Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Kamikaze on April 24, 2006, 01:51:24 am
-
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0604/S00294.htm
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=&SessionId=50&GA=94&DocTypeId=HJR&DocNum=125&GAID=8&LegID=25794&SpecSess=&Session=
From scoop.co.nz
Illinois Joint Resolution 125
Bush is charged with the following “high crimes and misdemeanors” in Representative Yarborough’s resolution (summary):
1. Ordering the National Security Agency to spy on American citizens without a warrant (a “felony”).
2. Violating the Torture Convention of the Geneva Conventions, “a treaty regarded as supreme law by the United States Constitution;”
3. Holding American and other citizens as “prisoners of war without a charge or trial;
4. Manipulating intelligence to start the Iraq war “resulting in the deaths of large numbers of Iraqi civilians and causing the United States to incur loss of life, diminished security and billions of dollars in unnecessary expenses; and,
5. Leaking “classified national secrets to further a political agenda” thus exposing U.S. agents “to potential harm and retribution while simultaneously refusing to potential harm and retribution while simultaneously refusing to investigate the matter.”
-
Where the f*** were they three years ago?
But that's beside the point. This is going to get shot down quicker than an Iraqi SCUD, and can anyone tell me why murderers are sent to prison, but mass-murderers are simply forced into early retirement?
-
This should be interesting... :drevil:
-
they need to wait untill they actualy have the votes for this, the republicans will be able to craft this to there advantage, mark my words!
-
Well, in theory it shouldn't matter whether or not the republicans have a majority in congress. Or if it DOES matter, everything that old Montesquieu-fellow wrote about trinity of power is scrapped in America and it would mean a bunch of other (nasty) things.
For those who don't remember anything about Montesquieu and his writings, he developed the theory of power being divided in three parts in a proper state: legislative power, judicial power and executive power. These three entities should be entirely separate from each other.
Basically in US the legislative power is on congress and senate (according to my understanding). Government has the executive power only, and the courts have judicial power. Legislative power is the highest of these - other two (should) wor along the rules set by congress/senate. In ideal conditions all of these parts of power work independently and one person or concil or whatever only has power on one of these branches of power, and
If, however, the legislative power manages to also have control over jurisdiction, then it results in situations like Silvio Berlusconi setting a law that makes the prime minister (conveniently) impossible to prosecute during term of office. Or, like it's suggested here - if the congress/senate manages to meddle in this matter so that Bush gets away with it (again). That's called corruption in some groups; in some groups it's called "national security". :nervous:
-
I don't think anyone in the US could really claim there was any seperation there anyways, with the Supreme Court being politically appointed.
-
Ah yes, forgot that. But in principle the same thing should hold even if there are much politics in appointments. Meaning that if someone breaks the law(s), judgement should definitely not be based on the judge's or the suspect's political background. Well that much should be clear anyways but it just seems that like in Orwell's Animal revolution's farm, some people are a little more equal than some others.
Oh teh miracles of teh most free country of teh free world.
-
teh most free country of teh free world.
Biggest joke of the century...
-
why impeach when you can impale?
there's absolutely no hope for this country if these republicans stay in power
-
Bush isn't getting impeached, the Republicans in both Houses would never allow it, even if it is justified. And America doesn't have a tradition of presecuting its highest public officials when they lose their immunity, or else you'de have most of the living ex-Presidents wearing stripes. So.....yeah. Aside from having the distinction of being remembered by much of America as the worst Prez in recent memory, I don't think Bush will face any consequences.
-
It also strikes me that proving the charges would probably require the co-operation of a lot of people more loyal to the administration than the spirit of the law.
-
they need to wait untill they actualy have the votes for this, the republicans will be able to craft this to there advantage, mark my words!
Well, duh. :D :p
-
This should be interesting... :drevil:
Agreed...
-
It won't work.
I'll be shocked, amazed and ecstatic if it DOES however. :D
-
California joined in, and included Cheney too:
http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_david_sw_060424_california_becomes_s.htm
-
On the off chance that both the President and Vice-President are ousted from power, to whom does the thron- er... presidency default to?
-
The Speaker of the House, right?
-
Speaker of the House of Representatives if I remember correctly.
EDIT : Yep (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Presidential_Line_of_Succession)
-
California joined in, and included Cheney too:
http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_david_sw_060424_california_becomes_s.htm
"It has begun."
-
Maybe we'll see a popular uprising. Imagine that, crowds marching on the whitehouse......
