Secret endorsement of torture

[BT]

Waterboarding is a criminal act IMHO.

So no governing body with jurisdiction has declared waterboarding an illegal at?

[Lanya]

Waterboarding is a criminal act IMHO.

So no governing body with jurisdiction has declared waterboarding an illegal at?

----------------
Depends.  Do you think the SCOTUS is a governing body with jurisdiction?

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/hamdan-summary----and-huge-news/

[Amianthus]

Depends.  Do you think the SCOTUS is a governing body with jurisdiction?

How's about an actual document from SCOTUS that says it, not the opinion of a blogger?

"If I'm right about this, it's enormously significant."

And if he's not right?

[Michael Tee]

<<So no governing body with jurisdiction has declared waterboarding an illegal at?>>

Why do you need to rely upon "some governing body" with "jurisdiction" to tell you what's right or wrong?  Don't you know yourself what's right and wrong?  Do you really think some court with a Reagan-Bush majority composition is going to have the moral authority to decide an issue like that?  Know of any judges during the Nazi era of German history who decided that the whole Nazi agenda was bullshit?

[sirs]

<<So no governing body with jurisdiction has declared waterboarding an illegal at?>>

Why do you need to rely upon "some governing body" with "jurisdiction" to tell you what's right or wrong?  Don't you know yourself what's right and wrong?  

You mean like Homosexuality is wrong?  Spending other people's money is wrong?  Trying to lay claim as to how the U.S. & its military is just as bad, if not worse than terrorists like AlQeada is wrong?  Yea, I do know

Do you really think some court with a Reagan-Bush majority composition is going to have the moral authority to decide an issue like that?  Know of any judges during the Nazi era of German history who decided that the whole Nazi agenda was bullshit?

4liberals - 2moderates - 3 conservatives (under Reagan) --> now 4libs - 1 mod - 4 conservs (under Bush) are a "majority composition"?  What school did you learn your math from?

[BT]

<<So no governing body with jurisdiction has declared waterboarding an illegal at?>>

Why do you need to rely upon "some governing body" with "jurisdiction" to tell you what's right or wrong?  Don't you know yourself what's right and wrong?  Do you really think some court with a Reagan-Bush majority composition is going to have the moral authority to decide an issue like that?  Know of any judges during the Nazi era of German history who decided that the whole Nazi agenda was bullshit?

Because you are the one who brought up criminality:

OH, now I get it.  Straw-man.  The subject is waterboarding.  The article clearly stated that never before had any administration authorized waterboarding.   When this administration DID authorize waterboarding, they tried to keep it a secret from the public, their nominal bosses.  The issue is the criminality of this administration.

[Michael Tee]

<<Because you are the one who brought up criminality:>>

Fair enough.

The only reason there's no clear-cut case for criminality is because the US has not ratified the UN Convention on Torture.  I guess you could say that they have reservations over the definition of torture in the Convention.  The US probably feels the definition is over-broad and includes waterboarding, whereas they wouldn't want waterboarding included in the definition of torture.  Bottom line is, they (the Bush administration) are going to waterboard their prisoners and nobody can stop them. 

No  previous administration has authorized this.   The UN Convention, ratified by many countries, has renounced such methods as torture.  The ratifying countries have adopted the definitions of torture contained in the Convention and sworn to forgo torture as defined.  But now Bush authorizes torture and at the same time claims the U.S. does not torture.

There is obviously no way to compel the U.S. to observe civilized norms of behaviour short of military defeat.  As  long as they have the power to torture, they will torture.  At the present time and for the foreseeable future, it looks like the U.S. will be able to torture and to get away with it.  This is a bitter pill to swallow but realistically there is no other possible outcome.  Sometimes it pays to face the world as it is and just pray or hope for God or history or blind chance or whatever force or forces actually determine the course of events to unleash the unforeseen catastrophe that those who so grossly violate human rights and the dignity of their fellow man so richly deserve.  You will probably ask, what about al Qaeda and their torture manual?  Their punishment is the U.S. military.  My concern is who or what will punish the U.S. military and their civilian bosses in their present lawless state.  Some kind of world order is definitely indicated, most obviously a UN with vastly enhanced powers of enforcement.

