Lawyers Decided Bans on Torture Didn't Bind Bush

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by zimv20, Jun 8, 2004.

  1. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #1
    link

    more evidence that bush is a sociopath. he actually solicited for legal ground to torture people but be free of the consequences.
     
  2. Thanatoast macrumors 6502a

    Thanatoast

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Location:
    Denver
    #2
    okay, there's a couple standard responses:

    first: protecting US citizens is more important than everything else (read: including rights[it's fun to throw that out there to the fundies to see them squirm])

    second: they're despicable murderers who deserve no better

    third: they did it first

    fourth: did you see that beheading video?

    any takers on how to respond to these comments? 47% of the country would read this news and say, "so?"
     
  3. takao macrumors 68040

    takao

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Dornbirn (Austria)
    #3
    you should read that:
    http://www.unhchr.ch/html/hchr/docs/iraq.doc

    and most important that:
    http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/h_cat39.htm

    part 1 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 of war, internal political in stability 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."
     
  4. screener macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2004
    #4
    1. Iraquis citizens have no rights in their own country?
    Seems to me a lot of them were rounded up indescriminitly.
    Good way to win hearts and minds.
    2. Yeah. when you are sure. Punishing 10 to get 1 is cruel and
    unusual punishment to the 9. See 1.
    3. So you punish everyone rounded up? See 1.
    4. Disgusting as this was, that is what terrorists do. By condoning your
    own version of disgusting behavior goes against the image you are
    trying to promote in the region. See 1.

    This is were the notion of creating terrorists comes from. At the very least,
    some of those released if not most will not find it in their interest to help
    the "coalition"? Don't ya think?
     
  5. wwworry macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2002
    #5
    plus:

    terrorism is up worldwide, more attacks, more deaths
    there are more terrorists now than on 9/10/2001

    Does that mean we are winning the war on terror or losing?
     
  6. dopefiend macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 6, 2004
    #6
    It means stupid people continue to breed.
     
  7. screener macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2004
    #7
    Fanatics continue to breed, you are what you are taught by zealots.
    Muslim fanatics, Christian fanatics, brought up in a hate filled home,
    then watch your so called freedom bringer resort to similar, though obviously not so extreme, although there are dead prisoners, what would you expect?
    Stupid people breed as well, they can't help it, their just stupid.
     
  8. zimv20 thread starter macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #8
    just saw on abcnews...

    ashcroft was testifying in front of some members of congress today (not sure which committee, perhaps armed services) and refused to turn over this memo. he was told he may be in contempt of congress.

    further, he flat out denied any direct causality between the contents of the memo and any illegal activities at abu ghrain. i can't say i believe him, nor can i say he appeared to believe it.

    edit: yeah, i don't know which committee. joe biden and ted kennedy were both there, if that helps anyone figure it out
     
  9. screener macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2004
    #9
    I believe Lahey was there as well.
    Biden was great, he tore Ashcroft a new one.
     
  10. blackfox macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
    #10
    FYI...I believe it was the Senate Judiciary Committee...(about 95% sure)...it contains Kennedy, Biden and Leahy...(among others)
     
  11. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #11
  12. Neserk macrumors 6502a

    Neserk

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2004
    #12
    Fanatics aren't breed they are created. In these cases from people who are oppressed. Psychologically, it makes sense.
     
  13. Thanatoast macrumors 6502a

    Thanatoast

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Location:
    Denver
    #13
    In that case there are two responses. First, what we did wasn't really torture. Ooh! We put women's underwear on their head! Gasp! They must have been just devastated! And two, has the US signed and ratified those treaties? If not, we're not bound by them, even under international law, even though they may be a good idea.

