SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Sioux Nation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: redfish who wrote (1544)11/16/2004 4:56:16 PM
From: Wharf Rat  Respond to of 360933
 
U.N. Report Slams Use of Torture to Beat Terror
by Thalif Deen
Friday, November 12, 2004 by the Inter Press Service
UNITED NATIONS - No country can justify torture, the humiliation of prisoners or violation of international conventions in the guise of fighting terrorism, says a U.N. report released here.

The 19-page study, which is likely to go before the current session of the U.N. General Assembly in December, does not identify the United States by name but catalogues the widely publicized torture and humiliation of prisoners and detainees in Iraq and Afghanistan by U.S. troops waging the so-called ”war on terrorism.”

Bush is thumbing his nose at the international community and all those who respect human rights by nominating Gonzales. You cannot simply up and bolt from the Geneva Conventions and the Anti-Torture Convention. Gonzales is Ashcroft without the edges and the delirium and the baritone. But the policy will remain the same.

Matt Rothschild, editor of 'The Progressive' magazine
The hard line taken by the United Nations comes amidst the controversial appointment of a new U.S. attorney general, who has implicitly defended the use of torture against ''terrorists'' and ''terror suspects''.

On Wednesday, U.S. President George W Bush named White House legal counsel Alberto Gonzales as attorney general to succeed John Ashcroft, who announced his resignation last week.

In a now-infamous memo to the White House in January 2002, Gonzales argued that captured members of the former ruling Taliban regime in Afghanistan were not protected under the Geneva Conventions, which stipulate the treatment of prisoners of war (POWs). The United States has signed the Geneva Conventions.

The same policy was applied to prisoners in Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad who were tortured and humiliated by U.S. troops following the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003, raising outrage among human rights activists and other people worldwide.

The U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command is now prosecuting several U.S. soldiers on criminal charges, including involuntary manslaughter, for their treatment of prisoners.

Gonzales has also described international conventions governing prisoners of war, including the Geneva Conventions, as ''obsolete.''

According to the author of the 19-page U.N. report, 'Torture, and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment', ''The condoning of torture is, per se, a violation of the prohibition of torture.”

The study, by U.N. Special Rapporteur on Human Rights Theo van Boven, points out that ''legal argument of necessity and self-defense, invoking domestic law, have recently been put forward, aimed at providing a justification to exempt officials suspected of having committed or instigated acts of torture against suspected terrorists from criminal liability.''

But, Van Boven says, ''the absolute nature of the prohibition of torture and other forms of ill-treatment means that no exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as justification for torture.''

Von Boven said he has received information ''on certain methods that have been condoned and used to secure information from suspected terrorists.''

He says these include, ''holding detainees in painful and-or stressful positions, depriving them of sleep and light for prolonged periods, exposing them to extremes of heat, cold, noise and light, hooding, depriving them of clothing, stripping detainees naked and threatening them with dogs.''

''The jurisprudence of both international and regional human rights mechanisms is unanimous in stating that such methods violate the prohibition of torture and ill-treatment,'' Von Boven adds.

In the aftermath of the Sep. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, he says, ''thousands of persons suspected of terrorism, including children, have been detained, denied the opportunity to have legal status determined and prevented from having access to lawyers.''

Some of them, he adds, are said to be still held in solitary confinement, ''which in itself may constitute a violation of the right to be free from torture.''

Asked if he supports a call by Amnesty International for an independent commission to probe U.S. detention policies in Iraq and Afghanistan, Van Boven told reporters in October that such a probe is imperative.

''Whenever there are serious allegations of torture, investigations are absolutely necessary. And the results of these investigations should be made public because it's absolutely a public affair,'' said the special rapporteur.

In view of the U.N. position, the appointment of Gonzales as the new U.S. attorney general is a slap in the face of the international community, says Matt Rothschild, editor of 'The Progressive' magazine.

''Bush is thumbing his nose at the international community and all those who respect human rights by nominating Gonzales,'' Rothschild told IPS.

