No Waterboarding, Your Child Dies

[dhickey]

[quote]tme wrote:
dhickey wrote:
who have we signed treaties with? The terrorists?

Who we have signed treaties with isn’t a valid question at all. The United States singed the United Nations Conventions Against Torture in 1988 and the Senate ratified it in 1994. Nothing in CAT says we are only obligated to adhere to it if our opponent is also a signatory. There aren’t any exceptions or exclusions in it.

When the U.S. signed the Conventions Against Torture we agreed that we don’t torture, anyone or for any reason. We don’t send people to other countries where they could be tortured. That’s our law, and until Uncle Dick and his stooge came along we upheld it. Why some people seem to think that it doesn’t apply just because three WH lawyers said so is baffling. And a little troubling. And totally fucking asinine.

[/quote]

I would say we should abide by the treaty until we can take advantage of Article 31…

Article 31

1. A State Party may denounce this Convention by written notification to the Secretary-General of the United Nations. Denunciation becomes effective one year after the date of receipt of- the notification by the Secretary-General .

2. Such a denunciation shall not have the effect of releasing the State Party from its obligations under this Convention in regard to any act or omission which occurs prior to the date at which the denunciation becomes effective, nor shall denunciation prejudice in any way the continued consideration of any matter which is already under consideration by the Committee prior to the date at which the denunciation becomes effective.

3. Following the date at which the denunciation of a State Party becomes effective, the Committee shall not commence consideration of any new matter regarding that State.

[tme]

[quote]pushharder wrote:

I would concede this is a valid point if true. Can you substantiate it?

[/quote]

Substantiate it yourself. The Google is your friend.

Or try here: United Nations Convention Against Torture - Wikipedia

[tme]

[quote]dhickey wrote:

I would say we should abide by the treaty until we can take advantage of Article 31…

Article 31

1. A State Party may denounce this Convention by written notification to the Secretary-General of the United Nations. Denunciation becomes effective one year after the date of receipt of- the notification by the Secretary-General .

2. Such a denunciation shall not have the effect of releasing the State Party from its obligations under this Convention in regard to any act or omission which occurs prior to the date at which the denunciation becomes effective, nor shall denunciation prejudice in any way the continued consideration of any matter which is already under consideration by the Committee prior to the date at which the denunciation becomes effective.

3. Following the date at which the denunciation of a State Party becomes effective, the Committee shall not commence consideration of any new matter regarding that State.
   [/quote]

I would say that my suspicions have been confirmed. You really are a total fucking idiot.

[borrek]

[quote]pushharder wrote:
tme wrote:
dhickey wrote:
who have we signed treaties with? The terrorists?

Who we have signed treaties with isn’t a valid question at all. The United States singed the United Nations Conventions Against Torture in 1988 and the Senate ratified it in 1994. Nothing in CAT says we are only obligated to adhere to it if our opponent is also a signatory. There aren’t any exceptions or exclusions in it…

I would concede this is a valid point if true. Can you substantiate it?

[/quote]

Here it is in its full text, including Reagan’s introduction to the Legislature: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1079/is_n2137_v88/ai_6742034/?tag=content;col1

at 12 pages, it’s a hell of a read

[borrek]

[quote]dhickey wrote:
tme wrote:
dhickey wrote:
who have we signed treaties with? The terrorists?

Who we have signed treaties with isn’t a valid question at all. The United States singed the United Nations Conventions Against Torture in 1988 and the Senate ratified it in 1994. Nothing in CAT says we are only obligated to adhere to it if our opponent is also a signatory. There aren’t any exceptions or exclusions in it.

When the U.S. signed the Conventions Against Torture we agreed that we don’t torture, anyone or for any reason. We don’t send people to other countries where they could be tortured. That’s our law, and until Uncle Dick and his stooge came along we upheld it. Why some people seem to think that it doesn’t apply just because three WH lawyers said so is baffling. And a little troubling. And totally fucking asinine.

I would say we should abide by the treaty until we can take advantage of Article 31…

Article 31

1. A State Party may denounce this Convention by written notification to the Secretary-General of the United Nations. Denunciation becomes effective one year after the date of receipt of- the notification by the Secretary-General .

