The torture thread!

[Dinner]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
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.

The united States Supreme Court disagrees with you. Further more I think the case is very clear. The UN Declaration against tortue has a radically differnet definition of what constitutes torture. Clearly, the two treaties are in conflict since the Geneva Convention also defines torture. Every country ratified the 1949 GC treaty plus the various supplimental treaties so why should we believe all of those countries didn't understand what they were ratifing?

[Ramo]

No, they know perfectly well what they were signing. You clearly don't. Again, if we suppose that your interepretation is accurate, how do any of the thousands of treaties signed afterwards make any sense? Hell, how is there supposed to be a peace treaties?

[chequita guevara]

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

Does the GC specifically allow for certain actions, or is their acceptance assumed by their absence?

[Kuciwalker]

According to Oerdin's post, the former.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Ramo
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.

Ramo, we often pass treaties with absurd claims. Have you ever heard of the League of Nations' 1925 Declaration which outlawed war? That's right they attempted to outlaw war. While we are in La-La land we might as well outlaw poverty, disease, and death because such proclamations have about as much chance of success.

[Ramo]

Are Peace Treaties illegal by the GC?

[Dinner]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Does the GC specifically allow for certain actions, or is their acceptance assumed by their absence?

Certain actions it does allow and certain actions it doesn't allow. For instance it allows for solitary confinment and for reasonable restraints upon prisoners but it doesn't allow for torture of for subjecting prisoners to public curiocity. Please note that the treaty also defines torture very specifically.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Ramo
Are Peace Treaties illegal by the GC?

Not at all. The GC only covers warring parties in armed conflict.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Every country ratified the 1949 GC treaty plus the various supplimental treaties so why should we believe all of those countries didn't understand what they were ratifing?

Because we've expanded the definition of human rights since then as well. Do you really want to go back to the way the laws were in 1949? Expanding the protection of human rights and the definition of torture is not a bad thing.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Please note that the treaty also defines torture very specifically.

Well, aparently in the 1980s, the world felt it didn't go far enough, and so expanded the definition of torture and the protections against it.

[Dinner]

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

I'd agree that the publics' perception of what was allowable in 1907 or 1949 is very different from public perception today but the fact remains that these are the treaties which every country agrees are the "Supreme laws of war". We are bound by them.

[MikeH]

Yes, that doesn't mean we can't be bound by newer more strict rules AS WELL. No-one's saying that the new rules break the GC, only that they enhance it.

What's so hard to understand about that? The US signed up to both and has to follow both.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Well, aparently in the 1980s, the world felt it didn't go far enough, and so expanded the definition of torture and the protections against it.

Please note the claus about which treaty take precidence when conflicts arise.

[Kuciwalker]

Yes, that doesn't mean we can't be bound by newer more strict rules AS WELL. No-one's saying that the new rules break the GC, only that they enhance it.

If an action is specifically authorized by the GC, then any treaty banning that action is in conflict with the GC and loses out.

[Ramo]

Not at all. The GC only covers warring parties in armed conflict.

Eh? Peace treaties cover warring parties in armed conflicts.

If the GC are the only laws that govern the state of war, then Peace Treates are illegal. So are Declarations of War.