US petition

[hobbes]

Perhaps you don't read things, that may be the problem. It's really not just me who thinks it's wrong.

There was this treaty, which said that torture was wrong, loads of countries signed up to it. The US was one of them. I provided a few links to it.

.

So the treaty is already signed?

So what is the point of signing another one? That was my point. The rules are already in place, you just need to enforce them.



Like you pointed out before, just because murder will be committed, regardless the laws, this does not mean we should not make it the law.

Well, murder is not murder.

The law does NOT read that you cannot kill another, no exceptions, it is broken down to take into account special circumstances.

1st degree is premeditated murder
2nd degree
3rd degree
manslaughter
self-defense.

See a blanket law would prevent a man from acting in self defense and make him guilty of murder with the maximal penalty.

Why make a blanket law which no one has any intention of following. It become just another piece of paper.

Self defense is the ultimate challenge of means justifying the ends. We all know we would save ourselves.

If you look at my exceptions for allowing torture they are very close to "self defense". The scenarios depict an us versus them, one of us is going to die situation.

Hence the "wiggle room" I think our military wants.

In our society people to kill others and face no crime charges in very special situations, such special situations are analogous to the times I could justify, to myself, the use of torture.

Blanket treaties are very nice political gestures, but they in no way effect reality.

Blanket laws are very restrictive because they fail to reflect conditionality.

[ilw]

But you can't decide whether something was committed in self defence without a trial, where I assume you would have to prove to a jury that you were genuinely in immediate danger. If you can't prove it then you're up for murder. Btw is self defence a classification of murder in the US (or the UK) or is it actually a mitigating circumstance? i.e. would you be found guilty of murder in self defence or acquitted of murder?

I think torture should fall under the same category, i.e. you must prove that the person you tortured was an immediate threat to your safety. (Frankly i think it would be a stretch to come up with a realistic scenario where this is the case.) If you can't prove they were an immediate threat then there were alternative measures you could have taken and I think its right that you're in the poo.

[j2k4]

This treaty lacks any definition/address of terrorists or their activities

In past threads, members have attempted to denounce reported events at Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib as violations of the Geneva Convention.

This (as I've pointed out many times) constitutes a failure of understanding so basic as to defy description.

The rights granted to captured troops by the Geneva Convention (read closely, now) apply to those who have accepted the TERMS of the Geneva Convention.

The Convention does not apply to people who aren't troops, and who blatantly violate the entire framework of that convention.

Those who wish to extend such protections beyond the stated purview of such documents have some work to do; the 1994 treaty doesn't address the unique status of terrorists, either.

Merely wishing for others to behave in a fashion one deems moral does not constitute a binding arrangement, and the idea of unenumerated or "intended" protections in such a document is, indeed, errant.

[JPaul]

Perhaps you don't read things, that may be the problem. It's really not just me who thinks it's wrong.

There was this treaty, which said that torture was wrong, loads of countries signed up to it. The US was one of them. I provided a few links to it.

.

So the treaty is already signed?

So what is the point of signing another one? That was my point. The rules are already in place, you just need to enforce them.



Like you pointed out before, just because murder will be committed, regardless the laws, this does not mean we should not make it the law.

Well, murder is not murder.

The law does NOT read that you cannot kill another, no exceptions, it is broken down to take into account special circumstances.

1st degree is premeditated murder
2nd degree
3rd degree
manslaughter
self-defense.

See a blanket law would prevent a man from acting in self defense and make him guilty of murder with the maximal penalty.

Why make a blanket law which no one has any intention of following. It become just another piece of paper.

Self defense is the ultimate challenge of means justifying the ends. We all know we would save ourselves.

If you look at my exceptions for allowing torture they are very close to "self defense". The scenarios depict an us versus them, one of us is going to die situation.

Hence the "wiggle room" I think our military wants.

In our society people to kill others and face no crime charges in very special situations, such special situations are analogous to the times I could justify, to myself, the use of torture.

Blanket treaties are very nice political gestures, but they in no way effect reality.

Blanket laws are very restrictive because they fail to reflect conditionality.

The new "treaty" isn't a treaty, it's an amendment to US appropriations bill 2006. I did post some links. It re-iterates what which is already in the treaty (I think that bit is just politicing)

However it would do 2 other thing (at least).

It removes the preposterous location thing and it clarifies things for your military people. It says that, so long as they stay within the terms of their interrogation manual, then as far as the US is concerned they are not torturing people.

McCain Amendment in the final version of the FY 2006 Defense Appropriations Bill


SEC. __. UNIFORM STANDARDS FOR THE INTERROGATION OF PERSONS UNDER THE DETENTION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE.

* (a) IN GENERAL.--No person in the custody or under the effective control of the Department of Defense or under detention in a Department of Defense facility shall be subject to any treatment or technique of interrogation not authorized by and listed in the United States Army Field Manual on Intelligence Interrogation.