''You cannot simply up and bolt from the Geneva Conventions and the Anti-Torture Convention. Gonzales is Ashcroft without the edges and the delirium and the baritone. But the policy will remain the same,'' he added.

''It was Gonzales, along with Ashcroft and (Defense Secretary Donald) Rumsfeld and (Vice President Dick) Cheney, who signed off on tougher interrogation methods and on the hiding of prisoners from the International Red Cross,'' said Rothschild.

According to Francis A Boyle, who teaches international law at the University of Illinois, ''As White House counsel, Alberto Gonzales originated, authorized, approved and aided and abetted grave breaches of the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions of 1949, which are serious war crimes.”

''In other words, Gonzales is a prima facie war criminal. He must be prosecuted under the Geneva Conventions and the U.S. War Crimes Act,'' Boyle told IPS.

In any event, the U.S. Senate must reject his nomination, because, as a presumptive war criminal, Gonzales is not fit to be attorney general of the United States, he continued.

''Should Gonzales travel around the world in that capacity, human rights lawyers such as myself will attempt to get him prosecuted along the lines of what happened to (former Chilean dictator) General (Pinochet,'' said Boyle, author of 'Destroying World Order'.

Jordan J Paust, law foundation professor at the University of Houston, agrees with Boyle's thesis.

''The denial of protections under the Geneva Conventions is a violation of the Geneva Conventions, and every violation of the laws of war is a war crime. Complicity in connection with war crimes (such as aiding and abetting the denial of protections) is also criminally sanctionable,'' Paust told IPS.

Thus, it appears Gonzales is reasonably accused of international criminal activity, he added, although he has the human right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law that provides basic human rights to due process protections, ”that he chose to deny others with respect to the military commissions at Guantanamo Bay” (where Washington detains terror suspects).

''Whether or not Gonzales is guilty, the taint in this instance is surely enough to require that he not be confirmed in any U.S. governmental position, especially since the Bush administration has stated that it is still the policy of the United States to have a government under law and to promote the rule of law and human rights -- rights that are reflected also in the Geneva Conventions,'' Paust added.

''Making Alberto Gonzales the attorney general of the United States would be a travesty,'' says Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights.

''It would mean taking one of the legal architects of an illegal and immoral policy and installing him as the official who is charged with protecting our constitutional rights. The Gonzales memo paved the way for Abu Ghraib,'' Ratner said in a statement issued Thursday.

###

commondreams.org



To: redfish who wrote (1544)11/16/2004 4:57:55 PM
From: redfish  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 360933
 
Conservatives to GOP moderates: Get out of our party
Posted on Tuesday, November 16 @ 10:16:57 EST

Many moderates say they no longer feel invited to the party
By Colleen McCain Nelso, The Dallas Morning News

A win doesn't mean that all is well in the Republican Party.

Though their candidate came out ahead on Nov. 2, some moderate Republicans are as despondent as Democrats. While Christian conservatives have been credited with turning out like-minded voters in crucial swing states, many moderates say they have been marginalized.

"There is no future for moderate and progressive Republicans in the Republican Party," said Jim Scarantino, president of the centrist GOP group Mainstream 2004. "The far right wing and the fanatics have seized control."

Mr. Scarantino isn't sure where his brand of Republican politics fits into the GOP. Some Christian conservatives say it doesn't.

"If they can't agree and support the president and the platform, then they ought to go over to the Democrats," said Jan LaRue, chief counsel for the conservative group Concerned Women for America.

After President Bush's re-election, evangelicals were quickly branded the "it" political group. They have taken a two-week victory lap, appearing around the clock on cable news networks while touting a conservative social agenda.

Out of the spotlight and largely overlooked, some moderates said they feel like politicians without a party.

Issues such as gay marriage and abortion have exposed fissures in the majority party, as conservatives push for what they call "pro-family" policies and moderates urge renewed focus on fiscal conservatism.

