Bush: 'This government does not torture'
- Thread starter The.Menace
- Start date
I think what Rukas wants to say - and he's right - is that if you're put under water and feel like you gonna die it doesn't help that it's 'simulated'...the effect on the person is the same, he/she doesn't know that they won't kill him/her and if you put people to a close death experience, you can't just say ... it's not that bad, it was all simulated... for the person it doesn't make much difference in that situation, that's what it's about.
that is an interesting point there Puff, i never really looked at it that way before. however, America is still bound by their own laws, as well as the Geneva Convention laws, are they not? especially the Geneva Convention laws, since the UN officially declared that this "war on terror" falls under GC laws. that means torture should be out of the question. but the most ridiculous thing about all of this is that America is just shooting themselves in the foot. how can you claim to be all about freedom and condemn the actions of countries and terror organizations that practice torture when you yourself are torturing people? no one is ever going to take America seriously any more when it comes to these kinds of things since they have proven themselves to be hypocrites.
I know that this is the way THEY put it. I believe it's BS. How many times do they talk about the war.... so you gotta decide in my view if this is a war or not, you can't thread them like they aren't fighting a war while stripin your own folks of many rights, ask the congress for money etc for the so called war on terrorism. it's just hypocrite, it's a major double standard.
US laws would apply to them anyway if they'd be in the US, therefore they invented Guantanamo bay - but in my view it's only 200 miles away and so I think it's BS.
One more thing Puff, war or not - the human rights count anyway. They use this excuse for not following the genfer convention, I know that - but every human beeing has the right be be threaded in a way the human rights suggest it, war or not - so this excuse might help with the genfer convention or even in terms of the US law, but it's not workin for the human rights so...... but well, they just ignore the human rights.
US laws would apply to them anyway if they'd be in the US, therefore they invented Guantanamo bay - but in my view it's only 200 miles away and so I think it's BS.
One more thing Puff, war or not - the human rights count anyway. They use this excuse for not following the genfer convention, I know that - but every human beeing has the right be be threaded in a way the human rights suggest it, war or not - so this excuse might help with the genfer convention or even in terms of the US law, but it's not workin for the human rights so...... but well, they just ignore the human rights.
No, it's really not.
International laws aimed at protecting civil liberties protect the liberties of all people--or at the very least the citizens of the ratifying states--not just state actors and representatives.
If I went to China to protest the repression of Falun Gong, and I was arrested, you better believe the U.S. is going to step in. I don't need to be representing an American cause to be an American citizen deserving of humane treatment.
International laws aimed at protecting civil liberties protect the liberties of all people--or at the very least the citizens of the ratifying states--not just state actors and representatives.
If I went to China to protest the repression of Falun Gong, and I was arrested, you better believe the U.S. is going to step in. I don't need to be representing an American cause to be an American citizen deserving of humane treatment.
yes, but the point that Menace made is that you are supposed to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, but puff pointed out that this right only applies to US citzens, not citizens of other countries. if you went to China and got arrested, of course they would step in because you are an American citizen. if you weren't they wouldn't give a fuck about you. none of these supposed "terrorists" are American citizens, therefore US laws and rights do not apply to them.
however, don't misconstrue that with me saying the US can do whatever they want to these suspects. the Geneva Convention laws apply, and as far as i'm concerned, thje US should be bound by their own laws. if you can't torture citizens of your country, you shouldn't be able to torture people from other countries.
however, don't misconstrue that with me saying the US can do whatever they want to these suspects. the Geneva Convention laws apply, and as far as i'm concerned, thje US should be bound by their own laws. if you can't torture citizens of your country, you shouldn't be able to torture people from other countries.
Since when does this only apply to U.S. citizens? Show me where in the Constitution, U.S. statutes, or U.S. case law that this presumption is restricted to those with American citizenship.
I can almost guarantee you that anything you find will refer to the generic person and not Americans solely.
The presumption of innonence is an American legal ideal, not a right of citizenship. By violating it, the United States is delegitimizing itself and its integrity. If we do not uphold our own law and the agreements we sign, how do we persuade others to do so? Or to respect us?
Regardless, the laws of their respective countries apply to them, and as a member of the United Nations, we need to respect the sovereignty of states and their laws and the rights guaranteed to their citizens (not that we have these past 6 years). The only way to justify the prosecution of foreign nationals is to do it fairly within the limits of our law. Why does any other country have reason to do so with our citizens if we don't?