* (b) APPLICABILITY.--Subsection (a) shall not apply to with respect to any person in the custody or under the effective control of the Department of Defense pursuant to a criminal law or immigration law of the United States.

* (c) CONSTRUCTION.--Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect the rights under the United States Constitution of any person in the custody or under the physical jurisdiction of the United States.


SEC. __. PROHIBITION ON CRUEL, INHUMAN, OR DEGRADING TREATMENT OR PUNISHMENT OF PERSONS UNDER CUSTODY OR CONTROL OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT.

* (a) IN GENERAL.--No individual in the custody or under the physical control of the United States Government, regardless of nationality or physical location, shall be subject to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.

* (b) CONSTRUCTION.--Nothing in this section shall be construed to impose any geographical limitation on the applicability of the prohibition against cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment under this section.

* (c) LIMITATION OF SUPERSEDER.--The provisions of this section shall not be superseded, except by a provision of law enacted after the date of the enactment of this Act which specifically repeals, modifies, or supersedes the provisions of this section.

* (d) CRUEL, INHUMAN, OR DEGRADING TREATMENT OR PUNISHMENT DEFINED.--In this section, the term ''cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment'' means the cruel, unusual, and inhumane treatment or punishment prohibited by the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, as defined in the United States Reservations, Declarations and Understandings to the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Forms of Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment done at New York, December 10, 1984.

From http://www.phrusa.org/research/torture/mccain_text.html

Nobody is saying that you shouldn't interrogate people. Just that you shouldn't torture them. It's already in your Constitution

[JPaul]

This treaty lacks any definition/address of terrorists or their activities

In past threads, members have attempted to denounce reported events at Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib as violations of the Geneva Convention.

This (as I've pointed out many times) constitutes a failure of understanding so basic as to defy description.

The rights granted to captured troops by the Geneva Convention (read closely, now) apply to those who have accepted the TERMS of the Geneva Convention.

The Convention does not apply to people who aren't troops, and who blatantly violate the entire framework of that convention.

Those who wish to extend such protections beyond the stated purview of such documents have some work to do; the 1994 treaty doesn't address the unique status of terrorists, either.

Merely wishing for others to behave in a fashion one deems moral does not constitute a binding arrangement, and the idea of unenumerated or "intended" protections in such a document is, indeed, errant.

The treaty on torture, as I understand it, makes no such distinction.

It does not, as I understand it, make comment on the crimes people are alleged to have commited. It makes no comment on whether an organization has agreed to anything. It simply prohibits certain actions.

In addition, you cannot have things both ways. They are either soldiers or criminals. I say they are criminals, I have said so in the past. You therefore have a presumption of innocence. You are therefore torturing the innocent. WTF happened to due process.

[ilw]

Almost forgot to comment on the caveat stuff. I've been reading up a bit on it (as well as JPaul's link) and I'm of the opinion that the US ratified the treaty completely, i.e. there was no caveat. This talk of linking it to the constitution has no bearing on the content of the treaty which, since it clearly addresses torture to foreigners in foreign countries, means that the US is clearly in breach.
Anyway the treaty is binding regardless of whether you sign it or not, as its part of customary international law (along with certain other human rights treaties) so whether the US actually even wanted a caveat is neither here nor there (in terms of its impact on international law). Apparently any act of torture anywhere in the world is a crime. If it is conducted while in a state of war it is a war crime, else it is a crime against humanity

Amnesty usa havea page
http://www.amnestyusa.org/stoptorture/law.html
which gives some nice background to the treaty, but doesn't address the specific legal get out clauses used.

[Rat Faced]

If it were known the U.S. possessed a proprietary concoction that would induce any detainee to purge himself of every last detail of intelligence to which he was privy, and the unilateral use of this substance was so effective as to allow the total and indiscriminate extermination of all terrorists (with no collateral damage) by the U.S. in, say, two years, would you look upon this as a favorable development?

Some people cannot get it through their heads that killing terrorists creates martyrs and more terrorists... despite the Whitehouse/CIA's own figures backing up this fact both by number of terrorist attacks and estimated number of terrorists.

Go figure...

Re: The Geneva Convention.

Your wrong j2k4..

The signatories agree to treat everyone, whether they are a signatory or not, according to the convention.

The most notable was in WWII...

Japan was not a signatory, and did not treat their prisoners according to it.

The allies were, yet still treated Japanese POWs according to the convention.


