US petition

[Mr JP Fugley]

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).



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".

February 4, 1985 it was first opened for signature.

Deputy Secretary of State John C. Whitehead signed it on April 18, 1988. In 1985, he had been asked to become Deputy Secretary of State, number two to George Schultz. Following his four years of service, he was awarded the Presidential Citizens Medal by President Reagan.

Anything else I can help you with, old pulse.

EDIT You ratified it in 1994.

[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).



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

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



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".

February 4, 1985 it was first opened for signature.

Deputy Secretary of State John C. Whitehead signed it on April 18, 1988. In 1985, he had been asked to become Deputy Secretary of State, number two to George Schultz. Following his four years of service, he was awarded the Presidential Citizens Medal by President Reagan.

Anything else I can help you with, old pulse.

EDIT You ratified it in 1994.

So then Reagan did a Clinton, then Clinton did a Clinton, then Ms. Leiwinsky did Clinton, now Bush is trying to undo Clinton.

Sounds right.

BTW-

Anything signed by a Deputy Sec'y is void after his tenure.

Schultz's signature would have been binding, unless he signed with disappearing ink.

In any case, I think Bush's reasoning (such as it is) comes down to the doubtful status of the captured combatants/terrorists vis a vis these agreements.

It seems if he denies them standard definitional status, the international policy-making bodies might address the specific difficulty presented by Al Qaeda, et.al., and perhaps write codicils directed at such troublemakers, rather than using the inappropriate umbrella(s) extant.

Surely this is not asking too much?

[JPaul]

In any case, I think Bush's reasoning (such as it is) comes down to the doubtful status of the captured combatants/terrorists vis a vis these agreements.

The status of the person being tortured is irrelevant.

The treaty relates to how people will be treated, it says nothing of who or what they are, or what they are accused of, or who their associates are.

[j2k4]

In any case, I think Bush's reasoning (such as it is) comes down to the doubtful status of the captured combatants/terrorists vis a vis these agreements.

The status of the person being tortured is irrelevant.

The treaty relates to how people will be treated, it says nothing of who or what they are, or what they are accused of, or who their associates are.

Well, to be perfectly clear, I buy your reasoning, as well as my own and others, and rationales (questionable though they may be) exist for most of them.

I believe also the outrages we've witnessed on the parts of the terrorists should be met by something other than steadfast pacifism.

I frankly don't have the slightest idea how we'd go about finding and fighting terrorists if we are to be bound and restricted by high-flown moralism at every turn; after all, if we could run them through a military tribunal in proper fashion, they wouldn't have to be subject for such extended periods to guardians who get sick of looking at them.

Alas, the "international" types have no truck with such proceedings, and would preclude them, too.

I think we should serve Scrapple for breakfast at Abu Ghraib, but then I'm a real sicko.

[Busyman]

The status of the person being tortured is irrelevant.

The treaty relates to how people will be treated, it says nothing of who or what they are, or what they are accused of, or who their associates are.

Well, to be perfectly clear, I buy your reasoning, as well as my own and others, and rationales (questionable though they may be) exist for most of them.

I believe also the outrages we've witnessed on the parts of the terrorists should be met by something other than steadfast pacifism.

I frankly don't have the slightest idea how we'd go about finding and fighting terrorists if we are to be bound and restricted by high-flown moralism at every turn; after all, if we could run them through a military tribunal in proper fashion, they wouldn't have to be subject for such extended periods to guardians who get sick of looking at them.

Alas, the "international" types have no truck with such proceedings, and would preclude them, too.

I think we should serve Scrapple for breakfast at Abu Ghraib, but then I'm a real sicko.

But you'd be violating their religious beliefs. That's mental torture and you are harming them. You can't do that and whatnot.

[JPaul]

The status of the person being tortured is irrelevant.

The treaty relates to how people will be treated, it says nothing of who or what they are, or what they are accused of, or who their associates are.

I believe also the outrages we've witnessed on the parts of the terrorists should be met by something other than steadfast pacifism.

I frankly don't have the slightest idea how we'd go about finding and fighting terrorists if we are to be bound and restricted by high-flown moralism at every turn.

To stop torturing people does not mean that you become steadfastly pacifist. Oh wait, you don't believe that any more than I do. You are just doing the emotive description thing. Trying to make a point via the gift of talking pish.

There are loads of ways of finding and fighting terrorists without the use of torture. Oh wait, you knew that as well, would that mean that your use of the phrase "high-flown moralism" was more technique than substance.

Feck, I thought we were discussing something here, the validity of civilized people torturing folk. Turns out it's just an exercise justifying the untenable.

[JPaul]

Well, to be perfectly clear, I buy your reasoning, as well as my own and others, and rationales (questionable though they may be) exist for most of them.

I believe also the outrages we've witnessed on the parts of the terrorists should be met by something other than steadfast pacifism.

I frankly don't have the slightest idea how we'd go about finding and fighting terrorists if we are to be bound and restricted by high-flown moralism at every turn; after all, if we could run them through a military tribunal in proper fashion, they wouldn't have to be subject for such extended periods to guardians who get sick of looking at them.

Alas, the "international" types have no truck with such proceedings, and would preclude them, too.

I think we should serve Scrapple for breakfast at Abu Ghraib, but then I'm a real sicko.

But you'd be violating their religious beliefs. That's mental torture and you are harming them. You can't do that and whatnot.

If you don't like the rules, don't sign up to them.

Or was it just the US thinking, "shit everyone else is saying torture is bad, we better say that as well. We won't actually have to stop doing it, obviousement".

[Rat Faced]

I believe also the outrages we've witnessed on the parts of the terrorists should be met by something other than steadfast pacifism.

You mean the use of Chemical Weapons and the levelling of cities that the citizens were not allowed to leave for a couple of weeks beforehand type thing...




Oh, wait...

[Busyman]

But you'd be violating their religious beliefs. That's mental torture and you are harming them. You can't do that and whatnot.

If you don't like the rules, don't sign up to them.

Or was it just the US thinking, "shit everyone else is saying torture is bad, we better say that as well. We won't actually have to stop doing it, obviousement".

Aww hell man, you've got to be a special type of stupid to believe that other countries (including yours) that signed are not using torture.

The thing is Bush is sitting there saying torture is okay which is also stupid.

I just want torture to be narrowed law-wise.

As it's defined now, almost anything can be considered torture.

[Rat Faced]

almost anything can be considered torture.

I agree, this thread is slowly killing me.