2. Such a denunciation shall not have the effect of releasing the State Party from its obligations under this Convention in regard to any act or omission which occurs prior to the date at which the denunciation becomes effective, nor shall denunciation prejudice in any way the continued consideration of any matter which is already under consideration by the Committee prior to the date at which the denunciation becomes effective.

3. Following the date at which the denunciation of a State Party becomes effective, the Committee shall not commence consideration of any new matter regarding that State.
   [/quote]

We can take advantage of article 31 at any point, but we don’t because we don’t want to be torturers.

[IrishSteel]

[quote]borrek wrote:
dhickey wrote:
tme wrote:
dhickey wrote:
who have we signed treaties with? The terrorists?

Who we have signed treaties with isn’t a valid question at all. The United States singed the United Nations Conventions Against Torture in 1988 and the Senate ratified it in 1994. Nothing in CAT says we are only obligated to adhere to it if our opponent is also a signatory. There aren’t any exceptions or exclusions in it.

When the U.S. signed the Conventions Against Torture we agreed that we don’t torture, anyone or for any reason. We don’t send people to other countries where they could be tortured. That’s our law, and until Uncle Dick and his stooge came along we upheld it. Why some people seem to think that it doesn’t apply just because three WH lawyers said so is baffling. And a little troubling. And totally fucking asinine.

I would say we should abide by the treaty until we can take advantage of Article 31…

Article 31

1. A State Party may denounce this Convention by written notification to the Secretary-General of the United Nations. Denunciation becomes effective one year after the date of receipt of- the notification by the Secretary-General .

2. Such a denunciation shall not have the effect of releasing the State Party from its obligations under this Convention in regard to any act or omission which occurs prior to the date at which the denunciation becomes effective, nor shall denunciation prejudice in any way the continued consideration of any matter which is already under consideration by the Committee prior to the date at which the denunciation becomes effective.

3. Following the date at which the denunciation of a State Party becomes effective, the Committee shall not commence consideration of any new matter regarding that State.

We can take advantage of article 31 at any point, but we don’t because we don’t want to be torturers.[/quote]

Yes we do!! oh wait - that was just me . . . .

[IrishSteel]

[quote]Vegita wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
and this nonsense goes on too . . . ok, so we know for certain that some think torture is evil and should never be used, some believe it is bad, but necessary in some situations, and some believe it is good and should be used as often as possible against your enemies (i’m with the last group)

And never shall any change their views - whoop-dee-doo! If you think torture is evil, nothing said here will change your mind. If you think it is useful, nothing said here will change your mind, and if you like it, well - too bad, you don’t get to do it as often as you want.

I think it is the height of triviality to even argue over the EIT situation. All around the world, defenseless people are being slaughtered because we refuse to counter evil brutality with commiserate brutality in response. meanwhile we sit and pontificate on the level of technique allowed against brutal enemies - bunch of wussified pansies . . . . If you think you can defeat evil men without being brutal in return - you are an idiot (JMO)

No one is arguing about being brutal on the battlefield. I have no qualms with dead bodies piling up of people who want to do us harm. I’m sure we actually agree on a very large portion of the combatting terrorism pie, for us to disagree on one small slice of it which lies in a grey area hopefully doesn’t make me a pussy, or any less capable of running a 12 inch blade through someones neck while they are running in to kill you. Having dignity and respect does not equate one with being a pussy, in fact some of the most deadly and ferocious warriors of all time, for example the samurai, were very principled, noble and just.

V[/quote]

Did not mean to imply anything untrue about you individually.

I agree with you 100% -i would treat an honorable enemy with dignity and respect.

I would treat a terrorist like something from the barnyard that I would wipe off the soles of my boots. If the sob’s can’t fight our military straight up and choose out of cowardice to resort to harming women and children (or hiding behind them like Hamas and the rest) to achieve their goals - they deserve everything they get . . . .

[orion]

[quote]dhickey wrote:
orion wrote:
And then there is of course the entirely different topic that you have signed international treaties, that those treaties were ratified by the US Senate which makes the US law and that therefore it is highly likely that government officials very likely have broken the law.

who have we signed treaties with? The terrorists? Orion, I am starting to beleive that someone else is posting to your account. Are you sure this is not Orion’s wife? What have you done with Orion?