If you're familiar with the Prisoner's Dilemma, you'll know that the only way to peacefully avoid corruption and conflict is through cooperation and faithfulness towards diplomatic agreements. Not only are we humiliating ourselves, we're opening ourselves to the same disrespect.
I can almost guarantee you that anything you find will refer to the generic person and not Americans solely.
The presumption of innonence is an American legal ideal, not a right of citizenship. By violating it, the United States is delegitimizing itself and its integrity. If we do not uphold our own law and the agreements we sign, how do we persuade others to do so? Or to respect us?
Regardless, the laws of their respective countries apply to them, and as a member of the United Nations, we need to respect the sovereignty of states and their laws and the rights guaranteed to their citizens (not that we have these past 6 years). The only way to justify the prosecution of foreign nationals is to do it fairly within the limits of our law. Why does any other country have reason to do so with our citizens if we don't?
If you're familiar with the Prisoner's Dilemma, you'll know that the only way to peacefully avoid corruption and conflict is through cooperation and faithfulness towards diplomatic agreements. Not only are we humiliating ourselves, we're opening ourselves to the same disrespect.
why would the US constitution apply to citizens of other countries? the US constitution and statutes and laws apply to US citizens only. the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty is not a right that every country in the world has, now is it? there are plenty of countries where you don't even get a trial, if they think you're guilty, you're guilty. i use the US as an example since they are a country that has this right. however, other than this particular sticking point, i agree with pretty much everything you said.
It is a right of all citizens, but does it exclude non-citizens? Is it all men are created equal, or all Americans are equally superior to other men?
The key is that under American law, there are no American terrorists until they have been convicted--until then, they are just suspected terrorists. What then pre-determines the guilt of the non-American terrorists? Misinformation, accusations, and confessions obtained through torture?
Whether or not other countries provide fair jury trials is irrelevant. The only application is the laws that they do have, and the laws that we have. If countries do not respect the unalienable rights of each other's citizens, then they are not respecting the sovereignty of that state, and then we might as well have global anarchy.
The key is that under American law, there are no American terrorists until they have been convicted--until then, they are just suspected terrorists. What then pre-determines the guilt of the non-American terrorists? Misinformation, accusations, and confessions obtained through torture?
Whether or not other countries provide fair jury trials is irrelevant. The only application is the laws that they do have, and the laws that we have. If countries do not respect the unalienable rights of each other's citizens, then they are not respecting the sovereignty of that state, and then we might as well have global anarchy.
This is only true in the sense that the US constantly violates international law when it comes to terrorist suspects. You're mistaken to believe that the US does not have to give the same rights to terrorist suspects if they are tried in American courts. But, that's why you see the US trying these terrorists in other countries where the laws are cruel.
Or, actually, not even trying them. They just let them sit...and sit.
Actually, usually they don't have enough space to sit.
Or, actually, not even trying them. They just let them sit...and sit.
Actually, usually they don't have enough space to sit.
so out of everything I posted you take that one sentence and that's it? That's weak man, there are a many more points u should discusse, even though you don't like it.
Devious, you got a couple of things wrong. Innocent until proven guilty applies to everyone, actually - it should at least but as AmericasMost said before, it doesn't say it only apply to U.S. citizens, it applies on US ground, that's why basically they don't take terrorists to the US but keep them in Cuba.... like I said, technically, that might be correct but in my view from a moral standpoint it isn't.
The genfer convention tells you how to thread war captives. Since terrorists aren't part of a war (they don't fight for a country) they feel like they don't have to give them these rights..... but I think it's a double standard - since they talk about war all the time but when it comes to threadin these people like you are supposed 2 thread war captives, they say it's not a war. That's just fucked up..... but yeah, they way they put it, the genfer convention doesn't apply. However, stop talkin about the WAR on terrorism if you don't give them the rights someone has for actions that are commited in war. Is it a war or isn't it...? It's just fucked up that they turn it around the way they want it...
However, like I mentioned before, no matter what - human rights are still valid. The genfer convention doesn't apply, I know that (since it's no official war) but human rights ALWAYS do or should apply and therefor torture is wrong and illegal by those standards, no matter how they put it.