-
Yeah sure... And imagine there'll be a revolution and US falls in to civil war. And after a year of bloody fighting the scraps are equally divided among the UN/NATO/EU countries and the world will heal. Terrorism will stop and a new era of prosperity begins. Yay...
-
If this impeachment actually happens, I'll run out into the streets and sing Handel's "Hallelujah".........and I'll probably be shot seven notes in :nervous: .
Seriously, this could be a good thing. I'm not a big fan of Hastert, but I'm quite sure he could do a better job than Bush. At least he probably won't talk about dropping nuclear weapons on other countries.
And Prophet, I actually think that it might be fun to live in a European controlled era. Always seemed to like a lot things about Europe more than I did my own country.
-
It'll be like syndicate, Eurocorp rules all. Of course, you will like it. A lot. Your chip will tell you to. Actually if the US continues on it's present course, that's likely to happen. Well not Eurocorp, but if religion and anti-invention interests such as the RIAA keeps taking over more and more of the country, eventually everyone who actually allows science and ingenuity to prosper will overtake the US technologically and culturally.
Getting rid of Bush will help you keep that from happening though, since he seems the main reason it's going as bad as it is right now.
-
Impeaching Bush might actually help the republican party more than leaving him in office for another 2 years. His approval ratings are plummeting and he's going to drag the next rebublican candidates chances down with him whoever they put up.
-
I don't see how the Dems would do a better job at this point, because Bush has shown he's been the most liberal republican out there. He's a globalist, not a true republican, along most of his party, who have been bailing out while they still can. If he'd actually have a backbone and show a little nationalism, things would be quite a bit better, and so what if we had to step on some people's toes in order to stick up for our own nation. We have this insane little **** over in Iran right now thinking he's got balls that clank, and will do anything he wants, and we do nothing about it, or say anything about it. (enrichment of uranium) No, we can't do that because we're afraid of hurting someone's feelings. If Bush had an actual backbone, I'm sure we'd have this situation RESOLVED by now, instead of just trying to get along to have one giant globalist state, which apparently Bush wants. I honestly don't see how a possible speculative democratic presidential candidate like Kerry, or God forbid, Hillary, will be any better for this nation, with thier doubletalk and socialistic desires. As many others have said, if the founding fathers knew the current state of the Democratic party today, they'd be disgusted, or rolling over in thier graves. Unfotrunately, the same goes for Republican party as well.
Sure, everyone can be sarcastic about "Bush = a future like Eurocorp + Nation split between the UN/EU + people marching on the whitehouse like in the '60s" but it's not realistic. If Bush is a globalist, a lot of these things will happen on thier own, without a civil war taking place. But in two years, having the nation transform so dramatically like that is just nonsense.
-
... do you listen to yourself? He's stepped on more toes than a blind man in a shoe shop!
-
Read key word - NATIONALISM, not GLOBALISM.
-
I don't see how the Dems would do a better job at this point, because Bush has shown he's been the most liberal republican out there. He's a globalist, not a true republican, along most of his party, who have been bailing out while they still can. If he'd actually have a backbone and show a little nationalism, things would be quite a bit better, and so what if we had to step on some people's toes in order to stick up for our own nation. We have this insane little **** over in Iran right now thinking he's got balls that clank, and will do anything he wants, and we do nothing about it, or say anything about it. (enrichment of uranium) No, we can't do that because we're afraid of hurting someone's feelings. If Bush had an actual backbone, I'm sure we'd have this situation RESOLVED by now, instead of just trying to get along to have one giant globalist state, which apparently Bush wants. I honestly don't see how a possible speculative democratic presidential candidate like Kerry, or God forbid, Hillary, will be any better for this nation, with thier doubletalk and socialistic desires. As many others have said, if the founding fathers knew the current state of the Democratic party today, they'd be disgusted, or rolling over in thier graves. Unfotrunately, the same goes for Republican party as well.
Sure, everyone can be sarcastic about "Bush = a future like Eurocorp + Nation split between the UN/EU + people marching on the whitehouse like in the '60s" but it's not realistic. If Bush is a globalist, a lot of these things will happen on thier own, without a civil war taking place. But in two years, having the nation transform so dramatically like that is just nonsense.
You can't take military action against Iran because it'll destabilise the entire middle east, result in further bloodshed in Iraq (if air strikes, which would likely be ineffective based on the CIA etcs track history of finding WMD) or critically overstretch the already past-breaking point military (if full on invasion), massively raise oil prices, piss off the Russians and Chinese, and probably lose what few serious (i.e. militarily effective) allies the US has. Even sanctions would be ineffective; odds are the Russians or Chinese would veto them, and if not just plain ignore them.