    edit: just read the story on yahoo. what an ass. ashcroft "(said) the international rules governing treatment of detainees did not apply to groups like al Qaeda since only countries are signatories to the treaty." except that the treaty doesn't mention responsibilities of the torturees, but the torturers. *we* signed the treaty, therefore we are bound by it. i don't think ashcroft or anyone in the administration really understands what happens when you toss out the rules for the sake of "convenience". that beheading was in direct response to our ****ing up. if we had held to our convictions, maybe that guy would still be attached to his head. :wishes they had captured ashcroft instead - then we'd see how he feels about "bending" the rules:
     
  14. screener macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2004
    #14
    Isn't breeding done to create versions of the original? As in new and improved sometimes? better fanatic?
    Christian fanatics are oppressed in the U.S.ofA.?
    How is called be catered (Republicans of course) to the same as being oppressed?
    Not being able to place a monument in front of a courthouse is a long way from being truly oppressed.
     
  15. Neserk macrumors 6502a

    Neserk

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2004
    #15
    That is why I changed what I was originally going to post to "in these cases." :D Because the Christian fanatics I know are only oppressed by their own belief system.
     
  16. takao macrumors 68040

    takao

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Dornbirn (Austria)
    #16
    answer to response 1:
    "1. 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."

    answer to response 2:
    United States of America signed: 18 Apr 1988 ratificated:21 Oct 1994


    ohh and that paragraph is also interesting:
    "1. Each State Party shall ensure that education and information regarding the prohibition against torture are fully included in the training of law enforcement personnel, civil or military, medical personnel, public officials and other persons who may be involved in the custody, interrogation or treatment of any individual subjected to any form of arrest, detention or imprisonment. "
     
  17. Voltron macrumors newbie

    Voltron

    Joined:
    May 9, 2004
    #17
     
  18. takao macrumors 68040

    takao

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Dornbirn (Austria)
    #18
    man boortz should do a little bit research before writing something

    this is _not_ talking about the geneva convention
    it's another treaty which has nothing to do with the geneva convention....nothing... zip... nada.. nichts...

    this treaty applies to human beings..it's an discussion about _human rights_ (one of the reasons iraq got invaded)...

    the treaty says black on white (i've posted it) that there is _no_ justification.period.

    just read the links

    human rights are one of the central points of a democracy
     
  19. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #19
    Say you torture the guy and he gives you false info, the attack happens anyway AND you have to deal with the fallout from the torture. Boortz makes it sound like it's a black and white issue. It's not.

    Torture does not equal reliable information no matter how much the sick dog-squeezes who advocate it would like to think it does.
     
  20. takao macrumors 68040

    takao

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Dornbirn (Austria)
    #20
    400 years ago people tortured others untill those confessed that they were witches/etc.

    after a certain point a tortured person will confess _everything_ what the torturer wants to hear
     
  21. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #21
    Not only that they were witches, but they gave detailed confessions regarding meetings with Satan, sexual activities they had engaged in with said demon, and many other things that the torturers were seeking to hear.

    Boortz is an idiot if he thinks we can torture our way out of this WOT thing.
     
  22. Voltron macrumors newbie

    Voltron

    Joined:
    May 9, 2004
    #22
    Big difference between torturing a confession out of someone about crimes of the past which I would be against and torturing someone to prevent crimes in the future, knowledge which he wouldn't be able to actually fake, at least not for very long.
     
  23. wwworry macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2002
    #23
    So you think you would get a straighter answer about something that MIGHT happen as opposed to something that already did happen with torture??? That seems ass backwards.

    There are a lot of benefits to living in the kind of country that does not torture people based on sketchy evidence. Think about it.

     
  24. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #24
    I'd think it would be harder to lie about past events since they can be cross-checked. Future events? I could make up anything and tell it to you and you'd never know. Even if the attack I predicted never happened it still doesn't mean I was lying, just that something else stopped it. Or I was lying. You'd never know.
     
  25. Voltron macrumors newbie

    Voltron

    Joined:
    May 9, 2004
    #25
    The point is one life is worth torturing if it means potentially saving 30,000 lives. Especially if you already know he's a terrorist.
     

Share This Page