- This topic has 425 replies, 30 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 7 months ago by
Shadowfax.
-
AuthorPosts
-
April 22, 2009 at 2:42 PM #386367April 22, 2009 at 3:07 PM #385746
afx114
ParticipantI wonder if asking whether or not torture works is even relevant to the issue at hand. It seems to me that if we signed a treaty against the use of torture, we are bound by that treaty to not torture. It doesn’t matter if it worked or not, if we torture — regardless of the results — we are breaking an international treaty. Read the full treaty yourself here.
The United States ratified the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment on October 21st 1994. Article 2 of this Senate ratified and binding Convention states that:
1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.
Is Gitmo classified as a “territory under [The United States’] jurisdiction?” If so, we are bound under Article 2 to take action to prevent torture. Does that include trying and punishing those who do or did torture in order to discourage others from doing it? Where do “black sites” apply, if at all?
2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political in stability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.
It is pretty clear that war or imminent threat of attack is not a legal excuse to torture. Was 9/11 a “public emergency” and/or a “threat of war?” Of course it was, but that is not an excuse to torture according to this treaty.
3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.
It can’t be stated much more plainly than that – The Nuremberg Defense is clearly thrown out the window here.
So it appears as if many of our questions have already been answered by this legally binding treaty signed by the US. If you want to argue against them, that’s fine, but you’ve got a big fat treaty signed by your country that says otherwise. The next logical step then is that the US is not bound by any treaties which it has signed, and that we can disregard treaties as we see fit. Is that really a road that we want to go down?
April 22, 2009 at 3:07 PM #386013ParticipantI wonder if asking whether or not torture works is even relevant to the issue at hand. It seems to me that if we signed a treaty against the use of torture, we are bound by that treaty to not torture. It doesn’t matter if it worked or not, if we torture — regardless of the results — we are breaking an international treaty. Read the full treaty yourself here.
The United States ratified the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment on October 21st 1994. Article 2 of this Senate ratified and binding Convention states that:
1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.
Is Gitmo classified as a “territory under [The United States’] jurisdiction?” If so, we are bound under Article 2 to take action to prevent torture. Does that include trying and punishing those who do or did torture in order to discourage others from doing it? Where do “black sites” apply, if at all?
2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political in stability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.
It is pretty clear that war or imminent threat of attack is not a legal excuse to torture. Was 9/11 a “public emergency” and/or a “threat of war?” Of course it was, but that is not an excuse to torture according to this treaty.
3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.
It can’t be stated much more plainly than that – The Nuremberg Defense is clearly thrown out the window here.
So it appears as if many of our questions have already been answered by this legally binding treaty signed by the US. If you want to argue against them, that’s fine, but you’ve got a big fat treaty signed by your country that says otherwise. The next logical step then is that the US is not bound by any treaties which it has signed, and that we can disregard treaties as we see fit. Is that really a road that we want to go down?
April 22, 2009 at 3:07 PM #386210ParticipantI wonder if asking whether or not torture works is even relevant to the issue at hand. It seems to me that if we signed a treaty against the use of torture, we are bound by that treaty to not torture. It doesn’t matter if it worked or not, if we torture — regardless of the results — we are breaking an international treaty. Read the full treaty yourself here.
The United States ratified the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment on October 21st 1994. Article 2 of this Senate ratified and binding Convention states that:
1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.
Is Gitmo classified as a “territory under [The United States’] jurisdiction?” If so, we are bound under Article 2 to take action to prevent torture. Does that include trying and punishing those who do or did torture in order to discourage others from doing it? Where do “black sites” apply, if at all?
2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political in stability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.
It is pretty clear that war or imminent threat of attack is not a legal excuse to torture. Was 9/11 a “public emergency” and/or a “threat of war?” Of course it was, but that is not an excuse to torture according to this treaty.
3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.
It can’t be stated much more plainly than that – The Nuremberg Defense is clearly thrown out the window here.
So it appears as if many of our questions have already been answered by this legally binding treaty signed by the US. If you want to argue against them, that’s fine, but you’ve got a big fat treaty signed by your country that says otherwise. The next logical step then is that the US is not bound by any treaties which it has signed, and that we can disregard treaties as we see fit. Is that really a road that we want to go down?
