US petition

[Busyman]

almost anything can be considered torture.

I agree, this thread is slowly killing me.

Take it from around your neck.

[JPaul]

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.

Your's however is the country who, at the highest level, is saying that it is OK for them to use torture. In spite of still being party to a treaty which prohibits it.

People break rules, we know that, you really are not the only person who lives in the real World. However that does not mean that we should not have rules. That does not mean we should not make laws in order to try to stop that which we know is wrong. Then, having laid down the things we as a society have decided are wrong, we can take action against those who break the rules.

Murder is a crime, yet people still do it. That does not mean that we should allow it. This argument that people will commit acts of torture anyway is just as nonsensical.

Torture is wrong, so we legislate against it. If people do it, we take action against them. We do not argue that it's OK for us to do just a wee bit of torture, when we decide that we can justify it.

[Busyman]

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.

Your's however is the country who, at the highest level, is saying that it is OK for them to use torture. In spite of still being party to a treaty which prohibits it.

People break rules, we know that, you really are not the only person who lives in the real World. However that does not mean that we should not have rules. That does not mean we should not make laws in order to try to stop that which we know is wrong. Then, having laid down the things we as a society have decided are wrong, we can take action against those who break the rules.

Murder is a crime, yet people still do it. That does not mean that we should allow it. This argument that people will commit acts of torture anyway is just as nonsensical.

Torture is wrong, so we legislate against it. If people do it, we take action against them. We do not argue that it's OK for us to do just a wee bit of torture, when we decide that we can justify it.

Did you read the entire post or did you just want to nitpick.

If we already have this as law why is this amendment needed? Genuinely curious.

[JPaul]

Your's however is the country who, at the highest level, is saying that it is OK for them to use torture. In spite of still being party to a treaty which prohibits it.

People break rules, we know that, you really are not the only person who lives in the real World. However that does not mean that we should not have rules. That does not mean we should not make laws in order to try to stop that which we know is wrong. Then, having laid down the things we as a society have decided are wrong, we can take action against those who break the rules.

Murder is a crime, yet people still do it. That does not mean that we should allow it. This argument that people will commit acts of torture anyway is just as nonsensical.

Torture is wrong, so we legislate against it. If people do it, we take action against them. We do not argue that it's OK for us to do just a wee bit of torture, when we decide that we can justify it.

Did you read the entire post or did you just want to nitpick.

I replied to your sarcasm, Its a "special kind of stupid" thing.

Oh and it wasn't nit-picking, it was explaining my opinion.

[JPaul]

If we already have this as law why is this amendment needed? Genuinely curious.

Which amendment, I really amn't that up on US law.

[Busyman]

If we already have this as law why is this amendment needed? Genuinely curious.

Which amendment, I really amn't that up on US law.

The one referred to in the link at the very beginning of this thread.

[JPaul]

Which amendment, I really amn't that up on US law.

The one referred to in the link at the very beginning of this thread.

Oh right, it just seems so long ago.

From my reading of it the amendment is seeking to clarify the position for your military. It is not really adding to the fact that torture is not allowed, it is more to let them know what they can do. Bascially if they stick to their "Army Field Manual on Intelligence Interrogation" then they will be staying within the rules of what they are allowed to do.

The amendments to the amendment would be to allow the CIA to carry on as before, which seems a bit strange. The US would be saying that they were abiding by the treaty, by following their own rules (Army Field Manual on Intelligence Interrogation) but breaking the rules they signed up to, when they didn't suit.

That's just my simplified quick read at it tho'.

[Busyman]

The one referred to in the link at the very beginning of this thread.

Oh right, it just seems so long ago.

From my reading of it the amendment is seeking to clarify the position for your military. It is not really adding to the fact that torture is not allowed, it is more to let them know what they can do. Bascially if they stick to their "Army Field Manual on Intelligence Interrogation" then they will be staying within the rules of what they are allowed to do.

The amendments to the amendment would be to allow the CIA to carry on as before, which seems a bit strange. The US would be saying that they were abiding by the treaty, by following their own rules (Army Field Manual on Intelligence Interrogation) but breaking the rules they signed up to, when they didn't suit.

That's just my simplified quick read at it tho'.

Hmmm it seems they need to have an 'everyone or STFU' approach. Allowing the CIA to do all types of torture but disallowing everyone else seems ass backwards.

The amendment doesn't seem to narrow "torture" down either.

It's useless takeadvantageofAbuGrabassforsoundbites crap.

[j2k4]

Your's however is the country who, at the highest level, is saying that it is OK for them to use torture. In spite of still being party to a treaty which prohibits it.

JP-I found something which speaks directly to your point, and recalls more clearly a vague memory of my own.

I have emboldened the most relevant sections...



Rich Lowry 11/15/05

American Grandstand
This one’s dangerous.

