"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Rice’s European troubleshooting fails threefold

Daniel Dombey in Brussels
Published: December 6 2005 20:10 | Last updated: December 6 2005 20:10


The continuing controversy over US “secret prisons” and abductions in
Europe - coupled with Condoleezza Rice’s failure to clear the air - has
made life difficult for European governments, but created even more
perils for the US’s attempt to put transatlantic relations on an even
keel.

snip


Find this article at:
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/f66c23a2-66...cl=,s01=1.html

This one, also from Daniel Dombey and written today also, does not
editorialize but reports the facts:

==================================
http://tinyurl.com/daubl


Rice warns on EU effort to probe secret CIA jails claim
By Guy Dinmore in Washington and Daniel Dombey in Brussels
Published: December 6 2005 02:00 | Last updated: December 6 2005 02:00

Condoleezza Rice, US secretary of state, yesterday launched a tour of Europe
with a forceful warning that allies could not expect to share American
intelligence and at the same time demand disclosure of details of the
anti-terror operations.

Diplomats said Ms Rice's statement, made before leaving Washington for
Berlin, was an attempt to put a cap on a growing controversy over alleged
secret Central Intelligence Agency-run prisons in eastern Europe and the
rendition of terrorist suspects to regimes where they may be tortured.

The statement amounted to the Bush administration's rejection of a European
Union request for clarification of the CIA's activities in Europe. The
allegations of secret prisons were made in a Washington Post report last
month.

Ms Rice made clear the US had no intention of discussing information that
would compromise its operations. She made no reference to secret detention
facilities.

"The United States does not use the airspace or the airports of any country
for the purpose of transporting a detainee to a country where he or she will
be tortured," Ms Rice said.

The statement, which officials said was carefully crafted by legal experts,
denied categorically that the US used or condoned torture.

The Bush administration turned the tables on the EU, in effect stating that
EU member states that shared intelligence with the US chose to do so and
knew what was happening. "That co-operation is a two-way street," Ms Rice
said, arguing European lives had been saved as a result. "It is up to those
governments and their citizens to decide if they wish to work with us to
prevent terrorist attacks against their own country or other countries, and
decide how much sensitive information they can make public," she added.

The US was not the only government to transport suspects "to their home
country or to other countries where they can be questioned, held, or brought
to justice", she said.

Jack Straw, British foreign secretary, welcomed Ms Rice's comments on behalf
of the EU.

================


Good job Condi!

" *JimH*" wrote in message
. ..
"The United States does not use the airspace or the airports of any
country
for the purpose of transporting a detainee to a country where he or she
will
be tortured," Ms Rice said.

The statement, which officials said was carefully crafted by legal
experts,
denied categorically that the US used or condoned torture.

Maybe not now at this moment, but, they most assuredly did in the past!
There are two separate cases before international courts, that are taking
place now, that state this was happening

Jim C.

"Jim Carter" wrote in message
...

" *JimH*" wrote in message
. ..
"The United States does not use the airspace or the airports of any
country
for the purpose of transporting a detainee to a country where he or she
will
be tortured," Ms Rice said.

The statement, which officials said was carefully crafted by legal
experts,
denied categorically that the US used or condoned torture.

Maybe not now at this moment, but, they most assuredly did in the past!
There are two separate cases before international courts, that are taking
place now, that state this was happening

Jim C.



Maybe it is what is the definition of "torture".

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
k.net...
"Jim Carter" wrote in message
...
" *JimH*" wrote in message
. ..
"The United States does not use the airspace or the airports of any
country
for the purpose of transporting a detainee to a country where he or she
will
be tortured," Ms Rice said.
The statement, which officials said was carefully crafted by legal
experts,
denied categorically that the US used or condoned torture.
Maybe not now at this moment, but, they most assuredly did in the past!
There are two separate cases before international courts, that are
taking
place now, that state this was happening
Jim C.
Maybe it is what is the definition of "torture".
The definition of "Torture" is well written in International Law and also in
US Law.


The Convention against Torture defines torture as "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.." (Art. 1). It may be "inflicted by or at the
instigation of or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting
in an official capacity."

