US petition

[Busyman]

I agree biggles, he is a rather dangerous president

I agree as well.

[Rat Faced]

Yeah and make sure the perp gets his 3 squares as well.

The point is that your Govt refuses to preclude the use of torture. I'm not sure if they listed which methods they intended to deploy. They seemed to want to keep their options open.

Here's an interesting quote



from http://edition.cnn.com/2004/LAW/08/25/leavitt.torture/

You will also no doubt note the part ".... by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity."

Excellent info.

I think the U.S. needs to go back from that then. It's too broad.

We can't use sleep deprivation ffs. Fuck that.

Sleep Deprivation and the use of Stress Positions are allowed.

Everyone with the right to hold suspects uses the Sleep Deprivation, the Military and some Police Forces in US/UK use Stress Postions too.

[Mr JP Fugley]

I (for one) am heartened that he is not eager to march in lockstep with international sentiment that is dedicated to policies meant to hamstring America while abiding the presence of such as China and Libya, et. al. on the U.N.'s Human Rights Council.

To shrink from such policy is less to denigrate it than to question the intent of it's authors.

If that sounds as if I believe the U.S. might be balking due to it's lack of involvement in the formulation of these "guidelines" for international behaviors, then you'd be right.

Everyone is consumed with the idea that the U.S. will bigfoot international policy and so would deny "bigfoot" it's due.

The ability of the international community to browbeat the U.S. is somewhat less than it enjoys in the case of, say, East Timor.

The U.S. has every right to play a major role in the process.

Clinton paid lip-service to Kyoto and gave the impression the U.S. would be aboard in short order, but failed to follow through; can you guess why?

It cannot be said that Bush is practicing similar deception.

Sorry for the colloquialism, but there you are.

Maybe I picked things up wrong, but you (US) are signatories to the treaty and as such it forms part of your law (it's a Constitution thing).

The United States are signatories to that convention, and under the Constitution, treaties ratified by the Senate are U.S. law, just like statutes and Supreme Court decisions. So claiming the U.S. has the right to differ from this definition is simply untenable.

If you (US) didn't like it then why sign it.

The author of the article I quoted finishes it rather aptly.

The issue is one of morality and decency -- and of honor, and compliance with the law. But it also has a pragmatic side. When U.S. soldiers are prisoners of war, will we want a narrow definition of torture to be used? When it is our people who are in the sights of a gun, will we want that definition to exclude assassination?

Seems like an all round good egg.

[Rat Faced]

Its only Torture if done against US citizens by non US cirizens, doncha know

[Busyman]

Obviously Bush now doesn't like some things in the treaty.

[Mr JP Fugley]

Obviously Bush now doesn't like some things in the treaty.

Is he also exempt from The Constitution.

[Mr JP Fugley]

Its only Torture if done against US citizens by non US cirizens, doncha know

Sorry, I didn't read the whole treaty, must have missed that bit.

[Busyman]

Excellent info.

I think the U.S. needs to go back from that then. It's too broad.

We can't use sleep deprivation ffs. Fuck that.

Sleep Deprivation and the use of Stress Positions are allowed.

Everyone with the right to hold suspects uses the Sleep Deprivation, the Military and some Police Forces in US/UK use Stress Postions too.

Where'd you get that information?

Apparently, if a person anticipates death, that violates the Torture Convention.

Don't me wrong I don't like how narrow Bush wants to define torture but I also don't like the current way it's defined.

It DOES need to be narrowed.

You can't threaten for ffs.

[Busyman]

Obviously Bush now doesn't like some things in the treaty.

Is he also exempt from The Constitution.

The law should be changed is all.

[j2k4]

Maybe I picked things up wrong, but you (US) are signatories to the treaty and as such it forms part of your law (it's a Constitution thing).

The United States are signatories to that convention, and under the Constitution, treaties ratified by the Senate are U.S. law, just like statutes and Supreme Court decisions. So claiming the U.S. has the right to differ from this definition is simply untenable.

If you (US) didn't like it then why sign it.

The author of the article I quoted finishes it rather aptly.

The issue is one of morality and decency -- and of honor, and compliance with the law. But it also has a pragmatic side. When U.S. soldiers are prisoners of war, will we want a narrow definition of torture to be used? When it is our people who are in the sights of a gun, will we want that definition to exclude assassination?

Seems like an all round good egg.

What is the treaty's vintage?

Who signed it?

A democrat, I'll bet.

BTW-

I think you'll find a good egg to be more ovate than "round".