[Shadowfax]

[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.

[Shadowfax]

[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.

[Shadowfax]

[quote=4plexowner]we also coddle immigrants in this country at taxpayer expense

LA schools provide translators for a ridiculous number of languages – govt forms and instructions are printed in multiple languages – at least one of the cities in Florida was printing forms and instructions in 6 languages!

in case anyone is unclear, this is America and we speak English – adapt or get the F out

if I came to your country with the intent of settling down, I wouldn’t expect you to teach my children and I your language much less provide translators while we learned[/quote]

ah, the bigotry comes out in times of economic crisis. translators are generally provided under a theory of equal access. It is abused but it is often legitimately necessary. Immigrants built this country (lots of first generation Irish and Italian built roads under the New Deal programs-and let’s not forget the Chinese and the transcontinental railroad and the hardships they suffered). Is that preferable to teaching English as a second language to Somalian refugees who now call America home?

[Shadowfax]

[quote=4plexowner]we also coddle immigrants in this country at taxpayer expense

LA schools provide translators for a ridiculous number of languages – govt forms and instructions are printed in multiple languages – at least one of the cities in Florida was printing forms and instructions in 6 languages!

in case anyone is unclear, this is America and we speak English – adapt or get the F out

if I came to your country with the intent of settling down, I wouldn’t expect you to teach my children and I your language much less provide translators while we learned[/quote]

ah, the bigotry comes out in times of economic crisis. translators are generally provided under a theory of equal access. It is abused but it is often legitimately necessary. Immigrants built this country (lots of first generation Irish and Italian built roads under the New Deal programs-and let’s not forget the Chinese and the transcontinental railroad and the hardships they suffered). Is that preferable to teaching English as a second language to Somalian refugees who now call America home?

[Shadowfax]

[quote=4plexowner]we also coddle immigrants in this country at taxpayer expense

LA schools provide translators for a ridiculous number of languages – govt forms and instructions are printed in multiple languages – at least one of the cities in Florida was printing forms and instructions in 6 languages!

in case anyone is unclear, this is America and we speak English – adapt or get the F out

if I came to your country with the intent of settling down, I wouldn’t expect you to teach my children and I your language much less provide translators while we learned[/quote]

ah, the bigotry comes out in times of economic crisis. translators are generally provided under a theory of equal access. It is abused but it is often legitimately necessary. Immigrants built this country (lots of first generation Irish and Italian built roads under the New Deal programs-and let’s not forget the Chinese and the transcontinental railroad and the hardships they suffered). Is that preferable to teaching English as a second language to Somalian refugees who now call America home?

[Shadowfax]

[quote=4plexowner]we also coddle immigrants in this country at taxpayer expense

LA schools provide translators for a ridiculous number of languages – govt forms and instructions are printed in multiple languages – at least one of the cities in Florida was printing forms and instructions in 6 languages!

in case anyone is unclear, this is America and we speak English – adapt or get the F out

if I came to your country with the intent of settling down, I wouldn’t expect you to teach my children and I your language much less provide translators while we learned[/quote]

ah, the bigotry comes out in times of economic crisis. translators are generally provided under a theory of equal access. It is abused but it is often legitimately necessary. Immigrants built this country (lots of first generation Irish and Italian built roads under the New Deal programs-and let’s not forget the Chinese and the transcontinental railroad and the hardships they suffered). Is that preferable to teaching English as a second language to Somalian refugees who now call America home?

[Shadowfax]

[quote=4plexowner]we also coddle immigrants in this country at taxpayer expense

LA schools provide translators for a ridiculous number of languages – govt forms and instructions are printed in multiple languages – at least one of the cities in Florida was printing forms and instructions in 6 languages!

in case anyone is unclear, this is America and we speak English – adapt or get the F out

if I came to your country with the intent of settling down, I wouldn’t expect you to teach my children and I your language much less provide translators while we learned[/quote]

ah, the bigotry comes out in times of economic crisis. translators are generally provided under a theory of equal access. It is abused but it is often legitimately necessary. Immigrants built this country (lots of first generation Irish and Italian built roads under the New Deal programs-and let’s not forget the Chinese and the transcontinental railroad and the hardships they suffered). Is that preferable to teaching English as a second language to Somalian refugees who now call America home?

[Shadowfax]

[quote=pri_dk]I do agree that state employee pensions are overly generous. But I don’t know the numbers. How much of the budget goes towards pensions? Is it 30% of the total budget? (probably not that high) Even if was that high, and we slashed pensions by 33%, that only reduces the total budget by 10%. Still not enough. (And BTW, there’s no law against you or I becoming a state employee — we could enjoy the perks as well.)

In general, we are probably in agreement with the basic sentiment that government spending is too high. But vague, generic rants about it don’t help, and only clutter the message boards. A real solution will require some homework – crunch some numbers and propose a specific course of action. Otherwise it’s just complaining.

Although I’d like to see the gov’t change course on some fiscal matters, I certainly don’t think any of this is anywhere near depressing. Even if we go totally broke, we can still go outside and enjoy the sunshine. After all, we live in California.[/quote]

The pensions are to make up for the low salaries most government workers received as compared to their private sector counterparts and thus lowered savings for retirement and later medical expenses. I do agree that perhaps the healthcare costs can be contained by not providing all the bells and whistles–but where to draw the line?

