Obama Has Paralyzed the CIA

charver said:
That's maybe where you've been going wrong then.

You can come up with your own definition of tax evasion if you like and refuse to pay any more of you hard earned dollars to the government. When the court gives it's decision i wouldn't fancy your chances much though.
Click to expand...
That's an irrelevant analogy, as I'm not coming up with my own definition, and I an an individual don't have the resources to combat the Feds alone.
 
Dungheap said:
Southern Man is not a person with more complete knowledge. There is no distinction in the UN Convention Against Torture or U.S. law between lawful and unlawful combatants when it comes to torture. Torture is illegal. Period. Full stop.
Click to expand...
Translation: Shit Pile got his arse handed to him, so is whining about Southern Man's superior intellect. :)
 
Southern Man said:
Translation: Shit Pile got his arse handed to him, so is whining about Southern Man's superior intellect. :)
Click to expand...


Here's a link to the UN Convention Against Torture. Perhaps you could point me to the section that permits torture of "unlawful combatants."

http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cat.html

Here's a link to the US Code provisions prohibiting torture. Perhaps you could point me to the section that permits torture of "unlawful combatants."

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00002340---A000-.html
 
WinterBorn said:
Combatants are defined as "Lawful" or "Unlawful". And I believe that we have signed agreements concerning torture that cover both. But I would bow to someone else's more complete knowledge of the subject.
Click to expand...
Agreed. I wait patiently for Charter or maineman's attempts to document if the agreements cover unlawful combatants. :clink:
 
Southern Man said:
Irrelevant, since enhanced interrogation is not torture.
Click to expand...


But your claim is that the UN Convention Against Torture doesn't apply to "unlawful combatants." Prove it. Same with the U.S. Code. Prove it.

Once we reach agreement that both are applicable to "unlawful combatants" we can discuss what torture means.
 
Southern Man said:
Actually, my response is as stated previously. Perhaps you can comment on that, or at least describe why you think that it is "nothing".
Click to expand...

Maybe others have more patience and time.

Your bottom line is "it's not torture" over and over and over again.

Torture as defined in the Convention which the US signed up to would include simulated drowning.

I don't want to pretend i'm Nostrodamus here, but i'm predicting an "it's not torture" coming up or you'll start an irrelevant foray into a sentence involving "unlawful combatants".
 
charver said:
Maybe others have more patience and time.

Your bottom line is "it's not torture" over and over and over again.

Torture as defined in the Convention which the US signed up to would include simulated drowning.

I don't want to pretend i'm Nostrodamus here, but i'm predicting an "it's not torture" coming up or you'll start an irrelevant foray into a sentence involving "unlawful combatants".
Click to expand...
Isn't that cute, predicting my argument. You can do this only because my argument has been incredibly consistent. :)
 
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/h_comp36.htm

That is a link to the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment adopted by the general assembly of the United Nations.

Principle 6 says "No person under any form of detention or imprisonment shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.* No circumstance whatever may be invoked as a justification for torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. "

The asterisk was linked to: " The term "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" should be interpreted so as to extend the widest possible protection against abuses, whether physical or mental, including the holding of a detained or imprisoned person in conditions which deprive him, temporarily or permanently. of the use of any of his natural senses, such as sight or hearing, or of his awareness of place and the passing of time."
 
WinterBorn said:
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/h_comp36.htm

That is a link to the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment adopted by the general assembly of the United Nations.

Principle 6 says "No person under any form of detention or imprisonment shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.* No circumstance whatever may be invoked as a justification for torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. "

The asterisk was linked to: " The term "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" should be interpreted so as to extend the widest possible protection against abuses, whether physical or mental, including the holding of a detained or imprisoned person in conditions which deprive him, temporarily or permanently. of the use of any of his natural senses, such as sight or hearing, or of his awareness of place and the passing of time."
Click to expand...

Again this only covers folks who abide by its principles. An analogy is for the Southern States to get together and agree on a rule that "all person's must never use the phrase "you guys" unless the intended audience is certified to not include females. Then a Southerner travels to Massachusetts and uses the phrase in mixed company, and some other Southerners try to prosecute him for that.
 
Southern Man said:
Again this only covers folks who abide by its principles. An analogy is for the Southern States to get together and agree on a rule that "all person's must never use the phrase "you guys" unless the intended audience is certified to not include females. Then a Southerner travels to Massachusetts and uses the phrase in mixed company, and some other Southerners try to prosecute him for that.
Click to expand...

This covers the United States signed that document, and so we agreed to abide by the principles outlined there.

The fact that others do not abide by those rules does not mean we are not bound by them.
 
Southern Man said:
Again this only covers folks who abide by its principles. An analogy is for the Southern States to get together and agree on a rule that "all person's must never use the phrase "you guys" unless the intended audience is certified to not include females. Then a Southerner travels to Massachusetts and uses the phrase in mixed company, and some other Southerners try to prosecute him for that.
Click to expand...


I get it! You're a spoof.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top