Although I personally consider the US one of the most introverted nationalistic governments there is in the world today, particularly with the way so much goodwill has been shed with the Iraq unilateralism and what was effectively an attack upon the UN. The Us is only globalist if you mean globalist as being trying to exert a hegemony.
EDIt; rereads.... eh? The US has done literally nothing other than step on other nations toes. Did you forget the whole Iraq war thing or not? Even the countries that went along are seeing themselve suffer for it, because they ignored their people.
-
Stepping on everyone's toes trying to unite the entire world is the wrong thing to do, but if you're going to stand up for your own country, in a nationalistic sense, you HAVE to step on toes, and you HAVE to be strong about it. Here we are, led by a group of empty-headed politicians, running this country straight into the ground. (BOTH political parties) because they're held back by political correctness, and attempting to please everyone. If the republican party as a whole actually stuck to it's core values, and actually had a backbone, we'd actually be IN CONTROL of our own country.
-
Stepping on everyone's toes trying to unite the entire world is the wrong thing to do, but if you're going to stand up for your own country, in a nationalistic sense, you HAVE to step on toes, and you HAVE to be strong about it. Here we are, led by a group of empty-headed politicians, running this country straight into the ground. (BOTH political parties) because they're held back by political correctness, and attempting to please everyone. If the republican party as a whole actually stuck to it's core values, and actually had a backbone, we'd actually be IN CONTROL of our own country.
There's stepping on toes, and there's ignoring the rest of the world and the United Nations organisation that represents them. You wouldn't say the USSR was merely stepping on toes during the Cuban missile crisis, would you? Or China during the Korean war? There may only be one superpower nowadays, it's not an excuse for bullying the world, because even the US can't get away with that.
-
Sure, everyone can be sarcastic about "Bush = a future like Eurocorp + Nation split between the UN/EU + people marching on the whitehouse like in the '60s" but it's not realistic. If Bush is a globalist, a lot of these things will happen on thier own, without a civil war taking place. But in two years, having the nation transform so dramatically like that is just nonsense.
I think you forgot to turn on your sarcasm detector when you read the Eurocorp part :p The rest of that post was actually not about Bush as such, but about science and innovation currently being in the firing line, and the dangers of continuing that way. Bush only comes in cause he's a religious zealot himself, and thus not likely to do anything about it.
On another note, Bush is actually the whole reason why you can't easily take action against Iran now. He lied to the whole world repeatedly and knowingly over Iraq, so now the US has Zero diplomatic credibility. Had he been honest, and done things by the book, Iran would now be facing serious sanctions and possibly even emargoes as the US would actually still have some influence left that didn't come from the end of a gun.
-
I don't see how the Dems would do a better job at this point, because Bush has shown he's been the most liberal republican out there.
Liberal - Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
I'm not sure if you have ever listened to a single word that has come out of Bush's mouth if you consider him tolerant of others ideas or open to new ideas...........Stem Cells anyone?
-
They can be tastey.
Now, Nix, come on - do you honestly believe pissing off the rest of the world is whats in the best interests of the us?
-
the dems can do a better job by improving the situation at home.
once the nation is back in the hands of the people, and not in the hands of corporate entities, then we'll start to see progress. you look at these people running the country, it's as if they don't look towards the future at all. it's all about who can rip off the american people as much as possible before the economy crashes. one of the functions of government is to STOP THEM. Unfortunately, we've elected people who actually help them along.
fix the problems at home first. then worry about the rest of the world
-
Anyone, democrat or republican, will do a better job of international relations. As a foreign head of state, the simple fact of having someone there who hasn't repeatedly lied to your face would give an instant boost in, err, agreeability. The simple fact remains that as long as Bush is in charge, everyone knows the US cannot be trusted.
Hell, if he and Cheney got impeached and replaced, I bet you'd see a lot more cooperation from many countries right off the bat, simply because they could see you were prepared to hold people accountable.
-
Anyone, democrat or republican, will do a better job of international relations. As a foreign head of state, the simple fact of having someone there who hasn't repeatedly lied to your face would give an instant boost in, err, agreeability. The simple fact remains that as long as Bush is in charge, everyone knows the US cannot be trusted.
Hell, if he and Cheney got impeached and replaced, I bet you'd see a lot more cooperation from many countries right off the bat, simply because they could see you were prepared to hold people accountable.