That will get highly interesting because if a government fails to investigate allegations of torture other signer states have the duty to do so.

As inconvenient as it might be for some, whether a government is above the law or not is not a trivial matter for if it is, your constitution is as dead as the Dodo.

What does our constitution have to do with torturing enemy combatants? It’s already dead anyway.

The whole “it’s wrong just becuase is is” arguement is the one that really has me stumped. A tactic that produces no physical injury is somehow morally evil, but bombing people or other tactics that kill are not. This just doesn’t add up to me.
[/quote]

You have signed the Geneva Conventions.

You have signed the Convention on torture.

They are US law-

Your government has violated US laws-

People who violate laws go to jail-

Get it now?

[orion]

[quote]tme wrote:
dhickey wrote:
who have we signed treaties with? The terrorists?

Who we have signed treaties with isn’t a valid question at all. The United States singed the United Nations Conventions Against Torture in 1988 and the Senate ratified it in 1994. Nothing in CAT says we are only obligated to adhere to it if our opponent is also a signatory. There aren’t any exceptions or exclusions in it.

When the U.S. signed the Conventions Against Torture we agreed that we don’t torture, anyone or for any reason. We don’t send people to other countries where they could be tortured. That’s our law, and until Uncle Dick and his stooge came along we upheld it. Why some people seem to think that it doesn’t apply just because three WH lawyers said so is baffling. And a little troubling. And totally fucking asinine.
[/quote]

Thank you!

Not only for having aquired the ability to fucking read but also for applying it under difficult circumstances.

[orion]

[quote]pushharder wrote:
tme wrote:
dhickey wrote:
who have we signed treaties with? The terrorists?

Who we have signed treaties with isn’t a valid question at all. The United States singed the United Nations Conventions Against Torture in 1988 and the Senate ratified it in 1994. Nothing in CAT says we are only obligated to adhere to it if our opponent is also a signatory. There aren’t any exceptions or exclusions in it…

I would concede this is a valid point if true. Can you substantiate it?
[/quote]

You mean after I posted this like 5 times in the last weeks?

With links and all?

http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cat.html

The first five articles that shoul dtake aboz 2 min to read and answer all major questions:

Article 1

1. For the purposes of this Convention, 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.
2. This article is without prejudice to any international instrument or national legislation which does or may contain provisions of wider application.

Article 2

1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.
2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.
3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.

Article 3

1. No State Party shall expel, return (“refouler”) or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.
2. For the purpose of determining whether there are such grounds, the competent authorities shall take into account all relevant considerations including, where applicable, the existence in the State concerned of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights.

Article 4

1. Each State Party shall ensure that all acts of torture are offences under its criminal law. The same shall apply to an attempt to commit torture and to an act by any person which constitutes complicity or participation in torture.
2. Each State Party shall make these offences punishable by appropriate penalties which take into account their grave nature.

Article 5

1. Each State Party shall take such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over the offences referred to in article 4 in the following cases:
   1. When the offences are committed in any territory under its jurisdiction or on board a ship or aircraft registered in that State;
   2. When the alleged offender is a national of that State;
   3. When the victim was a national of that State if that State considers it appropriate.
2. Each State Party shall likewise take such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over such offences in cases where the alleged offender is present in any territory under its jurisdiction and it does not extradite him pursuant to article 8 to any of the States mentioned in Paragraph 1 of this article.
3. This Convention does not exclude any criminal jurisdiction exercised in accordance with internal law.

Interestingly enough, had the Taliban signed that treaty they could not have even extradited Osama Bin Laden to you legally!

[tme]

[quote]orion wrote:
tme wrote:
dhickey wrote:
who have we signed treaties with? The terrorists?

Who we have signed treaties with isn’t a valid question at all. The United States singed the United Nations Conventions Against Torture in 1988 and the Senate ratified it in 1994. Nothing in CAT says we are only obligated to adhere to it if our opponent is also a signatory. There aren’t any exceptions or exclusions in it.

When the U.S. signed the Conventions Against Torture we agreed that we don’t torture, anyone or for any reason. We don’t send people to other countries where they could be tortured. That’s our law, and until Uncle Dick and his stooge came along we upheld it. Why some people seem to think that it doesn’t apply just because three WH lawyers said so is baffling. And a little troubling. And totally fucking asinine.

