujahideen#Terrorist_li...
"There were over 1,000 people in the country who belonged to what we then called Mujahideen freedom fighters. We now know that that was al-Qaida."
Knowing how such links started in Afghanistan before, it's actually not so surprising: US support whoever they like, if that's in accord with US goals. If they support somebody, then they are called "freedom fighters." They are "terrorists" when they fight directly against US. Are you surprised that almost 20 years ago media were biased just like they are now, and if you weren't an expert you probably got very distorted picture, including the picture of ICTY work?
In short, I'm with the skeptical view of mhurron.
No, I'm not.
> Croatia had military support from US:
And several Croats (29, including Bosnian Croats) were indicted by ICTY.
> and "Gotovina and Markač were acquitted on appeal in November 2012."
Yes, and so? They had charges against them. That they were acquitted on appeal is not evidence that the ICTY did not indict them (they also weren't the only Croats indicted by the ICTY.)
> Moreover, US at that time also effectively supported Bosniaks
And the ICTY indicted and convicted several Bosniaks.
You'd probably also point out that the US and NATO intervened on behalf of the Kosovo Albanians, but the ICTY also prosecuted, and in some cases convicted, Kosovo Albanians.
And ICTY wasn't set up or consituted solely by the US and US allies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_indicted_in_the_...
Now that you also mention Albanians at the same court, I checked http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_indicted_in_the_...
"The list contains 161 names. 94 of them are Serbs, 29 are Croats, 9 are Albanians, 9 are Bosniaks, 2 are Macedonians and 2 are Montenegrins."
I can count only one Albanian sentenced of mentioned 9, others are acquitted or withdrawn. You should also check the list for other acquitted (e.g. of the Croats you mention), it was easiest for me to check Albanians as there are only 9 of them.
I don't recall arguing that such courts aren't biased. All courts are biased, because all courts are made up of people, and all people are biased.
That being said, more Serbs being indicted and convicted by the ICTY doesn't mean the court is biased. It could be a result of more Serbian war crimes.
And that moreover, it's U.S. that's effectively victorious and untouchable since very long ago.
And in each of the consituent conflicts, members of the same side the US was one were prosecuted by the court, and several of those were convicted.
The "way for the victors to humiliate the vanquished" argument really doesn't hold up in the case of the ICTY.
It holds up even less well with with the ICC.
I was under the impression that because the US has not ratified the statute of the court, their citizens cannot be tried in the court. It might be more subtle than that - perhaps someone with more knowledge can expand.
My opinion is that a body like the International Criminal Court is valuable to world stability, and I hope that accusations of partiality will, over time, be shown to be incorrect.
In the German army, you are not punished for disobeying orders that violate human dignity and you have the legal _obligation_ to disobey any order that runs against international human rights law[1].
[1]http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&tl=en&u=ht...
http://www.amazon.com/Kill-Anything-That-Moves-American/dp/0...
Name names: get the state boards to pull their licenses, because that's what these torturers deserve.
This is also a punishment worse than the crime, by the way.
no, no it's not.
[edit: to clarify, my reading of "this" is to "pull their licenses"; apparently everyone else is reading it otherwise....]
We don't deliberately torture convicted murderers: we kill them in a way which we (correctly or not) believe to be humane. We shouldn't be torturing suspected (or convicted!) terrorists either.
What do you mean?
Why do you think that a "modern" government would be any better in this department than "old" governments? Is there any evidence to support this, or do people just like to think that these days things are better?
I'm getting closer and closer to expatriating because of the policies of the US government. And please don't tell me that all developed countries are participating in torture as this is just not true.
Who among adult reasoning men or women would believe this premise? Are we all turned to geese?
Snowden for President would be a fine thing.
no, unfortunately we're humans:
In the experiment the 1. was practically non-existent, zero - some researcher telling you what to do, no real authority, no any chance of bad consequences, while 2. - electric shock, heart attack - hard to beat, yet people still chosen 2.
Now, in the torture situation we have the alternative 1. with reasonable perception of potential bad consequnces much higher than in the experiment, ie. pretty seriously sounding very plausible "or else..." from real authority while 2. is significantly lower because it is just terrorist, bad guy, and who will be tortured anyway. People making choice 2. when difference was higher (in the experiment) necessarily and obviously means that they would make such choice when difference is less, like in this case of torture.
(Edit: error on my part. His passport was revoked, which is what I was citing, but apparently he remains a citizen.)
Uh... no they weren't.
If you're setting the benchmark as the signers of the US Constitution, I disagree with this assertion. For the sake of argument, let's also include the signing of the Declaration of Independence, which is IMO a much more idealistic--and traitorous thing from the perspective of the crown.
Of the 40 signers of the constitution about 8 were below the minimum age requirements of US President (35) [1] with an average age of about 44. Of the 66 signers of the Declaration of Independence, about 7 were below the minimum age requirements [2]. The rest were at or above 35, and there were many men in their 60s and 70s. These numbers are not exact as I'm going off quick calculations and a spreadsheet drafted in a couple minutes.
[1] http://hercules.gcsu.edu/~hedmonds/U.S.%20Constitution/Const...
[2] http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_signer...
Edit: Missed one and bumped the signer count.
> We're going to torture these suspects with or without you. However, with your assistance, we can 'maximize' the effectiveness of the interrogation while 'minimizing' actual physical damage.
Yes, running to the media would have no doubt been in violation of their orders, but following those orders is a far greater offense. They get absolutely no sympathy from me, they should be tried for their crimes.
I'm sure someone will jump down my throat for playing semantics, but most of the comments to date are reacting to the headline claiming torture-by-doctor rather than the actual findings.
Here is a document detailing what force-feeding is: http://www.aljazeera.com/humanrights/2013/05/201358152317954...
It is not a pleasant thing.
Some lower-level staff may get hung out to dry (e.g. Abu Ghraib) but if you were a senior-level commander or official, why would you finger one of your peers, when he probably has similar dirt on you? Better that everyone keeps his mouth shut.
However merely being on the losing side isn't sufficient; you have to be on the conquered side. The US was by reasonable accounts on the losing side of the Vietnam War, but war crime trials were never held for the people that really deserved it because although the US lost, they were no conquered. Saddam was on the losing side of the Gulf War, but he did not see trial for his crimes until he was well and truly conquered many years later.
The Vietnam war was not a war of survival for the US, nor did it take place in US territory. Psychologically, it was certainly a blow, but in the chess game of geopolitical strategy, it was more on the level of losing a knight or bishop, certainly not losing a queen or the entire game.
"As of the publication of this report, state licensing and disciplinary boards in Alabama, California, Georgia, Louisiana, new York, Ohio, and Texas have received—and dismissed—complaints against health professionals for alleged mistreatment of detainees at Guantánamo and secret CIA detention centers. To the knowledge of the Task Force, none of these complaints has led to a formal hearing that then led to a decision holding the individual to account. Many of the complaints were dismissed on procedural grounds. The boards rarely explained the bases for these decisions, but together they suggest an unwillingness of state licensing bodies to address complaints of misconduct within national security agencies or a belief by the boards that they are unable to pursue them. They also reveal procedural and substantive deficiencies in the way state boards approach discipline of health professionals alleged to have been complicit in torture or other forms of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. These practices and procedures contribute to a lack of disciplinary accountability for unethical acts of severe harm on detainees."