Precisely. I as an American am apalled that to the rest of the world, my country, my people, and me, are viewed as liars because of the administration. Bush may not be popular, but neither is America. At the same time, we deserve it. Why? Because we haven't gotten rid of him yet, because we all think its too difficult, that people can't do it. Bull****. America is one nation "for the people, by the people", and that means if we don't like someone, it is within our full right, even our responsibility, to remove him from office. We give him power by not making the changes, by not putting our foot down and saying, "Hold it, you can't do this to our nation!"
No, I haven't lived up to my own words yet. Sure, I voted against him, but have I done anything to stop him? Not really. That makes me just as bad, just as controlled, and its time to stop. What do I intend to do? I'm not sure yet, but for the moment, I have a strong urge to gather as many people as possible, and march, from my hometown, on my feet, not in a car, all the way to Washington D.C., carrying signs calling for Bush's impeachment, and above that, the American flag, flown proudly. That flag is the symbol of my right, and the right of everyone else in the United States, to remove a corrupt form of government, and replace it with one that will represent us all fairly and equally, one that will not follow its own agenda, but bend to the will of the people, the foundation upon which the nation must stand.
-
Anyone, democrat or republican, will do a better job of international relations. As a foreign head of state, the simple fact of having someone there who hasn't repeatedly lied to your face would give an instant boost in, err, agreeability. The simple fact remains that as long as Bush is in charge, everyone knows the US cannot be trusted.
Hell, if he and Cheney got impeached and replaced, I bet you'd see a lot more cooperation from many countries right off the bat, simply because they could see you were prepared to hold people accountable.
No, I haven't lived up to my own words yet. Sure, I voted against him, but have I done anything to stop him? Not really. That makes me just as bad, just as controlled, and its time to stop. What do I intend to do? I'm not sure yet, but for the moment, I have a strong urge to gather as many people as possible, and march, from my hometown, on my feet, not in a car, all the way to Washington D.C., carrying signs calling for Bush's impeachment, and above that, the American flag, flown proudly. That flag is the symbol of my right, and the right of everyone else in the United States, to remove a corrupt form of government, and replace it with one that will represent us all fairly and equally, one that will not follow its own agenda, but bend to the will of the people, the foundation upon which the nation must stand.
Umm, you actually did the parliamentary thing by voting against him. Everything else is basically non-parliamentary. You have more or less exhausted your legal democratic options by now.
Edit: OK, you can always write letters to representatives and so on, but that's extra. The entire point of a democratic process is that you give up some of your sovereignity and representives then decide for you. If you stick by that process (which is not always wise but is the granted way of things in western democracies), then voting is more or less all you have to do.
-
You guys are so freaked out.
Chill, people. You'll die of a heart attack before the Bush Administration leaves!
2. Violating the Torture Convention of the Geneva Conventions, “a treaty regarded as supreme law by the United States Constitution;”
I'm highly disturbed by this charge, however. The Geneva Convention isn't part of the Constitution. IT ISN'T SUPREME LAW. Not even "regarded by the Constitution". Ultimately, US interests come before any treaty.
-
You guys are so freaked out.
Chill, people. You'll die of a heart attack before the Bush Administration leaves!
2. Violating the Torture Convention of the Geneva Conventions, “a treaty regarded as supreme law by the United States Constitution;”
I'm highly disturbed by this charge, however. The Geneva Convention isn't part of the Constitution. IT ISN'T SUPREME LAW. Not even "regarded by the Constitution". Ultimately, US interests come before any treaty.
International treaties are regarded as a part of a nation's law and may override them. There is some SCOTUS decision of this or something. Point being, Geneva convention actually is US law.
-
That's a bloody scary comment to make, the abolition of torture isn't about lording it over the US or Europe for that matter, it was a commonly held agreement on what was right or wrong, and everyone agreed that torture was wrong, it was the actions of cruel and inhumane people. You can't simply ignore that because it doesn't suit the purposes of the USA any more.
We are judged as civilised by our ability to be human in the face of inhumanity, if we lose that, then we sink to the same level as what we are supposed to be fighting.
I agree that it is unlikely to lead to an impeachment of Bush, though I find it odd that Clinton can be impeached for a far less serious set of crimes.
-
Ultimately, US interests come before any treaty.
And how is a disgrace on the national character of America like Gitmo in the US's interest?
-
International treaties are regarded as a part of a nation's law and may override them. There is some SCOTUS decision of this or something. Point being, Geneva convention actually is US law.