As for grandma’s meds, most grandmas didn’t live to 90+ back in the day so they didn’t need all those meds. And with retirees living longer, they will need MORE savings/pensions to get them through those years. Starting to get Orwellian…

[Shadowfax]

[quote=pri_dk]I do agree that state employee pensions are overly generous. But I don’t know the numbers. How much of the budget goes towards pensions? Is it 30% of the total budget? (probably not that high) Even if was that high, and we slashed pensions by 33%, that only reduces the total budget by 10%. Still not enough. (And BTW, there’s no law against you or I becoming a state employee — we could enjoy the perks as well.)

In general, we are probably in agreement with the basic sentiment that government spending is too high. But vague, generic rants about it don’t help, and only clutter the message boards. A real solution will require some homework – crunch some numbers and propose a specific course of action. Otherwise it’s just complaining.

Although I’d like to see the gov’t change course on some fiscal matters, I certainly don’t think any of this is anywhere near depressing. Even if we go totally broke, we can still go outside and enjoy the sunshine. After all, we live in California.[/quote]

The pensions are to make up for the low salaries most government workers received as compared to their private sector counterparts and thus lowered savings for retirement and later medical expenses. I do agree that perhaps the healthcare costs can be contained by not providing all the bells and whistles–but where to draw the line?

As for grandma’s meds, most grandmas didn’t live to 90+ back in the day so they didn’t need all those meds. And with retirees living longer, they will need MORE savings/pensions to get them through those years. Starting to get Orwellian…

[Shadowfax]

[quote=pri_dk]I do agree that state employee pensions are overly generous. But I don’t know the numbers. How much of the budget goes towards pensions? Is it 30% of the total budget? (probably not that high) Even if was that high, and we slashed pensions by 33%, that only reduces the total budget by 10%. Still not enough. (And BTW, there’s no law against you or I becoming a state employee — we could enjoy the perks as well.)

In general, we are probably in agreement with the basic sentiment that government spending is too high. But vague, generic rants about it don’t help, and only clutter the message boards. A real solution will require some homework – crunch some numbers and propose a specific course of action. Otherwise it’s just complaining.

Although I’d like to see the gov’t change course on some fiscal matters, I certainly don’t think any of this is anywhere near depressing. Even if we go totally broke, we can still go outside and enjoy the sunshine. After all, we live in California.[/quote]

The pensions are to make up for the low salaries most government workers received as compared to their private sector counterparts and thus lowered savings for retirement and later medical expenses. I do agree that perhaps the healthcare costs can be contained by not providing all the bells and whistles–but where to draw the line?

As for grandma’s meds, most grandmas didn’t live to 90+ back in the day so they didn’t need all those meds. And with retirees living longer, they will need MORE savings/pensions to get them through those years. Starting to get Orwellian…

[Shadowfax]

[quote=pri_dk]I do agree that state employee pensions are overly generous. But I don’t know the numbers. How much of the budget goes towards pensions? Is it 30% of the total budget? (probably not that high) Even if was that high, and we slashed pensions by 33%, that only reduces the total budget by 10%. Still not enough. (And BTW, there’s no law against you or I becoming a state employee — we could enjoy the perks as well.)

In general, we are probably in agreement with the basic sentiment that government spending is too high. But vague, generic rants about it don’t help, and only clutter the message boards. A real solution will require some homework – crunch some numbers and propose a specific course of action. Otherwise it’s just complaining.

Although I’d like to see the gov’t change course on some fiscal matters, I certainly don’t think any of this is anywhere near depressing. Even if we go totally broke, we can still go outside and enjoy the sunshine. After all, we live in California.[/quote]

The pensions are to make up for the low salaries most government workers received as compared to their private sector counterparts and thus lowered savings for retirement and later medical expenses. I do agree that perhaps the healthcare costs can be contained by not providing all the bells and whistles–but where to draw the line?

As for grandma’s meds, most grandmas didn’t live to 90+ back in the day so they didn’t need all those meds. And with retirees living longer, they will need MORE savings/pensions to get them through those years. Starting to get Orwellian…

[Shadowfax]

[quote=pri_dk]I do agree that state employee pensions are overly generous. But I don’t know the numbers. How much of the budget goes towards pensions? Is it 30% of the total budget? (probably not that high) Even if was that high, and we slashed pensions by 33%, that only reduces the total budget by 10%. Still not enough. (And BTW, there’s no law against you or I becoming a state employee — we could enjoy the perks as well.)

In general, we are probably in agreement with the basic sentiment that government spending is too high. But vague, generic rants about it don’t help, and only clutter the message boards. A real solution will require some homework – crunch some numbers and propose a specific course of action. Otherwise it’s just complaining.

Although I’d like to see the gov’t change course on some fiscal matters, I certainly don’t think any of this is anywhere near depressing. Even if we go totally broke, we can still go outside and enjoy the sunshine. After all, we live in California.[/quote]

The pensions are to make up for the low salaries most government workers received as compared to their private sector counterparts and thus lowered savings for retirement and later medical expenses. I do agree that perhaps the healthcare costs can be contained by not providing all the bells and whistles–but where to draw the line?

As for grandma’s meds, most grandmas didn’t live to 90+ back in the day so they didn’t need all those meds. And with retirees living longer, they will need MORE savings/pensions to get them through those years. Starting to get Orwellian…

[Shadowfax]

ROTFLMAO

[Shadowfax]

ROTFLMAO

[Shadowfax]

ROTFLMAO

[Author]

Posts