Thank you!

Not only for having aquired the ability to fucking read but also for applying it under difficult circumstances.

[/quote]

I’m curious why you are addressing this at me?

[orion]

[quote]tme wrote:
orion wrote:
tme wrote:
dhickey wrote:
who have we signed treaties with? The terrorists?

Who we have signed treaties with isn’t a valid question at all. The United States singed the United Nations Conventions Against Torture in 1988 and the Senate ratified it in 1994. Nothing in CAT says we are only obligated to adhere to it if our opponent is also a signatory. There aren’t any exceptions or exclusions in it.

When the U.S. signed the Conventions Against Torture we agreed that we don’t torture, anyone or for any reason. We don’t send people to other countries where they could be tortured. That’s our law, and until Uncle Dick and his stooge came along we upheld it. Why some people seem to think that it doesn’t apply just because three WH lawyers said so is baffling. And a little troubling. And totally fucking asinine.

Thank you!

Not only for having aquired the ability to fucking read but also for applying it under difficult circumstances.

I’m curious why you are addressing this at me?

[/quote]

Okay, this may have come across the wrong way-

I seriously mean that some people in this board literally have the world at their fingertips via the WWW and yet act is if their alternate bizarro world version of things could not be proven completely wrong by googling the Geneva Convention or the Convention on torture.

All they have is talking points and they would not even take five fucking minutes to read those treaties for themselves before being all for torturing a human being.

So, what good does the ability to read and write really does them if they can flick it off and on again at will in order to remain willfully ignorant?

My thanks were actually quite sincere.

[IrishSteel]

Are we seriously trying to once again apply the Geneva Conventions and CAT to terrorists?

And UMM, torture is still defined as . . .

“any act by which SEVERE PAIN OR SUFFERING, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person”

According to the State Department’s analysis of CAT, which was included in President Reagan’s transmittal of the convention to the senate for its advice and consent, this definition was intended to be interpreted in a “relatively limited fashion corresponding to the common understanding of torture as an EXTREME practice which is UNIVERSALLY CONDEMNED.” According to the US Govt, even police brutality “while deplorable, does not amount to torture.”

“Further, CAT provides that offenses of torture require a specific intent TO CAUSE SEVERE PAIN AND SUFFERING; an act that results in unanticipated and unintended severity of pain and suffering is not torture for purposes of the Convention.”

So we are back to the same point as before - there is stillnow no consensus that water boarding as practiced by the US in 2002-2003 constitutes actual torture - and at the time it was reviewed and allowed the prevailing legal council (including congress) was that it did not rise to the level of torture and in point of fact- several congressional members wondered if we were even doing enough to gain information from the terrorists being held - directly implying that not only was it not torture, but it was so slight of a procedure that it might be negligently ineffective . . . .

Cannot believe we are going back over the same discussion again . . .

[orion]

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
Are we seriously trying to once again apply the Geneva Conventions and CAT to terrorists?

And UMM, torture is still defined as . . .

“any act by which SEVERE PAIN OR SUFFERING, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person”

According to the State Department’s analysis of CAT, which was included in President Reagan’s transmittal of the convention to the senate for its advice and consent, this definition was intended to be interpreted in a “relatively limited fashion corresponding to the common understanding of torture as an EXTREME practice which is UNIVERSALLY CONDEMNED.” According to the US Govt, even police brutality “while deplorable, does not amount to torture.”

“Further, CAT provides that offenses of torture require a specific intent TO CAUSE SEVERE PAIN AND SUFFERING; an act that results in unanticipated and unintended severity of pain and suffering is not torture for purposes of the Convention.”

So we are back to the same point as before - there is stillnow no consensus that water boarding as practiced by the US in 2002-2003 constitutes actual torture - and at the time it was reviewed and allowed the prevailing legal council (including congress) was that it did not rise to the level of torture and in point of fact- several congressional members wondered if we were even doing enough to gain information from the terrorists being held - directly implying that not only was it not torture, but it was so slight of a procedure that it might be negligently ineffective . . . .

Cannot believe we are going back over the same discussion again . . .[/quote]

You hopefully have read the treaties.

If so, the discussion is over.

