The torture thread!

[Dinner]

I have decided that forcing children to wear shoes is torture so I will now run around writting articles and posting threads declaring that all the countries of the first and second world are torturing their children. I realize that international laws do not back up my basesless claims but I shall never the less insist on calling every parent who makes their children wear shoes a torturer.

DOWN WITH THE TORTURERS!

[Dinner]

Gee, that sounds familiar. Where could I have heard similar logic being used before?

[joncha]

The clarification post was uncalled for.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

my precciiiiiiooooouusssssssssssssssssss

[Wernazuma III]

Not reading the post, but let me gues:
Who defines what torutre is? What is "a bit beating"?...

[Starchild]

Does the Second World exist anymore? I thought it was the Developed and the Developing nations these days.

[RGBVideo]

Torture
Unpatriotic hippies opposing it

[Dinner]

Torture

Redefining torture to be what ever you want.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Starchild
Does the Second World exist anymore? I thought it was the Developed and the Developing nations these days.

China, North Korea, Cuba, Loas, Vietnam?

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Wernazuma III
Not reading the post, but let me gues:
Who defines what torutre is? What is "a bit beating"?...

Way off. But way to go. Don't listen to anyone else bury your head in the sand and pretend that your view is the only view. Political bias is great because it means there is no need to logically argue anything.

[laurentius]

You want me to report my quotations of the Geneva convention here?

[laurentius]

Anyways here all al the official answers:

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu2/i2civtor.htm

[Dinner]

Originally posted by laurentius
You want me to report my quotations of the Geneva convention here?

Nope, please allow me.

Part 1 article 1, 2, & 3 of the 3rd Geneva convention in 1949 states that the Geneva Convention applies during all times of declared war or armed conflict further more the Geneva Convention and all duly ratified subsequent conventions (the only ones duly ratified are the various subsequent Geneva and Hague conventions) make up the supreme law of war which take precedence over all other treaties, proclamations, agreements, or national laws. That means that in times of war or armed conflict the Geneva & Hague conventions are the supreme international law concerning the rights and responsibilities of warring parties.

Ok, that is clear enough. The Geneva Convention is the supreme law of war and defines all conduct as legal or illegal. Let us continue.

Part 3 defines who is a prisoner of war and who is an unlawful combatant. It also expressly excludes all unlawful combatants from any and all protections afforded by the Geneva and Hague Conventions. This was to reward people who followed the laws of war and to punish those persons who broke the laws of war. The big condition associated with Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters is that they do not wear internationally recognized military uniforms while conducting military operations; doing so is an express condition of being considered a lawful combatant. Since unlawful combatants are expressly excluded from the protections of the Geneva Convention, and the Geneva Convention is the internationally recognized supreme law of war, thus it is perfectly legal to line unlawful combatants up against a wall and have them shot. The US has generously opted to waive this right and instead elects to intern these unlawful combatants for the duration of armed hostilities.

The Geneva Convention defines torture as the undue and purposeful infliction of physical or mental anguish upon prisoners without necessary cause or for the enjoyment of captors. Further more use of necessary restraints and blindfolding are authorized to prevent the discovery of military secrets as is the use of solitary confinement to punish prisoners.

[Dinner]

Correct me if I'm wrong but the UN Commision on Human Rights falls under the definition of other "treaties, proclamations, agreements, or national laws" so the Geneva Convention should take precedence during times of war or armed conflict.

After all every signatory power has agreed that the Geneva and Hague Conventions are the "Supreme" law of war and that when in conflict with other "treaties, proclamations, agreements, or national laws" the GC should take precedence.

Does anyone doubt that the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan fall under the definition of "wars or armed conflicts"?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Starchild
Does the Second World exist anymore? I thought it was the Developed and the Developing nations these days.

The Second World was the Soviet Bloc. It doesn't exist anymore.