The prohibition against torture under international law applies to many
measures-e.g. beating on the soles of the feet; electric shock applied to
genitals and nipples; rape; near drowning through submersion in water; near
suffocation by plastic bags tied around the head; burning; whipping; needles
inserted under fingernails; mutilation; hanging by feet or hands for
prolonged periods.

International law also prohibits mistreatment that does not meet the
definition of torture, either because less severe physical or mental pain is
inflicted, or because the necessary purpose of the ill-treatment is not
present. It affirms the right of every person not to be subjected to cruel,
inhuman or degrading treatment. Examples of such prohibited mistreatment
include being forced to stand spread eagle against the wall; being subjected
to bright lights or blindfolding; being subjected to continuous loud noise;
being deprived of sleep, food or drink; being subjected to forced constant
standing or crouching; or violent shaking. In essence, any form of physical
treatment used to intimidate, coerce or "break" a person during an
interrogation constitutes prohibited ill-treatment. If these practices are
intense enough, prolonged in duration, or combined with other measures that
result in severe pain or suffering, they can qualify as torture.

The prohibition against torture as well as cruel, inhuman or degrading
treatment is not limited to acts causing physical pain or injury. It
includes acts that cause mental suffering-e.g. through threats against
family or loved ones. As the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized, "coercion
can be mental as well as physical.the blood of the accused is not the only
hallmark of an unconstitutional inquisition" Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S.
436, 448, (1966) citing Blackburn v. State of Alabama, 361 U.S. 199 (1960).
As discussed below, the use of mind-altering drugs to compel a person to
provide information would at least amount to inhuman or degrading treatment
under the Convention against Torture.

"Jim Carter" wrote in message
...

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
k.net...
"Jim Carter" wrote in message
...
" *JimH*" wrote in message
. ..
"The United States does not use the airspace or the airports of any
country
for the purpose of transporting a detainee to a country where he or
she
will
be tortured," Ms Rice said.
The statement, which officials said was carefully crafted by legal
experts,
denied categorically that the US used or condoned torture.
Maybe not now at this moment, but, they most assuredly did in the past!
There are two separate cases before international courts, that are
taking
place now, that state this was happening
Jim C.
Maybe it is what is the definition of "torture".
The definition of "Torture" is well written in International Law and also
in
US Law.


The Convention against Torture defines torture as "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.." (Art. 1). It may be "inflicted by or at the
instigation of or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting
in an official capacity."

The prohibition against torture under international law applies to many
measures-e.g. beating on the soles of the feet; electric shock applied to
genitals and nipples; rape; near drowning through submersion in water;
near
suffocation by plastic bags tied around the head; burning; whipping;
needles
inserted under fingernails; mutilation; hanging by feet or hands for
prolonged periods.

International law also prohibits mistreatment that does not meet the
definition of torture, either because less severe physical or mental pain
is
inflicted, or because the necessary purpose of the ill-treatment is not
present. It affirms the right of every person not to be subjected to
cruel,
inhuman or degrading treatment. Examples of such prohibited mistreatment
include being forced to stand spread eagle against the wall; being
subjected
to bright lights or blindfolding; being subjected to continuous loud
noise;
being deprived of sleep, food or drink; being subjected to forced constant
standing or crouching; or violent shaking. In essence, any form of
physical
treatment used to intimidate, coerce or "break" a person during an
interrogation constitutes prohibited ill-treatment. If these practices are
intense enough, prolonged in duration, or combined with other measures
that
result in severe pain or suffering, they can qualify as torture.

The prohibition against torture as well as cruel, inhuman or degrading
treatment is not limited to acts causing physical pain or injury. It
includes acts that cause mental suffering-e.g. through threats against
family or loved ones. As the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized, "coercion
can be mental as well as physical.the blood of the accused is not the only
hallmark of an unconstitutional inquisition" Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S.
436, 448, (1966) citing Blackburn v. State of Alabama, 361 U.S. 199
(1960).
As discussed below, the use of mind-altering drugs to compel a person to
provide information would at least amount to inhuman or degrading
treatment
under the Convention against Torture.



Whoosh! Remember what is the definintion of "is"?