If not, your opinion on what those treaties should have said are really quite fascinating.

But, even if your interpretations of those treaties you obviously have never even glanced over held any water, which they don´t, there are actually provisions in those treaties to solve such disputes.

I do not want to make it to complicated, but they involve “courts” and “judges”-

“Judges” are people who interpret laws for a living and “courts” is where they do that.

In fact they already had done that and then Bush did order what they pretty much told him no to order anybody to do.

If I have to make it any simpler I will have to use crayons.

[Vegita]

[quote]pushharder wrote:
For the detractors of waterboarding here please do me a favor and list the interrogative practices that would be acceptable to you, the ones that you suggest would NOT be considered torture.[/quote]

The ones police officers in this country on US citizens should be adequate, after all there is just as much if not more of a chance that a police interrogation is going to save a live, yet they don’t resort to torture or waterboarding. I was just watching a video not too long ago, it might have even been posted around here. It was about using your 5th amendment right to not incriminate yourself and never under any circumstances talk to the police. A veteran detective came on and supported that message, he also went into his experiences “questioning” they aren’t allowed to interrogate, suspects. He was under the impression it was quite easy to get someone to start spilling the beans once you got to know them a little, from hardened criminals to street thugs to one time rookie offenders. There is highly developed ways to get people to talk and none of it involves beating them or making them think if they don’t talk they are going to die. I say we use those techniques.

V

[IrishSteel]

[quote]orion wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
Are we seriously trying to once again apply the Geneva Conventions and CAT to terrorists?

And UMM, torture is still defined as . . .

“any act by which SEVERE PAIN OR SUFFERING, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person”

According to the State Department’s analysis of CAT, which was included in President Reagan’s transmittal of the convention to the senate for its advice and consent, this definition was intended to be interpreted in a “relatively limited fashion corresponding to the common understanding of torture as an EXTREME practice which is UNIVERSALLY CONDEMNED.” According to the US Govt, even police brutality “while deplorable, does not amount to torture.”

“Further, CAT provides that offenses of torture require a specific intent TO CAUSE SEVERE PAIN AND SUFFERING; an act that results in unanticipated and unintended severity of pain and suffering is not torture for purposes of the Convention.”

So we are back to the same point as before - there is stillnow no consensus that water boarding as practiced by the US in 2002-2003 constitutes actual torture - and at the time it was reviewed and allowed the prevailing legal council (including congress) was that it did not rise to the level of torture and in point of fact- several congressional members wondered if we were even doing enough to gain information from the terrorists being held - directly implying that not only was it not torture, but it was so slight of a procedure that it might be negligently ineffective . . . .

Cannot believe we are going back over the same discussion again . . .

You hopefully have read the treaties.

If so, the discussion is over.

If not, your opinion on what those treaties should have said are really quite fascinating.

But, even if your interpretations of those treaties you obviously have never even glanced over held any water, which they don�´t, there are actually provisions in those treaties to solve such disputes.

I do not want to make it to complicated, but they involve “courts” and “judges”-

“Judges” are people who interpret laws for a living and “courts” is where they do that.

In fact they already had done that and then Bush did order what they pretty much told him no to order anybody to do.

If I have to make it any simpler I will have to use crayons.

[/quote]

LMAO - you are an idiot - care to provide a chronology on that fantasy time line of yours?

[IrishSteel]

BTW - the Supreme Court only ruled that Bush lacked Congressional authority to set up the military tribunals- a legislative procedural issue (and a disputable one) - not a legality of methodology issue . . . . AND the president always has the authority to interpret the terms of any treaty . . . thus the legal counsel and legal opinion memos . . . but why am I even bothering . . . go chew on your crayons . . .

[orion]

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
BTW - the Supreme Court only ruled that Bush lacked Congressional authority to set up the military tribunals- a legislative procedural issue (and a disputable one) - not a legality of methodology issue . . . . AND the president always has the authority to interpret the terms of any treaty . . . thus the legal counsel and legal opinion memos . . . but why am I even bothering . . . go chew on your crayons . . .[/quote]

And why did he not have authoríty to set up these tribunals?

Because…

in part…

the did not comply with the Geneva Convention!

How does it feel to be so completely and utterly wrong?