[Amianthus]

The only reason there's no clear-cut case for criminality is because the US has not ratified the UN Convention on Torture.

The US signed the convention on 18 Apr 1988, and was ratified on 21 Oct 1994.

The issue of waterboarding was brought up in a Committee against Torture meeting on 5 May 2006 - I haven't heard that the US was sanctioned by the UN for this. Have you?

[sirs]

D'OH. 

Well, you know Ami, those UN folks are just toadies for Bush, doing his bidding, covering his lying arse with their position that Saddam did have his WMD stockpiles, when they knew he didn't.       

[Michael Tee]

<<The US signed the convention on 18 Apr 1988, and was ratified on 21 Oct 1994.>>

I should have looked it up.  The only reason I didn't was because I assumed that the only way the U.S. could get away with waterboarding was if they had never ratified the Convention.  I never dreamed they would be so fucking brazen as to sign the Convention and then just go ahead and authorize such a clear-cut breach of it.

<<The issue of waterboarding was brought up in a Committee against Torture meeting on 5 May 2006 - I haven't heard that the US was sanctioned by the UN for this. Have you?>>

What would be the point?  They recognize no legal authority but their own will.  The International Court of Justice at the Hague condemned them for interfering in Nicaragua's internal affairs but they're about as concerned with the ICJ's rulings as they are with my posts.

[BT]

<<The US signed the convention on 18 Apr 1988, and was ratified on 21 Oct 1994.>>

I should have looked it up.  The only reason I didn't was because I assumed that the only way the U.S. could get away with waterboarding was if they had never ratified the Convention.  I never dreamed they would be so fucking brazen as to sign the Convention and then just go ahead and authorize such a clear-cut breach of it.

<<The issue of waterboarding was brought up in a Committee against Torture meeting on 5 May 2006 - I haven't heard that the US was sanctioned by the UN for this. Have you?>>

What would be the point?  They recognize no legal authority but their own will.  The International Court of Justice at the Hague condemned them for interfering in Nicaragua's internal affairs but they're about as concerned with the ICJ's rulings as they are with my posts.

mikey,

try to keep your responses credible.

[Michael Tee]

<<mikey,

<<try to keep your responses credible.>>

We're living through some pretty surrealistic times, BT.  The fact that the U.S. government is run by a gang of thugs with zero respect for international law is in itself an incredible situation, which it's hard for my responses not to reflect.

[Amianthus]

We're living through some pretty surrealistic times, BT.  The fact that the U.S. government is run by a gang of thugs with zero respect for international law is in itself an incredible situation, which it's hard for my responses not to reflect.

Or, the other explanation is that the committee did not find that waterboarding is torture.

[Michael Tee]

<<Or, the other explanation is that the committee did not find that waterboarding is torture.>>

Yeah, that would be credible.  Here's the definition of torture, straight from the CAT (Convention Against Torture):

Article 1.
1.  For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering , whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.  It does not include pain or suffering arising only from , inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

and for added measure,
Article 2
2.  No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability, or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.


For the very reason of its wide definition, I just assumed that no American government would ever adopt such a Convention.

But why is anyone so concerned with what the committee thought about waterboarding?  Since when does Amerika pay heed to foreigners, let alone so-called "committees" of the demonic United Nations?  What does AMI think about waterboarding, does it fall within the CAT definition of torture or not?

[Amianthus]

But why is anyone so concerned with what the committee thought about waterboarding?  Since when does Amerika pay heed to foreigners, let alone so-called "committees" of the demonic United Nations?

It would bolster your case if they made a pronouncement that waterboarding was torture. I think it's telling that in the 2 years since the complaint was lodged, they have not done so.

What does AMI think about waterboarding, does it fall within the CAT definition of torture or not?

Tying them down and pouring warm water over their heads? Nope, doesn't sound like torture to me. Annoying, yes, torture, no.