Hmm. Can you show me? :nervous:
Flipside - my comment wasn't about the content of the law; I think international law should never supercede American law.
What if the UN passes something that conflicts with the Constitution? The UN, not the SC. Can we veto it? I don't know how that works.
Suffice it to say, no matter what the ruling is, American law should never be subject to those made in some other country.
I'm not making an issue about the "torture" - I don't know what I think of it. I'm critiquing the comment about the legality of international law vs. US law.
-
International treaties are regarded as a part of a nation's law and may override them. There is some SCOTUS decision of this or something. Point being, Geneva convention actually is US law.
Hmm. Can you show me? :nervous:
Flipside - my comment wasn't about the content of the law; I think international law should never supercede American law.
What if the UN passes something that conflicts with the Constitution? The UN, not the SC. Can we veto it? I don't know how that works.
Suffice it to say, no matter what the ruling is, American law should never be subject to those made in some other country.
I'm not making an issue about the "torture" - I don't know what I think of it. I'm critiquing the comment about the legality of international law vs. US law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty#United_States_law
important:
The United States takes a different view concerning the relationship between international and domestic law than many other nations, particularly in Europe. Unlike nations which view international agreements as always superseding national law, the American view is that international agreements become part of the body of U.S. federal law. As a result, Congress can modify or repeal treaties by subsequent legislative action, even if this amounts to a violation of the treaty under international law. The most recent changes will be enforced by U.S. courts entirely independently of whether the international community still considers the old treaty obligations binding upon the U.S. Additionally, an international agreement that is inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution is void under domestic U.S. law, the same as any other federal law in conflict with the Constitution, and the Supreme Court could rule a treaty provision to be unconstitutional and void under domestic law, although it has never done so. The constitutional constraints are stronger in the case of CEA and executive agreements, which cannot override the laws of state governments.
- Treaties become part of US national law
- As such, they can also be revised or abolished like any other national law
-
Bush to be impeached?
Never happen said the Cap'n.
-
Look, even if Bush is impeached, what the hell's that gonna do? You trust the Democrats to run the country? I think not. If this is gonna get done, we (Americans) are gonna have to the overthrowing ourselves.
So, how's a discussion on what it would take to depose Bush and Congress sound? We've got like 10 minutes before Homeland Security starts looking up my address.
-
I'm not too sure where international law stands when compared to internal laws. It's not really a question of the UN telling the USA to change it's own laws, the USA actually agreed to uphold those laws itself, as did all other signatories. The whole idea of laws is to stop people doing things which are 'easy' but harm other people, for example, if someone has more money than you, the easiest way to solve the problem is kill the person and steal the money, torturing people is an 'easy' way of dealing with a problem, it gives gratification, and the appearance of being effective, however, it harms the innocent alongside of the guilty, since you don't know which they are until the torture has broken them. That was why the countries agreed to outlaw it in the first place, well that and the fact that it's simply inhumane.
I think, whilst the law is an 'International Law' as in, the signing countries agreed to add it to their own list of internal laws, it's the same as Murder, it's universally agreed to be wrong, but there are some countries which ignore the fact when it suits them, for example, the Mugabe administration. When Mugabe breaks his own countries laws and calls it 'For the sake of the Nation', that's considered the actions of a vile and despicable man.
-
Stepping on everyone's toes trying to unite the entire world is the wrong thing to do, but if you're going to stand up for your own country, in a nationalistic sense, you HAVE to step on toes, and you HAVE to be strong about it. Here we are, led by a group of empty-headed politicians, running this country straight into the ground. (BOTH political parties) because they're held back by political correctness, and attempting to please everyone. If the republican party as a whole actually stuck to it's core values, and actually had a backbone, we'd actually be IN CONTROL of our own country.
I partially agree, but for different reasons.
I can agree on one thing: both America and the world would be better off if the American political establishment paid more attention to domestic issues and less to getting its way abroad. The way I see it, domestic well-being (the economy, education, immigration and so on) is being neglected because the US is trying to act like a global cop. If it said "to hell with the rest of the world", the US could focus on issues at home, and the rest of the world could run their own **** in peace.