April 22, 2009 at 3:07 PM #386259ParticipantI wonder if asking whether or not torture works is even relevant to the issue at hand. It seems to me that if we signed a treaty against the use of torture, we are bound by that treaty to not torture. It doesn’t matter if it worked or not, if we torture — regardless of the results — we are breaking an international treaty. Read the full treaty yourself here.
The United States ratified the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment on October 21st 1994. Article 2 of this Senate ratified and binding Convention states that:
1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.
Is Gitmo classified as a “territory under [The United States’] jurisdiction?” If so, we are bound under Article 2 to take action to prevent torture. Does that include trying and punishing those who do or did torture in order to discourage others from doing it? Where do “black sites” apply, if at all?
2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political in stability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.
It is pretty clear that war or imminent threat of attack is not a legal excuse to torture. Was 9/11 a “public emergency” and/or a “threat of war?” Of course it was, but that is not an excuse to torture according to this treaty.
3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.
It can’t be stated much more plainly than that – The Nuremberg Defense is clearly thrown out the window here.
So it appears as if many of our questions have already been answered by this legally binding treaty signed by the US. If you want to argue against them, that’s fine, but you’ve got a big fat treaty signed by your country that says otherwise. The next logical step then is that the US is not bound by any treaties which it has signed, and that we can disregard treaties as we see fit. Is that really a road that we want to go down?
April 22, 2009 at 3:07 PM #386397ParticipantI wonder if asking whether or not torture works is even relevant to the issue at hand. It seems to me that if we signed a treaty against the use of torture, we are bound by that treaty to not torture. It doesn’t matter if it worked or not, if we torture — regardless of the results — we are breaking an international treaty. Read the full treaty yourself here.
The United States ratified the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment on October 21st 1994. Article 2 of this Senate ratified and binding Convention states that:
1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.
Is Gitmo classified as a “territory under [The United States’] jurisdiction?” If so, we are bound under Article 2 to take action to prevent torture. Does that include trying and punishing those who do or did torture in order to discourage others from doing it? Where do “black sites” apply, if at all?
2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political in stability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.
It is pretty clear that war or imminent threat of attack is not a legal excuse to torture. Was 9/11 a “public emergency” and/or a “threat of war?” Of course it was, but that is not an excuse to torture according to this treaty.
3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.
It can’t be stated much more plainly than that – The Nuremberg Defense is clearly thrown out the window here.
So it appears as if many of our questions have already been answered by this legally binding treaty signed by the US. If you want to argue against them, that’s fine, but you’ve got a big fat treaty signed by your country that says otherwise. The next logical step then is that the US is not bound by any treaties which it has signed, and that we can disregard treaties as we see fit. Is that really a road that we want to go down?
April 22, 2009 at 10:23 PM #385946gandalf
Participant1. Torture is wrong. It’s a serious capital crime. In the fog of war, it happens. But that’s not what happened here, not just bad apples. It was a systematically organized program authorized at the highest levels of OUR government, IN OUR NAMES, and it was wrong.
2. Torture is not effective from an interrogation perspective. False confessions and bad leads. The ticking bomb scenario assumes you know what they know and you don’t. Read the reports. Ask anybody who knows of these matters. It’s marginally effective.
3. Official U.S. Torture Programs severely undermined our moral imperative in the War on Terror. We cannot sustain the effort required to prosecute this conflict from the moral low road. The American people will not allow it, and the rest of the world will not support it.
4. This torture issue has been a recruitment poster for anti-American extremists. Whatever dubiously asserted tactical gains were acquired were vastly offset by the damage done to our overall strategic position.
People who supports the Bush Admin’s torture program are stupid.
April 22, 2009 at 10:23 PM #386212Participant1. Torture is wrong. It’s a serious capital crime. In the fog of war, it happens. But that’s not what happened here, not just bad apples. It was a systematically organized program authorized at the highest levels of OUR government, IN OUR NAMES, and it was wrong.
2. Torture is not effective from an interrogation perspective. False confessions and bad leads. The ticking bomb scenario assumes you know what they know and you don’t. Read the reports. Ask anybody who knows of these matters. It’s marginally effective.
3. Official U.S. Torture Programs severely undermined our moral imperative in the War on Terror. We cannot sustain the effort required to prosecute this conflict from the moral low road. The American people will not allow it, and the rest of the world will not support it.
