- This topic has 425 replies, 30 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 7 months ago by
Shadowfax.
-
AuthorPosts
-
April 24, 2009 at 8:50 AM #387327April 24, 2009 at 9:46 AM #386697
NotCranky
Participant[quote=felix][quote=afx114]I 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. [/quote]
That is why I have written, at least twice, it is important and a starting point to any discussion to define torture.
Legal opinion given to the Bush Administration indicated that the techniques sanctioned for use by US interrogators were not torture. So, assuming one accepts those opinions, that would render the discussion of treaties moot.[/quote]
It seems pretty simple, nobody can or will do much about what the United States does with regard to illegal wars and torture. Torture is up for debate for the purpose of political fighting and various propaganda purposes.Many people sincerely care but they don’t matter much. Let’s have a little bit of mooted debate,make political headway,damage control where we can, whitewash it,then go back to making claims and promises that will never be kept.Invade Iran.
April 24, 2009 at 9:46 AM #386960Participant[quote=felix][quote=afx114]I 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. [/quote]
That is why I have written, at least twice, it is important and a starting point to any discussion to define torture.
Legal opinion given to the Bush Administration indicated that the techniques sanctioned for use by US interrogators were not torture. So, assuming one accepts those opinions, that would render the discussion of treaties moot.[/quote]
It seems pretty simple, nobody can or will do much about what the United States does with regard to illegal wars and torture. Torture is up for debate for the purpose of political fighting and various propaganda purposes.Many people sincerely care but they don’t matter much. Let’s have a little bit of mooted debate,make political headway,damage control where we can, whitewash it,then go back to making claims and promises that will never be kept.Invade Iran.
April 24, 2009 at 9:46 AM #387155Participant[quote=felix][quote=afx114]I 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. [/quote]
That is why I have written, at least twice, it is important and a starting point to any discussion to define torture.
Legal opinion given to the Bush Administration indicated that the techniques sanctioned for use by US interrogators were not torture. So, assuming one accepts those opinions, that would render the discussion of treaties moot.[/quote]
It seems pretty simple, nobody can or will do much about what the United States does with regard to illegal wars and torture. Torture is up for debate for the purpose of political fighting and various propaganda purposes.Many people sincerely care but they don’t matter much. Let’s have a little bit of mooted debate,make political headway,damage control where we can, whitewash it,then go back to making claims and promises that will never be kept.Invade Iran.
April 24, 2009 at 9:46 AM #387207Participant[quote=felix][quote=afx114]I 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. [/quote]
That is why I have written, at least twice, it is important and a starting point to any discussion to define torture.
Legal opinion given to the Bush Administration indicated that the techniques sanctioned for use by US interrogators were not torture. So, assuming one accepts those opinions, that would render the discussion of treaties moot.[/quote]
It seems pretty simple, nobody can or will do much about what the United States does with regard to illegal wars and torture. Torture is up for debate for the purpose of political fighting and various propaganda purposes.Many people sincerely care but they don’t matter much. Let’s have a little bit of mooted debate,make political headway,damage control where we can, whitewash it,then go back to making claims and promises that will never be kept.Invade Iran.
April 24, 2009 at 9:46 AM #387347Participant[quote=felix][quote=afx114]I 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. [/quote]
That is why I have written, at least twice, it is important and a starting point to any discussion to define torture.
Legal opinion given to the Bush Administration indicated that the techniques sanctioned for use by US interrogators were not torture. So, assuming one accepts those opinions, that would render the discussion of treaties moot.[/quote]
It seems pretty simple, nobody can or will do much about what the United States does with regard to illegal wars and torture. Torture is up for debate for the purpose of political fighting and various propaganda purposes.Many people sincerely care but they don’t matter much. Let’s have a little bit of mooted debate,make political headway,damage control where we can, whitewash it,then go back to making claims and promises that will never be kept.Invade Iran.
April 24, 2009 at 9:58 AM #386712afx114
Participant[quote=felix]Legal opinion given to the Bush Administration indicated that the techniques sanctioned for use by US interrogators were not torture. So, assuming one accepts those opinions, that would render the discussion of treaties moot.[/quote]
The precedent for defining waterboarding as torture was set when we executed Japanese soldiers for using it in WWII.
Are you arguing that waterboarding isn’t torture if we do it — but it is if other people are doing it to us?
April 24, 2009 at 9:58 AM #386974Participant[quote=felix]Legal opinion given to the Bush Administration indicated that the techniques sanctioned for use by US interrogators were not torture. So, assuming one accepts those opinions, that would render the discussion of treaties moot.[/quote]
The precedent for defining waterboarding as torture was set when we executed Japanese soldiers for using it in WWII.
Are you arguing that waterboarding isn’t torture if we do it — but it is if other people are doing it to us?
April 24, 2009 at 9:58 AM #387170Participant[quote=felix]Legal opinion given to the Bush Administration indicated that the techniques sanctioned for use by US interrogators were not torture. So, assuming one accepts those opinions, that would render the discussion of treaties moot.[/quote]
The precedent for defining waterboarding as torture was set when we executed Japanese soldiers for using it in WWII.
Are you arguing that waterboarding isn’t torture if we do it — but it is if other people are doing it to us?
April 24, 2009 at 9:58 AM #387222Participant[quote=felix]Legal opinion given to the Bush Administration indicated that the techniques sanctioned for use by US interrogators were not torture. So, assuming one accepts those opinions, that would render the discussion of treaties moot.[/quote]
The precedent for defining waterboarding as torture was set when we executed Japanese soldiers for using it in WWII.
Are you arguing that waterboarding isn’t torture if we do it — but it is if other people are doing it to us?
April 24, 2009 at 9:58 AM #387362Participant[quote=felix]Legal opinion given to the Bush Administration indicated that the techniques sanctioned for use by US interrogators were not torture. So, assuming one accepts those opinions, that would render the discussion of treaties moot.[/quote]
The precedent for defining waterboarding as torture was set when we executed Japanese soldiers for using it in WWII.
Are you arguing that waterboarding isn’t torture if we do it — but it is if other people are doing it to us?
April 24, 2009 at 1:23 PM #386836Shadowfax
Participant[quote=afx114]I 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?[/quote]
afx–I second that.
April 24, 2009 at 1:23 PM #387099Participant[quote=afx114]I 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?[/quote]
afx–I second that.
April 24, 2009 at 1:23 PM #387295Participant[quote=afx114]I 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?[/quote]
afx–I second that.
April 24, 2009 at 1:23 PM #387348Participant[quote=afx114]I 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?[/quote]
afx–I second that.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.