|Geschrieben von Tini mit Charlotte am 13.04.2003, 12:58 Uhr
Es ist nicht meine Grenze, die gesetzt werden muß, ...
... sondern, was das Gesetz sagt. Aber internationale Rechtsstatute werden ja von der USA ganz beläufig umgangen und ihre eigenen Gesetze auch, den da steht in der Constitution
Aber hier steht in der Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, 1984
Article 1 ... 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.
The Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture defines torture more broadly than the UN Convention. It includes as torture "the use of methods upon a person intended to obliterate the personality of the victim or to diminish his physical or mental capacities, even if they do not cause physical pain or mental anguish".
Die USA sieht sich, wie so oft jedoch nicht an alles gebunden und behält sich ein Schlußpfloch offen.
Siehe auch Kommentare bei JH GRAF http://www.angelfire.com/nj/jhgraf/wavefuture.html
Admissions in NY Times Article at Odds With President Bush's Earlier Promises
(WASHINGTON, DC) Just days after President Bush reportedly assured UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Sergio Vieira de Mello that the US is not torturing prisoners during interrogation, an article in today's New York Times quotes numerous US officials admitting that US interrogators are using such methods as holding prisoners in prolonged painful positions and withholding access to food and water.
The Times article repeatedly quotes US officials claiming they use only "acceptable techniques" for interrogation, including sleep and light deprivation and the temporary withholding of food, water, access to sunlight and medical attention, allegedly even for a prisoner who had been shot.
"The tactics US officials openly admit to constitute cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or torture. These statements by US officials are an admission of complicity in torture," said Dr. William F. Schulz, Executive Director of Amnesty International USA. "Furthermore, transfer of prisoners to the custody of other countries where they are likely to be tortured is also a violation of international law.
"While the US now may feel safer with several key suspects apprehended, US troops in Iraq may well soon be placed in harm's way and taken prisoner," Schulz warned. "American citizens would be outraged if US servicemen or women are subjected to illegal and brutal detention or interrogation such as the US admits to be practicing."
The same techniques US officials reportedly are employing -- including hooding, holding in prolonged painful positions, and denial of food and sleep -- were cited and condemned as torture in the 2002 Department of State Country Reports on Human Rights Practices in countries including Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, China, and Haiti.
Despite claims to the contrary by US officials, the use of sensory deprivation (hooding), prolonged physical restraint (shackling) and denial of needed medical care are all characteristic elements of torture, and, like psychological torture, are prohibited under international law.
Reporting by the Washington Post and New York Times that the United States is using or tacitly condoning torture of prisoners by third-party countries suggests the United States may be in violation of the U.N. Convention, or at least sidestepping the rules, said Wendy Patten, U.S. Advocacy Director at Human Rights Watch.
According to former and current national security officials, Patten said, at a secret CIA interrogation center in Bagram, Afghanistan, officials practiced "stress and duress" techniques: prisoners reportedly were kept standing or kneeling for hours, deprived of sleep, kept immobile, kept hooded, and shackled until circulation concerns caused officials to unshackle them. According to Patten, one official reportedly told a reporter, "If you don't violate somebody's human rights some of the time, you probably aren't doing your job." Two deaths at Bagram have been ruled homicides by military medical officials, but many prisoners are reportedly being shipped to Jordan, Syria and Morocco, where they may face even harsher conditions.
"Legally and morally there is no distinction in using torture and subcontracting it out," she said.
Und hier last but not least der neue USA PATRIOT Anti-terrorism Act
Use of Torture
The administration has considered allowing the use of torture to obtain information from suspects under investigation for terrorism. The use of torture undercuts the Eight Amendment which protects people from cruel and unusual punishment and is specifically outlawed by the 1984 United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees another of the group's building blocks of freedom—equality under law and access to an independent, nondiscriminatory judiciary. The due process amendments of the Bill of Rights address another civil liberties criterion—protection from unjustified imprisonment, exile or torture.
Es ist auch sehr gut für Euch wannabe Americans, daß ihr euch so für die USA einsetzt, denn The Domestic Security Enhancement Act (also called “Patriot Act 2”):
Unfairly targets immigrants under the pretext of fighting terrorism by stripping even lawful immigrants of the right to a fair deportation hearing and stripping the federal courts of their power to correct unlawful actions by the immigration authorities (secs. 503, 504).
Wie wär's mit Patriot Act I:
Allows for the indefinite detention of non-citizens. The Patriot Act gives the attorney general unprecedented new power to determine the fate of immigrants. The attorney general can order detention based on a certification that he or she has "reasonable grounds to believe" a non-citizen endangers national security. Worse, if the foreigner does not have a country that will accept them, they can be detained indefinitely without trial.
Unten der Beitrag und die bisherigen Antworten. Sie befinden sich in dem Beitrag mit dem grünen Pfeil.
Die letzten 10 Beiträge im Forum Aktuelles und Neuigkeiten