NavigationUser loginSpam?See spam posts on this site? If so, please don't reply to the spam! Instead, just report the URL to the webmaster. |
Still any doubts the US tortures?!Even the very pro-American reported that an AMERICAN court admitted that the tortures were real. You still doubting? ++++++++++ Rumsfeld torture suit dismissed Donald Rumsfeld apologised for abuse at Abu Ghraib A US court has dismissed a lawsuit against former US defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld over claims prisoners were tortured in Iraq and Afghanistan. The court accepted that the nine men who sued had been tortured - and detailed the torture in its ruling. But Judge Thomas Hogan ruled the five Iraqis and four Afghans did not have US constitutional rights, and also that Mr Rumsfeld was immune from such suits. Two human rights groups brought the suit against him and three officers. Judge Hogan threw out the claims against retired Lt Gen Ricardo Sanchez, the former commander of US military forces in Iraq, Col Thomas Pappas and former Brig Gen Janis Karpinski, both former commanders at Abu Ghraib prison. In a ruling stretching to nearly 60 pages, the chief judge of the US district court for the District of Columbia said the allegations of torture were "horrifying". Details of abuse The nine men suffered abuse including being: * hung upside-down and slapped until they lost consciousness They also were subjected to sexual humiliation. None was ever charged with a crime. All were released after detentions of one month to one year. Some were detained multiple times. The complaint alleged that the three officers knew torture and abuse were occurring and were present when officers under their command were committing torture and abuse. The complaint against Mr Rumsfeld - brought by the American Civil Liberties Union and Human Rights First - focused on an order he signed in December 2002 authorising new methods for interrogating prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. Both groups say he later ignored overwhelming evidence that the policies resulted in prisoner abuse. Mr Rumsfeld has apologised for the abuse scandals. He was removed as defence secretary following the defeat of President Bush's Republican party in elections last year. [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6501499.stm] |
Still any doubts the US
The Australian citizen David Hicks has become the first Guantanamo prisoner to plead guilty under the Military Commissions Act passed last year. Hicks entered the guilty plea Monday as part of a deal with military prosecutors. Hicks has been held at Guantanamo Bay for the past five years. We speak with Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights. [rush transcript included]
The U.S. government had originally accused Hicks of conspiracy to commit murder, conspiracy to engage in acts of terrorism, attempted murder and aiding the enemy but only ended up charging him with a single crime -- providing material support for terrorism. Pentagon officials say Hicks will likely serve his sentence in Australia.
Hicks has said he was sodomized, beaten, and subjected to forced injections while in U.S. custody. The military denies the allegations.
Hicks appeared in the courtroom wearing khaki prison fatigues and with hair down to his chest - grown, his lawyer said, to pull over his eyes at night to keep out the light and allow him to get to sleep.
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/03/27/1356240
Motto: chown -R linux:GNU world
Distros: Debian, gNewSense
more proof
see sworn testimony of Samuel Provance, a (honorably) discharged NCO from Abu Ghraib's military intelliegence personnel here:
http://www.humanrightsfirst.info/pdf/06214-usls-provance-statment.pdf
Still any doubts the US
Hicks' case is the classic "I'll say anything, just let me go!" scenario that the law was meant to prevent. In a civil court he could never be convicted of providing material support to terrorism - first questions would be "who are the terrorists that he provided material support to and what terrorist plan was this material planned for or put to use in?" Even if he were fighting with the Taliban and shooting at our guys, that does not constitute terrorism - he is as he claims fighting with his Taliban pals to drive off an invading force. There is a presumption here that all Taliban are terrorists - and yet there is no evidence to prove this. That would be like saying all US forces are terrorists because a few of them tortured Iraqis in Abu Ghraib (and numerous secret camps in the good ol' Soviet Union). Anyone who has served in the US armed forces or has buddies there know that this sort of behavior is not tolerated and the Abu Ghraib disaster is due to a bunch of misfits out of control (even if they do have the blessing of the mighty Rumsfeld and Dubbyah).
Just so no one gets confused and thinks I'm all chummy with the Taliban - I'm all for the absolute extermination of all Taliban because their religious ideals are a threat to any civilized society and they have had no significant contributions to make to the Afghans. Actually all religions are a threat to civilized society but I'm not getting much support for eradicating religion. I've never seen any reason to fear the all-knowing all-powerful bogeyman, but the numerous people who believe in that bogeyman - they're creepy and all too happy to murder for that bogeyman.
Death to the Infidels and.....
"Just so no one gets confused and thinks I'm all chummy with the Taliban - I'm all for the absolute extermination of all Taliban because their religious ideals are a threat to any civilized society and they have had no significant contributions to make to the Afghans."
Would this belief include hanging Hicks as a collaborator?
Since the Taliban is muslim and they follow the lead of the mullahs, can we take it that you also feel this way about all muslims and Catholics?
Should all believers in an invisible super being be killed leaving only 10% of the worlds population?
To my knowledge, only the muslims want to kill or convert the non-believers.
Everyone that is pro-muslim should consider conversion. If the muslims win there won't be a choice.