4 ms·

Perhaps the immigrants were not (maybe we'll find out more as time progresses), but it seems likely that some of Classic Air Charter's other passengers were: ht

by jka 5y ago

Perhaps the immigrants were not (maybe we'll find out more as time progresses), but it seems likely that some of Classic Air Charter's other passengers were: https://documentedny.com/2018/07/13/former-cia-subcontractor-deports-immigrants-for-ice/ https://documentedny.com/2018/07/13/former-cia-subcontractor...

belval 5y ago
Sure but that is still a significant departure from the article, torturing immigrants for just entering your country would be unheard of. Chartering a flight to move CIA captives to a black site is completely different (although still immoral). My point is, the headline is false.
- jka 5y ago
  > Sure but that is still a significant departure from the article, torturing immigrants for just entering your country would be unheard of. Let's hope that it remains unheard of because it didn't happen, as opposed to unheard of due to the allegations turning out to be substantiated.
- tssva 5y ago
  If you look at some of the incidents mentioned in the report linked to in the article it appears some immigrants did indeed suffer what could fall under the definition of torture during these flights.
  - belval 5y ago
    > The complaints listed include numerous accounts of mistreatment, excessive force, and due process violations. They also include an alleged miscarriage by a Salvadoran woman experiencing a high risk pregnancy (see row 7 of the document), a detainee death—its cause not explained—aboard a deportation flight to Honduras (row 20), and a suicide in an Egyptian airport holding area by a deportee en route to Eritrea (row 76). None of this is torture, it's deplorable for sure, but it's not torture. > "For the purposes of this Convention, 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." From "Definition of Torture Under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2340–2340A" The last sentence is the most important part, but the whole thing is relevant. Torture implies: - That a public official is consenting to the infliction of pain and suffering - The act is done to obtain information or a confession - The act is done outside of lawful sanction So no, none of the complaints "could fall under the definition of torture". Words with legal meaning such as torture are often thrown around to get an emotional response, but it detracts from the horror that is actual torture. Waterboarding a 16 years old Afghan kid on expectation that is working with the Talibans is torture. Using force in the context of deportation is not torture.
    - tssva 5y ago
      >The last sentence is the most important part, but the whole thing is relevant. Torture implies: - That a public official is consenting to the infliction of pain and suffering - The act is done to obtain information or a confession - The act is done outside of lawful sanction The US code you quote doesn't support your 2nd bullet. Obtaining information or a confession is only one of several reasons listed where the infliction of severe pain or suffering would be torture under US code. Excessive force during the flights is performed by persons acting in an official capacity, excessive force is not inherent or incidental to lawful sanctions, is very likely based upon discrimination and intended to be punishment by the person inflicting the excessive force. This all makes it to be likely classifiable as torture under US code. The biggest problem I have with your comment is the believe that the only acceptable definition of words seems to be the US legal code. Let's see how the Cambridge Dictionary defines torture: "the act of causing great physical or mental pain in order to persuade someone to do something or to give information, or to be cruel to a person or animal". Hmmm, that doesn't exactly match your 3 bullet points either and certainly seems to likely apply to the actions as documented in the report.

by jka 5y ago

belval 5y ago

Sure but that is still a significant departure from the article, torturing immigrants for just entering your country would be unheard of. Chartering a flight to move CIA captives to a black site is completely different (although still immoral). My point is, the headline is false.

jka 5y ago
> Sure but that is still a significant departure from the article, torturing immigrants for just entering your country would be unheard of. Let's hope that it remains unheard of because it didn't happen, as opposed to unheard of due to the allegations turning out to be substantiated.
tssva 5y ago
If you look at some of the incidents mentioned in the report linked to in the article it appears some immigrants did indeed suffer what could fall under the definition of torture during these flights.
- belval 5y ago
  > The complaints listed include numerous accounts of mistreatment, excessive force, and due process violations. They also include an alleged miscarriage by a Salvadoran woman experiencing a high risk pregnancy (see row 7 of the document), a detainee death—its cause not explained—aboard a deportation flight to Honduras (row 20), and a suicide in an Egyptian airport holding area by a deportee en route to Eritrea (row 76). None of this is torture, it's deplorable for sure, but it's not torture. > "For the purposes of this Convention, 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." From "Definition of Torture Under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2340–2340A" The last sentence is the most important part, but the whole thing is relevant. Torture implies: - That a public official is consenting to the infliction of pain and suffering - The act is done to obtain information or a confession - The act is done outside of lawful sanction So no, none of the complaints "could fall under the definition of torture". Words with legal meaning such as torture are often thrown around to get an emotional response, but it detracts from the horror that is actual torture. Waterboarding a 16 years old Afghan kid on expectation that is working with the Talibans is torture. Using force in the context of deportation is not torture.
  - tssva 5y ago
    >The last sentence is the most important part, but the whole thing is relevant. Torture implies: - That a public official is consenting to the infliction of pain and suffering - The act is done to obtain information or a confession - The act is done outside of lawful sanction The US code you quote doesn't support your 2nd bullet. Obtaining information or a confession is only one of several reasons listed where the infliction of severe pain or suffering would be torture under US code. Excessive force during the flights is performed by persons acting in an official capacity, excessive force is not inherent or incidental to lawful sanctions, is very likely based upon discrimination and intended to be punishment by the person inflicting the excessive force. This all makes it to be likely classifiable as torture under US code. The biggest problem I have with your comment is the believe that the only acceptable definition of words seems to be the US legal code. Let's see how the Cambridge Dictionary defines torture: "the act of causing great physical or mental pain in order to persuade someone to do something or to give information, or to be cruel to a person or animal". Hmmm, that doesn't exactly match your 3 bullet points either and certainly seems to likely apply to the actions as documented in the report.