As for current stuff:

attorneys

Prisoners of war must have the right to legal advice, particularly in the case of preparing powers of attorney and wills. ( Convention III, Art. 77)

The same applies to civilian internees. ( Convention IV, Art. 113 )

Military commanders must have access to legal advisers to instruct them on the application of the Geneva Conventions. ( Protocol I, Art. 82)

They have to be one or the other... yet no attorneys.

baths

Prisoners of war must have access to baths and showers, as well as sufficient soap and water for personal toilets and for laundry. Women prisoners must have separate facilities. ( Convention III, Art. 29)

The above also applies to internees. ( Convention IV, Art. 85 )


canteens


All prisoner of war camps must have canteens where prisoners can get food, soap, tobacco and other everyday items. Prices may not be higher than in the surrounding area. Any profits must be set aside for the benefit of the prisoners. (Convention III, Art. 28)

Similarly, internees must have access to canteens, unless equivalent facilities are already available. Profits must be set aside for the benefit of the internees. (Convention IV, Art. 87)

carpet bombing

Area bombardments and other indiscriminate attacks are forbidden. If it becomes apparent that an objective is not a military one, or if an attack is expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects then the attack must be canceled or suspended. (Protocol I, Art. 57, Sec. 2b)

An indiscriminate attack affecting the civilian population or civilian objects and resulting in excessive loss of life, injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects is a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions. (Protocol I, Art. 85, Sec. 3)

censorship

Letters written by prisoners may be censored but a detaining power cannot use the excuse of not having enough translators to limit the number of letters that prisoners are allowed, unless the protecting power agrees. (Convention III, Art. 71)

The censoring must take place as quickly as possible by the dispatching state and the receiving state, and only once by each. The examination of packages must take place in the presence of a prisoner or a prisoner’s chosen representative. Any prohibition of correspondence must be temporary and as short as possible. (Convention III, Art. 76)

Similar guidelines apply to internees’ mail. (Convention IV, Art. 112)

Letters written by captured chaplains may be censored. (Convention III, Art. 35)

chemical weapons

Prohibited under the 1925 Geneva Protocol

civil defense

An occupying power may not change the structure of these organizations in any way that interferes with their functioning, or compel its personnel to carry out other tasks. (Protocol I, Art. 63, Sec. 1 and Sec. 2)

civilian immunity

Civilians have special protections under Convention IV, Protocol I, and Protocol II.

They must be treated humanely, without discrimination based on race, color, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or other similar criteria.

Violence to life and person including murder, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture are prohibited.

The taking of hostages is prohibited.

Outrages upon personal dignity, including humiliating and degrading treatment are prohibited.

Sentences and executions without a judgment from a regularly constituted court and without benefit of the standard judicial guarantees are prohibited. (Convention IV, Art. 3)

See civilian population, women, murder, rape, torture, discrimination, civilian property, places of worship, cultural objects, grave breaches, and indiscriminate bombing to start with.

civilian objects

Combatants must distinguish between civilian and military objects and attack only military targets. (Protocol I, Art. 48)

civilian

A civilian is any person who does not belong to any of the following categories: members of the armed forces, militias or volunteer corps, organized resistance movements, and residents of an occupied territory who spontaneously take up arms. If there is any doubt whether a person is civilian, then he or she is to be considered a civilian. (Protocol I, Art. 50, Sec. 1)


Want me to go on??

The USA is currently breaking the Geneva Convention left, right and centre... you might as well withdraw from it to avoid confusion. There are political parties here already suggesting we leave it.

However, whether your in it or not will not change how your troops/civilians are treated by anyone... it gives you guidance on how you treat others.

You cannot sign on another countries behalf ffs.

[j2k4]

If it were known the U.S. possessed a proprietary concoction that would induce any detainee to purge himself of every last detail of intelligence to which he was privy, and the unilateral use of this substance was so effective as to allow the total and indiscriminate extermination of all terrorists (with no collateral damage) by the U.S. in, say, two years, would you look upon this as a favorable development?

Some people cannot get it through their heads that killing terrorists creates martyrs and more terrorists... despite the Whitehouse/CIA's own figures backing up this fact both by number of terrorist attacks and estimated number of terrorists.

There will always be residual effect, but in the name of rooting out even the inclination to terrorist behavior, martyrdom might even be regarded as a positive, Rat.

I believe we will eventually get to the bottom of that particular barrel in any case, and I frankly don't care a whit how many join the "cause"; I think they should all be wiped out with the sort of prejudice the Palestinians normally reserve for the Israelis.

I hope that's clear enough for you.

Go figure...

Re: The Geneva Convention.

Your wrong j2k4..

The signatories agree to treat everyone, whether they are a signatory or not, according to the convention.

Not true, sorry.

The most notable was in WWII...

Japan was not a signatory, and did not treat their prisoners according to it.

The allies were, yet still treated Japanese POWs according to the convention.

Owing chiefly to the fact the U.S. was home to many Japanese immigrants and possibly out of a sense of decency.

In any case, they were citizens of a normally recognized nation, whose government could eventually held to account for it's behavior.