Evangelicals have been quick to seize on their moment in the spotlight, launching efforts to expand their influence and criticizing Republicans who don't toe the conservative line on social issues.

The Rev. Jerry Falwell announced plans last week for an "evangelical revolution," forming the Faith and Values Coalition, which he described as a resurrection of the Moral Majority.

And conservatives accused Sen. Arlen Specter of disloyalty when the Pennsylvania Republican suggested that the Senate might reject anti-abortion judicial nominees. Evangelical groups urged Mr. Specter's colleagues to reject his bid to become chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

'Ruthlessly exploited'

For years, moderate and conservative Republicans have coexisted, albeit somewhat awkwardly, agreeing to disagree on issues including abortion, gay rights and the environment. But this year's Republican convention made clear that moderates wield little or no influence, said Mr. Scarantino, whose group was launched by former Republican governors and other officials concerned that the GOP had taken a hard right turn.

While big-name moderates such as John McCain, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Rudolph Giuliani took the stage in New York, conservatives controlled the party platform.

"The party has ruthlessly exploited moderate Republicans," Mr. Scarantino said. "I think they're deluding themselves thinking they're ever going to get anything more than the opportunity to be on the stage."

Dennis Sanders, a gay minister who runs The Moderate Republican blog, has written in recent days about the tough questions facing his wing of the party. Many moderates likely are "considering leaving the GOP this morning after a Bush win," he wrote on Nov. 3. "I've considered it myself. I can only say this: Don't give up."

Some moderates remain optimistic, predicting that the president will take a measured approach, striking a balance by doing just enough to satisfy evangelicals without raising the ire of other groups.

The Bush administration "wants to have a positive legacy," said Ann Stone, chairwoman of Republicans for Choice. "They're going to figure out what they can give these guys that's not going to alienate everybody else."

Political scientist John Green said that the president and his allies are adept at counting votes.

"Evangelicals and other conservative Christians were clearly an important part of that coalition, but they were not the only people in the coalition," said Dr. Green, director of the Ray C. Bliss Institute of Applied Politics at the University of Akron. Mr. Bush "needs the support of all the Republicans in the coalition to get his agenda passed."

Ms. Stone attributed the attention on evangelicals to a journalist-generated frenzy. "It's always sexier to talk about the Christian right. It's something that fascinates the media."

Evangelicals' pull

Regardless of what landed conservatives in the limelight, they are a powerful group.

"Evangelicals are in a very strong position right now, and they'll demand a lot," said Geoffrey Layman, associate professor of government and politics at the University of Maryland.

Religious conservatives have become for the GOP what labor unions have been for Democrats – a ready and reliable pool of activists, he said.

"The Republicans have never really had that until the Christian right came along," said Dr. Layman, author of The Great Divide: Religious and Cultural Conflict in American Party Politics.

After laboring behind the scenes for years, conservatives are front and center. And they want the president to move quickly to address their agenda.

The to-do list includes defending traditional marriage, banning human cloning, reforming Social Security, passing more-restrictive abortion laws and stepping up enforcement of obscenity laws, said Ms. LaRue of Concerned Women for America.

And if moderates don't agree with those objectives, perhaps they don't belong in the GOP, she said.

Ms. LaRue calls Mr. Specter a RINO – Republican In Name Only – and questions why politicians such as Sen. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island remain in the Republican Party when they didn't even vote for Mr. Bush.

"Get real," she said. "These are Democrats in Republican clothing."

Tom Minnery, vice president of public policy for the conservative Christian group Focus on the Family, said the Republican tent is large enough to accommodate moderates. But he's not suggesting that conservatives are willing to compromise.

"If you read the platform, it's clearly a pro-life party," he said. "I'm sure anybody is welcome to be a Republican as long as they understand the direction the party is headed in."

E-mail cmccain@dallasnews.com

Reprinted from The Dallas Morning News:
dallasnews.com
news/politics/national/stories/111504dnnatgop.495d0.html