When legislation passes in the Senate by an overwhelming 90-9 vote, it is often a sign that it is either meaningless fluff or a bad idea. The McCain "anti-torture" amendment, which passed by such a wide margin in an initial test of strength and which will be up for debate again soon, is both — an instance of congressional grandstanding that also might prove harmful.

One part of the amendment bans "cruel, inhumane and degrading" treatment. John McCain himself says that if the amendment's prohibition against such treatment "doesn't sound new, that's because it's not — the prohibition has been a longstanding principle in both law and policy in the United States." Ah. So why, then, is the McCain amendment necessary?

According to McCain, it is necessary because the U.S. maintains that the prohibition against cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment, which it agreed to in the Convention Against Torture, doesn't apply to foreigners held overseas. Indeed, Congress was careful to include this caveat when it ratified the convention in 1994. As legal analyst Andy McCarthy notes, instead of closing this loophole, the McCain amendment appears to perpetuate it by repeating the same language Congress used to carve it out in 1994. This is legislative sleight of hand in the cause of moralistic self-congratulation.

The other part of the amendment gives the Army Field Manual and its standard for interrogations the force of law. This is where the amendment will have bite. In theory, the manual could be rewritten to allow explicitly for the kind of stress techniques — keeping detainees awake for long periods, putting them in uncomfortable positions, etc. — that have been controversial since 9/11. The existing manual frowns on these methods, and a new version currently being formulated is likely to be even more restrictive, although it will probably leave key questions vague.

The McCain amendment, however, will make any leeway in the manual moot. Because it creates no specific safe harbor for stress techniques, has no definition of what is cruel and inhumane and what isn't, and has been accompanied by a fusillade of congressional rhetoric against Bush administration interrogation policy, it will be interpreted as banning any technique overseas that we wouldn't use with criminal suspects in the U.S. This is an unreasonable standard, and one that McCain and his backers apparently don't have the gumption to state and defend openly.

A distinction has to be made between wanton abuses like those in Abu Ghraib and tightly controlled interrogations of top-level al Qaeda captives. Yes, prisoners should be treated humanely, and it will be a permanent blot on the administration's record that it didn't better control how prisoners were being treated in Iraq and Afghanistan.

But there are cases when tough techniques are probably justified. When al Qaeda leader Abu Zubaida, a planner of 9/11, was caught in Pakistan, he had been shot in the groin. Painkillers were administered selectively as an interrogation tactic. He coughed up information that led to the capture of other al Qaeda members. At Guantanamo Bay, Secretary of Defense Don Rumsfeld approved — then eventually revoked — 16 aggressive techniques for Mohammed al-Qahtani, the 20th hijacker in the 9/11 plot. They involved isolating him, making him stand for long periods and playing on his phobias. They might have helped pressure him into talking.

Would McCain supporters not have been so harsh to Zubaida? Never made al-Qahtani stand? And do they want to make it illegal for U.S. interrogators ever again to make the choices they did in these two cases? It now seems obvious the pendulum swung too far toward tough treatment of our prisoners after 9/11, but that doesn't mean it should swing all the way in the other direction and outlaw techniques that are short of torture, but useful in unraveling what is an ongoing conspiracy to murder Americans.

The interrogation debate, above all, needs adult supervision. It hasn't gotten enough of it from the Bush administration, and it looks as though it won't get any from a preening Congress either.

[JPaul]

It would appear from your post, or at least the part you have emboldened, that the treaty relates to domestic criminals, but not to soldiers. I say this because domestic criminals are more likely to be captured on "home soil" whereas soldiers are just as likely to be captured on "foreign soil".

I find it frankly stunning that your country would include such a caveat when ratifying the treaty. However then I think on.

Does this caveat apply to everyone, was it added to the treaty, or more likely did your country only ratify this amended version for themselves.

If no-one else has the same caveat, then they are obliged to follow the rules of the treaty, when they capture your soldiers then they cannot torture them. However if the US captures foreign soldiers and keeps them on foreign soil, then the treaty is abandoned.

In essence, if it's a US citizen, no torture. If the prisoner is held in the US, no torture. If it's a foreign citizen, held elsewhere than in the US, torture is OK

Or do I misunderstand.

Why did you put them in Guantanamo btw

After 9/11, however, the Bush administration took the view that the prohibition on "cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment" simply does not apply to foreign detainees held outside the United States. It pointed to the fact that when Congress ratified the treaty, it stated its understanding that "cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment" comprised conduct that would violate the United States Constitution—whose Fifth Amendment prohibits any coercion that "shocks the conscience" in interrogations. Claiming that the U.S. Constitution does not extend to foreigners overseas, the administration reasoned that the treaty prohibition on "cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment" is similarly limited.

That is about as disingenuous as the extract you used to justify the legal basis for the torture. It's shameful, if I read it correctly.

http://www.slate.com/id/2130028/#ContinueArticle