OPINION:Waterboarding is Not Unconstitutional

St. Adolphus said:
Were I talking about the GC, you might be making a point (actually, no you wouldn't it'd still apply). But I'm not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_Against_Torture

There is a copy of the treaty available if you'd like, as that's what I and Charver have been quoting.
Click to expand...

A "treaty" is a document signed by two or more parties, and doesn't apply to parties who haven't signed it. To my knowledge, alQaeda has NOT signed on the GC, if you have other information, please share it. alQaeda is also not a member of the UN, again, if you have conflicting information, please share it!

So you and charvs can quote all you like, treaties apply to those who signed them, and don't apply to those who didn't.

STILL.... even IF alQaeda had signed the GC and was a member of the UN.... the enhanced interrogations do not meet the criteria of torture, as outlined in the GC. It may be your OPINION that it does, but again, we don't determine what is and isn't torture based on YOUR OPINION!
 
Dixie said:
A "treaty" is a document signed by two or more parties, and doesn't apply to parties who haven't signed it. To my knowledge, alQaeda has NOT signed on the GC, if you have other information, please share it. alQaeda is also not a member of the UN, again, if you have conflicting information, please share it!

So you and charvs can quote all you like, treaties apply to those who signed them, and don't apply to those who didn't.

STILL.... even IF alQaeda had signed the GC and was a member of the UN.... the enhanced interrogations do not meet the criteria of torture, as outlined in the GC. It may be your OPINION that it does, but again, we don't determine what is and isn't torture based on YOUR OPINION!
Click to expand...

This is where we are at odds here, Dix.

If the US signed and ratified a Treaty outlawing torture (in this case the UN Convention Against Torture) then it binds itself to outlaw torture under the definition defined in that agreement.

AQ's position is irrelevant in determining whether the US breached its own obligations not to do what it signed up to do.
 
charver said:
This is where we are at odds here, Dix.

If the US signed and ratified a Treaty outlawing torture (in this case the UN Convention Against Torture) then it binds itself to outlaw torture under the definition defined in that agreement.

AQ's position is irrelevant in determining whether the US breached its own obligations not to do what it signed up to do.
Click to expand...

According to our constitution, when such a treaty is ratified it becomes (like the constitution itself) the "law of the land"...
 
charver said:
This is where we are at odds here, Dix.

If the US signed and ratified a Treaty outlawing torture (in this case the UN Convention Against Torture) then it binds itself to outlaw torture under the definition defined in that agreement.

AQ's position is irrelevant in determining whether the US breached its own obligations not to do what it signed up to do.
Click to expand...

The US didn't breach its obligations, that is your OPINION. First of all, the US is not obligated to abide by terms of a treaty not signed by another party. It's absurd to try and claim that treaties are valid between two parties when one has not signed the treaty. Secondly, it is YOUR OPINION that waterboarding is torture and fits the criteria of GC Art 1.1, it's my OPINION that it's NOT torture and doesn't fit the criteria under the GC.
 
Dixie said:
The US didn't breach its obligations, that is your OPINION. First of all, the US is not obligated to abide by terms of a treaty not signed by another party. It's absurd to try and claim that treaties are valid between two parties when one has not signed the treaty. Secondly, it is YOUR OPINION that waterboarding is torture and fits the criteria of GC Art 1.1, it's my OPINION that it's NOT torture and doesn't fit the criteria under the GC.
Click to expand...
Uhhh no, the GC isn't what we're talking about Dix, so stop bringing it up. It fits the definition of torture as defined in the U.N. Convention that I cited earlier. And as we are a signitory of it, it states that we will not engage in torture to ANYONE, NOT JUST OTHER SIGNITORIES.
 
If waterboarding isn't torture, should police be permitted to do it? What about on juveniles? If waterboarding isn't torture, it shouldn't be a big deal, right?
 
St. Adolphus said:
Uhhh no, the GC isn't what we're talking about Dix, so stop bringing it up. It fits the definition of torture as defined in the U.N. Convention that I cited earlier. And as we are a signitory of it, it states that we will not engage in torture to ANYONE, NOT JUST OTHER SIGNITORIES.
Click to expand...

Yes, the GC is what you all keep citing as justification for saying the US did something wrong. I didn't bring it up, I don't think its valid in this case, because alQaeda is not a member of the UN or a signatory to the GC. Now, you can say what you believe the GC says, but in order to prove your point, you need to post the exact text of the GC which applies to non-signatories, because I don't believe you.
 
Dixie said:
Yes, the GC is what you all keep citing as justification for saying the US did something wrong. I didn't bring it up, I don't think its valid in this case, because alQaeda is not a member of the UN or a signatory to the GC. Now, you can say what you believe the GC says, but in order to prove your point, you need to post the exact text of the GC which applies to non-signatories, because I don't believe you.
Click to expand...
No, it isn't Dixie. We're talking about a treaty from 19-fucking-85.
 
:D This is actually getting very comical.

Dixie, just out of interest what would be your definition of torture?
 
St. Augustine said:
If waterboarding isn't torture, should police be permitted to do it? What about on juveniles? If waterboarding isn't torture, it shouldn't be a big deal, right?
Click to expand...

They're only "gathering intelligence" using "enhanced" techniques. Should be good to go.
 
Dixie said:
Unless we signed a treaty in 1985 with alQaeda, promising not to waterboard detainees, you have no valid point.
Click to expand...
Perhaps you are unable to read, because if you were so able, you'd have read the treaty that I've posted multiple times now. That we signed. That states we will not torture anyone.
 
Dixie said:
It doesn't matter what my definition is, we covered this already. Torture can't be determined by individual opinion.
Click to expand...

Torture in a legal framework must have a definition.

I'm just interested in the definition you would regard as torture.
 
Damocles said:
They're only "gathering intelligence" using "enhanced" techniques. Should be good to go.
Click to expand...

Yeah and our police should be able to drive into Mexico, let's say, and shoot a suspected drug dealer in the head~ Because by this kind of logic domestic and foreign law and policy are equal.
 
Dixie said:
Yes, if by "police" you mean the CIA and if by "juveniles" you mean non-American citizens captured on foreign fields of battle in the war on terror....
Click to expand...

Hey, according to some on this site (one of the few places where lefties and righties agreed), and current orders from this Administration to kill on sight a certain home-grown natural born citizen terrorist, American citizens can be made into "unlawful combatants" simply by decree of the AG who can without any trial or Congressional decree or anything, just make them "non-citizens"...

So, juveniles can be "non-citizen unlawful combatants" in the blink of an eye. And since the "field of battle" pretty much includes the planet when dealing with terrorism, well... You can see where that is going. I can't see what would stop them from doing all of this considering nobody seems to care at all that the government now has simply created the power at any moment to strip any citizen of their rights by simple decree without trial...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top