The Torture Question by canttakesky

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

The Torture Question

POSTED BY: CANTTAKESKY
UPDATED: Sunday, October 30, 2005 11:30
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 6142
PAGE 4 of 4

Sunday, October 30, 2005 8:07 AM

I was speaking from a point of view of US law, on both points, not international law.

This is an important point. What does it matter if there's an international law since the US will not submit to international ciminal court? As long as there is no power to enforce international law, it is very close to being irrelevant.

I'm not an expert in US law, but I don't feel uncomfortable with simple gut interpretations of it. Most often US cases are governed more by the spirit of what was intended then by the letter of the law. The point that the panel of lawyers made repeatedly on this is that everything the administration claims is acceptable in the international arena would never hold up if it were a normal case of US law.

If we can establish a decent internal American code of conduct, and try our soldiers and leaders accordingly for violations of that code of conduct, then we will be able to control this behavior. If we don't, then we will not. It really is as simple as that.

Quote:

People who have a political axe to grind against the US

WHOA! Step back just a minute. This is way out of line.

The criticisms here are coming from, most specifically, John McCain and Lindsay Graham, Porter Goss of the CIA, and an array of Military JAGs and generals. Are these people with an axe to grind against the United States? For one, they are just about all right wing Republicans, and for another, they ARE the United States.

The logical fallacy you've just made is to equate Bush, who is an elected representative of the people, and his PNAC advisors, who are his personal appointees, with the United States. They are not the United States. They are a representative of the people and his staff. There is nothing unpatriotic about opposing them, in fact our founding fathers said quite the opposite.

Quote:

One imagines that if you had your way there might be a lot of innocent US servicemen in international prisons for crimes they committed only in the minds of people who were upset over US policy.

What international prisons?

If they committed crimes against the people of Iraq, perhaps they should be in prison, in America. I'm talking about particular the two guys who cut off children's fingers for fun, who were Brits, and are in prison in the UK as they very well should be.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 30, 2005 8:25 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
The criticisms here are coming from, most specifically, John McCain and Lindsay Graham, Porter Goss of the CIA, and an array of Military JAGs and generals. Are these people with an axe to grind against the United States? For one, they are just about all right wing Republicans, and for another, they ARE the United States.

The logical fallacy you've just made is to equate Bush, who is an elected representative of the people, and his PNAC advisors, who are his personal appointees, with the United States. They are not the United States. They are a representative of the people and his staff. There is nothing unpatriotic about opposing them, in fact our founding fathers said quite the opposite.

That’s not a point I made. Nor did I say there was anything wrong with opposing Bush. That appears to be a superfluous interpretation. On the other hand you actually did equate McCain, Graham, Goss and “an array of JAGs and Generals” with the United States, most of whom presumably aren’t even elected officials. Maybe you need to reanalyze your fallacy and who is asserting them. I realize that you are campaigning for a McCain/Graham ticket, but there is nothing unpatriotic about opposing them either.

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
If they committed crimes against the people of Iraq, perhaps they should be in prison, in America. I'm talking about particular the two guys who cut off children's fingers for fun, who were Brits, and are in prison in the UK as they very well should be.

And if the only crime they committed was being an American soldier when the ICCt prosecutor was opposed to American foreign policy, then should they go to jail for that too?

Incidentally if they are cutting off fingers for fun they certainly need to be in jail.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 30, 2005 8:44 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Yo, dudes.

Just a quick comment - as alluded to above by SignyM, all detainees and their families are protected from torture, threat, and degradation.

The difference between those accorded all GC protections and the miscellaneous 'others' is the amount of outside contact, and (by one reading of the coventions) the length of detention.

Nowhere is torture, threat or degradation allowed for anyone.

PS Somewhere back in time I did look up the signatories to the GCs. I don't have time to revisit the topic, but by my recollection Iraq was/is a signatory to at least the first GC, and possibly others.

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 30, 2005 9:29 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Thank you, Rue. That point seems to have gotten lost in the shuffle.

Please don't think they give a shit.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 30, 2005 10:08 AM

DREAMTROVE

I'm not campaigning for a McCain/Graham ticket! It wouldn't be a bad ticket, but the name of the anti-torture bill is McCain/Graham. It's prefectly appropriate to mention that fact, and doing so is in no way supporting a McCain/Graham '08 ticket.

The brits in question are already in jail. But re: prosecutors, I don't think anyone is judicial politicking here. If they were, they should lose their jobs, and the cases should be reviewed. Mostly, I think a lot of Bush supporters have been blaming democrats for their attacks, but actually there are very few democrats to be seen here. Almost everyone involved has been a republican or a civil servant of a republican administration. If this were partisan as the president's supporters seem to claim, I would be expecting to see the higher-ups of the Clinton administration on the warpath here. That's simply not what's happening. Most of the people involved seem to be from the Bush Sr. govt.

Sygnym, I think your signature blends nicely into the text of your post so that it comes across as though you're saying that to RUE. You might wanna be careful about that.

Rue's point is well taken, but it doesn't counter my earlier point, which is that this needs to be forbidden more strictly under US law so that it can be enforced, since the enforcement power of international law is zero in the US, since we don't recognize the court.

BTW, my ticket of preference would probable start with Lugar, Warner or Hagel. I think Arnie has proven he would be okay, but he can't run, and most often I don't like Governors on tickets. They don't know enough about the federal govt. to simply take over. I would probably support just about any GOP senate ticket over any governor ticket. There are lots of democratic senators that I would have a serious problem with, and a couple of republicans. Most particularly, Sen. Inhofe would not get my vote. Stevens of Alaska would have trouble getting it as well.

I think this became probably pile on Finn anyway, and it's nothing pesonal. I think most people like to think of the US as not being on the same level with our terrorist enemies, and sees little field advantage in doing so. The CIA maintains that there is no field advatage to the Bush admin policies, and there may be a field disadvantage to it, so I'm tempted to think there is not a lot to support the argument that there is a field advantage to it.

I also suspect your immovable from the position, which I think is pretty close to Mr. Inhofe's, and if you want to support that, it's fine, but this discussion is going nowhere. I think everything's pretty much already been said on the subject.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 30, 2005 11:30 AM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn Mac Cumhal:
Nope that’s not what I said at all.

Well, Finn, none of these courts had the sanction of the people they were trying. In fact Saddam Hussein doesn't recognise the court that is currently trying him.
Your point seemed to be what right does a court have to try people who do not sanction it. That is where I am coming from.

Quote:
One imagines that if you had your way there might be a lot of innocent US servicemen in international prisons for crimes they committed only in the minds of people who were upset over US policy.

Again, Finn you try to paint me as someone who wants the innocent (as long as their American) to be punished. That's not only unfair but quite insulting. I'm saying that an American court cannot be impartial in these cases, and that may result in innocent Americans being convicted as much as it could result in guilty Americans being freed.

Quote:
I think the US might end up being the victim of international barratry or blackmailed by a prosecutor who doesn’t like US policy, regardless of the legal issues.

But Finn, do you really have any real basis to believe this may be the case?

I hold America to a higher standard than most other nations Finn. Call that Anti-American if you will.
You guys are the leaders of the free world, so you should hold your selves to the highest degree. Maybe it’s lawful to treat the detainees in the way they are being treated, but I still maintain it’s not right, and America should hold itself to a higher standard.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you Beeeer Milkshakes!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE