Torture

[mantra.]

The Rudd government is considering introducing new anti-torture laws, although I thought they were already in place. None of us will forget our last government mutely standing by as we watched a parade of photos emerge from Abu Grahib prison. Yes the US made a big show of arresting those marines responsible for this abhorrent behaviour, but the orders came from the top and this culture was encouraged all in the name of the "war on terror".

Prior to the coalition Australia had a good name in regard to human rights and Rudd is planning to restore our former reputation as a humanitarian nation. It might be too late as we have been hated for so long by so many because we were complicit in this torture as we stood by and did nothing.

In March, US President George W. Bush vetoed a bill from Congress that would have banned waterboarding, arguing it would rob him of a key weapon in the war against terror. President-elect Barack Obama said recently he opposed torture and wanted to restore his country's moral stature.

Last night, Mr McClelland said the Rudd Government did not accept torture in any form.

He said Australia was taking steps to become a signatory to the UN Optional Protocol on the Convention Against Torture, which would commit it to outlawing the practice and creating a system of regular inspections of state facilities including jails.

"We believe that whether it is state-sponsored or perpetrated by others, torture contravenes the values we subscribe to as a humane and civilised society," Mr McClelland said.

"Torture and cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment has no place in Australia. Indeed, it has no place in any other society.

"To more clearly implement our international obligations at home, we are giving serious consideration to enacting a comprehensive torture offence at the commonwealth level."

Mr McClelland said the law under consideration would be applicable outside Australia, consistent with the treatment of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. "Within Australia, and internationally, we are working to help eliminate the use of torture, wherever it occurs and whoever commits it."

Mr McClelland said the Government had invited the UN to visit to investigate Australia and report on the protection of human rights.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/st ... 01,00.html

Is it any wonder we have to be so vigilant against future terrorist attacks. The Coalition of the Willing has given plenty of encouragement to the "terrorists" to increase these attacks. We've seen these photos plenty of times before, but it is a reminder of the depths we sunk to under this Coalition.

[boxy]

Are there any examples of Australians participating in torture, who would have been actually affected by such laws?

[mantra.]

There were quite a few Australian soldiers who worked alongside the US marines at Abu Grahib, although they did not participate, they did report it to their superiors. One Australian legal officer, Major George O'Kane worked in the office of the senior legal officer in the US Military Headquarters in Baghdad. He not only visited Abu Grahib on 6 occasions, but also received regular Red Cross Reports into this torture demanding that action be taken to stop it.

O'Kane worked alongside the American Military Authority to produce legal arguments to justify these war crimes and argued that a number of Geneva Conventions did not apply to prisoners who allegedly posed a serious security risk. The Australian government via the ADF was aware of these claims - all except Howard of course - who never knew anything.

After weeks of denying that it had any knowledge of the torture of Iraqi prisoners prior to January, the Howard government was forced yesterday to admit that it has repeatedly misled the Australian public. The government has responded to the scandal, however, with its standard operating procedure of evasion, falsifications and lies, seeking to blame the Australian military and the defence department for allegedly not passing on relevant information.

Only last Friday, the secretary to the department of defence, Ric Smith, and armed forces chief, General Peter Cosgrove, released a joint statement which stated that no defence force personnel were aware of “abuse or serious mistreatment” before January. This claim, which echoed previous statements by government ministers, was completely false.

Yesterday Smith and Cosgrove issued a grovelling apology, admitting that senior Australian military officers knew last October that the International Committee of the Red Cross had raised concerns about widespread abuse of prisoners. Prime Minister John Howard immediately denied any culpability. “I am very unhappy that I was misinformed by the defence department. So is the defence minister,” Howard declared. “Everything that I said was based on the advice of the defence department. I did not set out to mislead anybody.”

When the Abu Ghraib photographs were first published in April, the government claimed to be appalled by the evidence of abuse, and insisted that no-one in Canberra had any idea of the extent and nature of the mistreatment. Howard repeatedly emphasised that no Australians were implicated. “We were not involved,” he declared.

Howard stuck to this claim yesterday, but it has unravelled completely. Leaks from within the defence establishment fuelled a Sydney Morning Herald investigation. It soon emerged that a number of Australian officers were working at the highest levels of the US military legal team in Baghdad, and played a central role in the US prison regime. Australian military lawyers advised US forces on interrogation techniques, and drafted replies to the Red Cross justifying violations of the Geneva Conventions.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/jun20 ... -j02.shtml

We were complicit by not doing anything.

[Jovial Monk]

We have had dickheads, fuckwits & scoundrels as PM & Menzies playing the tourist making home movies for 6 months in the UK and then we got Howard.

Backwards reactionery, inveterate lier, dogwhistler supreme, a new low in PMs.

not much chop as a Treasurer either

[White Indigene]

I think this can be argued into the same thread.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/sed ... 29841.html

If so, then what might come of it all.

I have postulated before that we do OK without proscription. There are some fringe dwellers which need state nuturing, but apart from that, all is well in a way. But consider the fact that many countries with proscribed rights, do way worse than us, and I think I have a case.

In the olden days, the Constitution was used to limit the powers of government, meaning it could not extend powers against the individual too much. But now, with the Left leaning on this instrument, the only thing that will come from any 'Rights" argument is increased powers of the State to lean on the individual, under proscription. Like PC, HR will become the new lingo of the Left, disempowering along the way all whom they/it doesnt like. Build such a platform with a bias, (which I argue it will be) and there you have it. Social Darwinism, Social Engineering, call it what you will. The Left, and even the Right can exploit the powers of State.

Gone will be the individuals right to espouse 'Rights"', replaced by the right of the State to tell the individual what his/her "Rights" may or may not be. Extend this to the tax-payer, and you will have a communist modelled Police state just like in China, China.

I spose thats why the ALP is in love with Asia, and Hates its own skin.

[Jovial Monk]

"I have postulated before that we do OK without proscription."

Mayme we should proscribe White Indigene?

[boxy]

Are there any examples of Australians participating in torture, who would have been actually affected by such laws?

I guess that's a "no" then, eh.

[TomB]

I guess that's a "no" then, eh.

As you are no doubt well aware, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

[boxy]

Contrary to popular belief, absence of evidence is indeed evidence of absence.

[JW Frogen]

I am currently working on my autobiography.

‘No Evidence of Abstinence.’