The torture thread!

[Dinner]

Originally posted by MikeH
So... basically your argument is that they aren't being tortured but if the US wanted to torture them it'd be perfectly legal?

Absolutely wrong. I'm say that what certain people are claiming is torture is not in any way considered torture under the Geneva or Hague conventions. In fact the restraints, blind folding, and solitary confinment are expressly allowed under the Geneva and Hague conventions.

A reasonable person could say they object to the policy, a reasonable person could say the stridently oppose the policy, but a reasonable person cannot say it is torture or against international law.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Oerdin
In fact the restraints, blind folding, and solitary confinment are expressly allowed under the Geneva and Hague conventions.
.

What about beatings, molestations and sleep deprivation?

[MikeH]

Originally posted by Oerdin


Absolutely wrong. I'm say that what certain people are claiming is torture is not in any way considered torture under the Geneva or Hague conventions. In fact the restraints, blind folding, and solitary confinment are expressly allowed under the Geneva and Hague conventions.

A reasonable person could say they object to the policy, a reasonable person could say the stridently oppose the policy, but a reasonable person cannot say it is torture or against international law.

Well I guess as long as you are just arguing semantics and aren't condoning them as acceptable practices.

[Dinner]

The only cases of beatings or molestation (I.E. Abu Gherab_ have been severely punished by the proper authorities. Sleep Deprivition is a legitament interrogation technique which causes no physical pain or severe mental anguish so it doesn't fall under the GC's definition of torture.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by MikeH
Well I guess as long as you are just arguing semantics and aren't condoning them as acceptable practices.

I continue to argue against the use of the word torture since the internationally agreed definirion doesn't even come close. Unfortunately a few ingornant people insist on using the word without any knowledge of the Geneva or Hague Convention's definition of the word nor of the tactics which are expressly authorized under said treaties.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by MikeH
Well if that is true, and I think it isn't. Then that's a bad thing. The UN convention is very clear and clearly a much better rule.

I think it is not. In fact I think it is so broadly worded that it includes just about everything as torture. The Geneva Convention is very precise and definitive in its definition and that is why it is the better definition.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Oh quite whinning, Oerdin. Imran mentioned the UN Convention on Tortore, to which the U.S. is a signatory. We ratified it, it is U.S. Law.

I agree we ratified it but we also ratified the numerous Geneva and Hague Conventions which declared themselves to be the Supreme law of war including declared wars or other armed conflicts". The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are clearly wars or armed conflicts so why should the "supreme law of war" not apply? Especially since the GC says it take precidence over conflicting "treaties, proclamations, agreements, or national laws"?

[MikeH]

Originally posted by Oerdin


I continue to argue against the use of the word torture since the internationally agreed definirion doesn't even come close. Unfortunately a few ingornant people insist on using the word without any knowledge of the Geneva or Hague Convention's definition of the word nor of the tactics which are expressly authorized under said treaties.

That's because psychological torture methods have progressed a lot since those conventions were written.

[Ramo]

I agree we ratified it but we also ratified the numerous Geneva and Hague Conventions which declared themselves to be the Supreme law of war including declared wars or other armed conflicts". The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are clearly wars or armed conflicts so why should the "supreme law of war" not apply? Especially since the GC says it take precidence over conflicting "treaties, proclamations, agreements, or national laws"?

That doesn't magically invalidate every other treaty or law passed after it. The GC certainly do not say that prosecuting people for conducting torture as defined by other treaties and laws is illegal.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Oerdin
the second world is the communist states,

No, it only applied to those states in the Soviet Bloc, the USSR and Eastern Europe (including Yugoslavia and Albania). China, Cuba, Vietnam, etc. are part of the Third World.

[Dinner]

Ramo, have you paid any attention what so ever? The Geneva Convetion declares itself to be the supreme law of war which covers all declared wars and armed conflicts further it deckares that should conflicts arise between the Geneva Convention and other "treaties, proclamations, agreements, or national laws" then the Genveva Convention trumps all.

The writers were obviously worried that other treaties would be seen as superior to the Geneva or Hague Conventions so they took steps to insure that their treaty was the supreme treaty in the event of conflict. They took great pains to define terms and I for one think they knew what they were talking about.

[Ramo]

Your rediculous interpretation of the GC ain't one anyone accepts.

If the GC invalidates every other treaty concerning war, why would anyone bother to pass the uncountable numbers of treaties concerning war? This as absurd.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Oerdin


I agree we ratified it but we also ratified the numerous Geneva and Hague Conventions which declared themselves to be the Supreme law of war including declared wars or other armed conflicts". The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are clearly wars or armed conflicts so why should the "supreme law of war" not apply? Especially since the GC says it take precidence over conflicting "treaties, proclamations, agreements, or national laws"?

That means states can't sign treaties to contravene the GC and HC, not that states can't enact laws which give even greater protections. The U.S. has enacted into law extra proctections for human rights and the definition of torture. Those laws cannot be ignored simply because the GC and HC say they are the supreme law. Furthermore, under U.S. law, which is the only law enforcable here, it's torture and it's illegal.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Ramo
Your rediculous interpretation of the GC ain't one anyone accepts.

If the GC invalidates every other treaty concerning war, why would anyone bother to pass the uncountable numbers of treaties concerning war? This as absurd.

Don't blame me, I didn't ratify the treaty but just about every country on Earth did. Do you really expect reasonable people to believe that all of those national governments had no idea what they were ratifying? Clearly, their legal experts knew what the treaty said and the various governments agreed with it or they wouldn't have voted for it.

[Kuciwalker]

If the GC specifically allows certain actions, then a treaty forbidding them is contradicting the GC.