So that is basically how the law would 'justify' the actions. I personally of course agree with americazmost - we disagree with the actions taken by the gov..... even if something might be legal it doesn't help your image, they are using excuses to be able to act the way they do.... and .... they are takin illegal actions (ignorin human rights) .... they can get away with it cause there is no one to punish the US.... but that doesn'T make it right by any means.
People in Guantanamo didn't get no trial for years. Some of them had a trial, but since no one else but the military was there, every sentence is not relevant in terms of legal. They could claim anything. So, don't talk about plenty countries, the US - self proclaimed leader of the world - doesn't follow the very basic rules of a justice system no more. You don't have 2 go that far. They didn't give a trial 2 those people and even if people over there aren't informed enough you can believe me that those actions do hurt the image of the US worldwide.
Yeah bascially what I said...besides that they don't take them to countries where laws are cruel, they take them to places where there are no rules. It's not like Cuba laws apply 2 the people in Guantanamo - miliarty laws or no laws at all apply to them..... it's a terrible thing and I dunno how these people can sleep - they better hope there is no God.
Devious, you got a couple of things wrong. Innocent until proven guilty applies to everyone, actually - it should at least but as AmericasMost said before, it doesn't say it only apply to U.S. citizens, it applies on US ground, that's why basically they don't take terrorists to the US but keep them in Cuba.... like I said, technically, that might be correct but in my view from a moral standpoint it isn't.
The genfer convention tells you how to thread war captives. Since terrorists aren't part of a war (they don't fight for a country) they feel like they don't have to give them these rights..... but I think it's a double standard - since they talk about war all the time but when it comes to threadin these people like you are supposed 2 thread war captives, they say it's not a war. That's just fucked up..... but yeah, they way they put it, the genfer convention doesn't apply. However, stop talkin about the WAR on terrorism if you don't give them the rights someone has for actions that are commited in war. Is it a war or isn't it...? It's just fucked up that they turn it around the way they want it...
However, like I mentioned before, no matter what - human rights are still valid. The genfer convention doesn't apply, I know that (since it's no official war) but human rights ALWAYS do or should apply and therefor torture is wrong and illegal by those standards, no matter how they put it.
So that is basically how the law would 'justify' the actions. I personally of course agree with americazmost - we disagree with the actions taken by the gov..... even if something might be legal it doesn't help your image, they are using excuses to be able to act the way they do.... and .... they are takin illegal actions (ignorin human rights) .... they can get away with it cause there is no one to punish the US.... but that doesn'T make it right by any means.
People in Guantanamo didn't get no trial for years. Some of them had a trial, but since no one else but the military was there, every sentence is not relevant in terms of legal. They could claim anything. So, don't talk about plenty countries, the US - self proclaimed leader of the world - doesn't follow the very basic rules of a justice system no more. You don't have 2 go that far. They didn't give a trial 2 those people and even if people over there aren't informed enough you can believe me that those actions do hurt the image of the US worldwide.
Yeah bascially what I said...besides that they don't take them to countries where laws are cruel, they take them to places where there are no rules. It's not like Cuba laws apply 2 the people in Guantanamo - miliarty laws or no laws at all apply to them..... it's a terrible thing and I dunno how these people can sleep - they better hope there is no God.
true, the whole innocent until proven guilty part doesn't apply to just citizens, you can be a non citizen and have it apply. but that would be someone in the country. but if a terrorist or suspected terrorist was captured outside of the u.s. in another country why would that part of the law still apply to them? why would even an international law apply to them? they aren't offically fighting for any one country and are made up of fighters from many different countries.
i admit i shouldn't have said "only for americans" the general point i was trying to make was that it applies to people in the country.
i admit i shouldn't have said "only for americans" the general point i was trying to make was that it applies to people in the country.
Actually, states that sign on to international agreements are bound to them, regardless of where the activity is taking place. International laws are meant to foster a certain civil behavior, not direct proceedings.
As for national law, you're right. A state is not bound to their national laws unless they are acting within in their own territory or against their own citizens. To disrespect your own beliefs and ideals just because you have that excuse is pitiful though, and demands no respect for your country.
As for national law, you're right. A state is not bound to their national laws unless they are acting within in their own territory or against their own citizens. To disrespect your own beliefs and ideals just because you have that excuse is pitiful though, and demands no respect for your country.
Donate
Any donations will be used to help pay for the site costs, and anything donated above will be donated to C-Dub's son on behalf of this community.