That we did not maltreat Japanese POWs during WWII cannot be construed to mean we were bound by the Geneva Convention.

Again, not true, sorry.

[Busyman]

If it were known the U.S. possessed a proprietary concoction that would induce any detainee to purge himself of every last detail of intelligence to which he was privy, and the unilateral use of this substance was so effective as to allow the total and indiscriminate extermination of all terrorists (with no collateral damage) by the U.S. in, say, two years, would you look upon this as a favorable development?

Some people cannot get it through their heads that killing terrorists creates martyrs and more terrorists... despite the Whitehouse/CIA's own figures backing up this fact both by number of terrorist attacks and estimated number of terrorists.

Go figure...

Re: The Geneva Convention.

Your wrong j2k4..

The signatories agree to treat everyone, whether they are a signatory or not, according to the convention.

The most notable was in WWII...

Japan was not a signatory, and did not treat their prisoners according to it.

The allies were, yet still treated Japanese POWs according to the convention.


As for current stuff:

attorneys

Prisoners of war must have the right to legal advice, particularly in the case of preparing powers of attorney and wills. ( Convention III, Art. 77)

The same applies to civilian internees. ( Convention IV, Art. 113 )

Military commanders must have access to legal advisers to instruct them on the application of the Geneva Conventions. ( Protocol I, Art. 82)

They have to be one or the other... yet no attorneys.

baths

Prisoners of war must have access to baths and showers, as well as sufficient soap and water for personal toilets and for laundry. Women prisoners must have separate facilities. ( Convention III, Art. 29)

The above also applies to internees. ( Convention IV, Art. 85 )


canteens


All prisoner of war camps must have canteens where prisoners can get food, soap, tobacco and other everyday items. Prices may not be higher than in the surrounding area. Any profits must be set aside for the benefit of the prisoners. (Convention III, Art. 28)

Similarly, internees must have access to canteens, unless equivalent facilities are already available. Profits must be set aside for the benefit of the internees. (Convention IV, Art. 87)

carpet bombing

Area bombardments and other indiscriminate attacks are forbidden. If it becomes apparent that an objective is not a military one, or if an attack is expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects then the attack must be canceled or suspended. (Protocol I, Art. 57, Sec. 2b)

An indiscriminate attack affecting the civilian population or civilian objects and resulting in excessive loss of life, injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects is a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions. (Protocol I, Art. 85, Sec. 3)

censorship

Letters written by prisoners may be censored but a detaining power cannot use the excuse of not having enough translators to limit the number of letters that prisoners are allowed, unless the protecting power agrees. (Convention III, Art. 71)

The censoring must take place as quickly as possible by the dispatching state and the receiving state, and only once by each. The examination of packages must take place in the presence of a prisoner or a prisoner’s chosen representative. Any prohibition of correspondence must be temporary and as short as possible. (Convention III, Art. 76)

Similar guidelines apply to internees’ mail. (Convention IV, Art. 112)

Letters written by captured chaplains may be censored. (Convention III, Art. 35)

chemical weapons

Prohibited under the 1925 Geneva Protocol

civil defense

An occupying power may not change the structure of these organizations in any way that interferes with their functioning, or compel its personnel to carry out other tasks. (Protocol I, Art. 63, Sec. 1 and Sec. 2)

civilian immunity

Civilians have special protections under Convention IV, Protocol I, and Protocol II.

They must be treated humanely, without discrimination based on race, color, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or other similar criteria.

Violence to life and person including murder, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture are prohibited.

The taking of hostages is prohibited.

Outrages upon personal dignity, including humiliating and degrading treatment are prohibited.

Sentences and executions without a judgment from a regularly constituted court and without benefit of the standard judicial guarantees are prohibited. (Convention IV, Art. 3)

See civilian population, women, murder, rape, torture, discrimination, civilian property, places of worship, cultural objects, grave breaches, and indiscriminate bombing to start with.

civilian objects

Combatants must distinguish between civilian and military objects and attack only military targets. (Protocol I, Art. 48)

civilian

A civilian is any person who does not belong to any of the following categories: members of the armed forces, militias or volunteer corps, organized resistance movements, and residents of an occupied territory who spontaneously take up arms. If there is any doubt whether a person is civilian, then he or she is to be considered a civilian. (Protocol I, Art. 50, Sec. 1)


Want me to go on??

The USA is currently breaking the Geneva Convention left, right and centre... you might as well withdraw from it to avoid confusion. There are political parties here already suggesting we leave it.

I must agree, unfortunately.

I rather our country pull out of the Convention rather than break it.

Most of the things in there I agree with. Some of it is outdated.

[JPaul]

Yeah, "pull out" of the Geneva Convention, amend anti-torture treaties which you've already signed, to allow you to do what you want.

These things can be so flippin' troublesome.