4. This torture issue has been a recruitment poster for anti-American extremists. Whatever dubiously asserted tactical gains were acquired were vastly offset by the damage done to our overall strategic position.
People who supports the Bush Admin’s torture program are stupid.
April 22, 2009 at 10:23 PM #386409Participant1. Torture is wrong. It’s a serious capital crime. In the fog of war, it happens. But that’s not what happened here, not just bad apples. It was a systematically organized program authorized at the highest levels of OUR government, IN OUR NAMES, and it was wrong.
2. Torture is not effective from an interrogation perspective. False confessions and bad leads. The ticking bomb scenario assumes you know what they know and you don’t. Read the reports. Ask anybody who knows of these matters. It’s marginally effective.
3. Official U.S. Torture Programs severely undermined our moral imperative in the War on Terror. We cannot sustain the effort required to prosecute this conflict from the moral low road. The American people will not allow it, and the rest of the world will not support it.
4. This torture issue has been a recruitment poster for anti-American extremists. Whatever dubiously asserted tactical gains were acquired were vastly offset by the damage done to our overall strategic position.
People who supports the Bush Admin’s torture program are stupid.
April 22, 2009 at 10:23 PM #386457Participant1. Torture is wrong. It’s a serious capital crime. In the fog of war, it happens. But that’s not what happened here, not just bad apples. It was a systematically organized program authorized at the highest levels of OUR government, IN OUR NAMES, and it was wrong.
2. Torture is not effective from an interrogation perspective. False confessions and bad leads. The ticking bomb scenario assumes you know what they know and you don’t. Read the reports. Ask anybody who knows of these matters. It’s marginally effective.
3. Official U.S. Torture Programs severely undermined our moral imperative in the War on Terror. We cannot sustain the effort required to prosecute this conflict from the moral low road. The American people will not allow it, and the rest of the world will not support it.
4. This torture issue has been a recruitment poster for anti-American extremists. Whatever dubiously asserted tactical gains were acquired were vastly offset by the damage done to our overall strategic position.
People who supports the Bush Admin’s torture program are stupid.
April 22, 2009 at 10:23 PM #386596Participant1. Torture is wrong. It’s a serious capital crime. In the fog of war, it happens. But that’s not what happened here, not just bad apples. It was a systematically organized program authorized at the highest levels of OUR government, IN OUR NAMES, and it was wrong.
2. Torture is not effective from an interrogation perspective. False confessions and bad leads. The ticking bomb scenario assumes you know what they know and you don’t. Read the reports. Ask anybody who knows of these matters. It’s marginally effective.
3. Official U.S. Torture Programs severely undermined our moral imperative in the War on Terror. We cannot sustain the effort required to prosecute this conflict from the moral low road. The American people will not allow it, and the rest of the world will not support it.
4. This torture issue has been a recruitment poster for anti-American extremists. Whatever dubiously asserted tactical gains were acquired were vastly offset by the damage done to our overall strategic position.
People who supports the Bush Admin’s torture program are stupid.
April 22, 2009 at 10:51 PM #385961Aecetia
Participant“Ordinary people, simply doing their jobs, and without any particular hostility on their part, can become agents in a terrible destructive process. Moreover, even when the destructive effects of their work become patently clear, and they are asked to carry out actions incompatible with fundamental standards of morality, relatively few people have the resources needed to resist authority.”
April 22, 2009 at 10:51 PM #386227Participant“Ordinary people, simply doing their jobs, and without any particular hostility on their part, can become agents in a terrible destructive process. Moreover, even when the destructive effects of their work become patently clear, and they are asked to carry out actions incompatible with fundamental standards of morality, relatively few people have the resources needed to resist authority.”
April 22, 2009 at 10:51 PM #386424Participant“Ordinary people, simply doing their jobs, and without any particular hostility on their part, can become agents in a terrible destructive process. Moreover, even when the destructive effects of their work become patently clear, and they are asked to carry out actions incompatible with fundamental standards of morality, relatively few people have the resources needed to resist authority.”
April 22, 2009 at 10:51 PM #386472Participant“Ordinary people, simply doing their jobs, and without any particular hostility on their part, can become agents in a terrible destructive process. Moreover, even when the destructive effects of their work become patently clear, and they are asked to carry out actions incompatible with fundamental standards of morality, relatively few people have the resources needed to resist authority.”
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.