However, Bush's internationalist policy comes with the implicit belief that America has not only a right buy a duty to spread democracy, take out "bad" regimes, and generally project it's power. It has no such right. Ironically, a truly internationalist policy would be very similar to a truly isolationaist policy, and that would be to recognize that the US has exactly as many rights, privileges and duties as any other nation. The key here is not whether it projects its power for good or for evil, because both are in the eye of the beholder, but whether it projects its power. And here I disagree with aldo, karajorma and others, in that I don''t support a nation's "right" to go around spreading civilization, human rights, democracy, freedom, prosperity and so on, whether through military force, diplomacy, economic pressure or whatever. Only strong nations believe themselves to have this right, and end up acting as a sort of global decision-making body, not only which they have no right to be, but the decisions of which are usually self serving.
Just as an example, take Iran's nuclear program. The West, that is the US and EU, would rather that Iran have no nuclear program, civilian or military. But in a just world, their desires would have no bearing on the situation. Either Iran is within its rights and obligations under the NPT, or its not. What the governments of France, Germany and the US happen to think of Iran's form of government, public officials or whatever, should be irrelevant, because Iran has a right to run its own affairs within the law, and they shouldn't have to seek anyone's approval. If they are within the law, they could be eating babies for all I care. If they are breaking their treaties, then exact punishment. At the moment, they are not breaking the law, so more power to them.
-
Umm, you actually did the parliamentary thing by voting against him. Everything else is basically non-parliamentary. You have more or less exhausted your legal democratic options by now.
No no, that's all wrong!
Even though parliamentary democracy is based on choosing a parliament for a term in an election, elections are not the only time an average citizen can affect (or try to, which is hole lotta better than nothing) politics. Anyone can approach a politician by a letter or an e-mail and say that "I think this way and would like you to represent my opinion. If you do not, I'll not vote for you on next elections. Instead I'm gonna find someone else that would perhaps think more like I do. Have a nice day."
Now what do you think a politician does if he or she receives a letter like this? Nothing you might say. What if he receives a hundred letters? He might start to notice the issue. A thousand letters? Ten thousand?
Think about it. The parliament is elected by the people, and their actions should represent the opinions of the people. People have right to have their voice heard also between the elections, not just during them. The problem is most people don't care enough to bother themselves into doing something about things if they really don't concern them directly. This is what has led to current situation where politicians in America (and everywhere else, for that matter) only really attend to the people before elections, trying to fish as many voters as possible. After the elections, most voters get back into their political hibernation to be awaken before next elections.
The problem in this is that when the politicians start the fishing competition, they only tend to discuss the most controversial issues available at the time. Or they might make an issue about something comparably irrelevant and make it look like it makes all the difference between life and a longer life. This way the voters who don't keep a really close eye on politics have to base their voting decision on the issues that are most controversial and discussed in media more often than some other things.
So, an average voter makes his decision based on one or two, maybe a few more key issues that emerge before every elections. And when he or she doesn't really keep an eye on politics, the chosen politician might agree with the voter on key issues, but what about other million and one issues? The politician who the voter decided to vote might have a totally different opinion from the voter's one about something else. Now, do you think the voter should just sit at his home and watch when the politician he voted for takes a completely opposed side to his opinion and just think "Oh well, I did vote for this guy - I guess I have no other possibility now than to content myself to the situation..."
No way. He can and should approach his spokesman about the issue and make himself heard along with other voters that voted the politician in question. This is completely lawful and I'd see it even as encouragable action. But I'm forgetting - the voter is in hibernation, so the politicians can basically do whatever they wish and those who really keep an eye (or two) on their actions can just curse and writhe in frustration...
What a voter CAN'T do and shouldn't do is to resort to illegalities like "voting with a bullet" or something like that.
Civic disobedience is yet another subject, however, but I won't go into ethic justification or lack thereof in this message.
Well... this message took its time and an edit to original message I quoted was written:
Edit: OK, you can always write letters to representatives and so on, but that's extra. The entire point of a democratic process is that you give up some of your sovereignity and representives then decide for you. If you stick by that process (which is not always wise but is the granted way of things in western democracies), then voting is more or less all you have to do.
Yes, that is true in away. You vote, and after the elections you cannot FORCE any issues down the elected's throats. You do submit to their authority for a season and during that season they will make the final decisions. What you can do during the season is to tell them your opinion and if they see fit they just might take it into account.
I bet any politician would listen if a quarter of his county sent him a letter asking him to take something into account.
-
The impeachment charges called international law "supreme" law. It is supreme in that it is national law, but still below the Constitution in importance.
And ultimately, if the choice is between the US existing as a nation and international law, there is no choice. USA all the way.
And I'm still not discussing torture/Gitmo. I don't know where I stand. :blah:
And thanks for the link, Janos.
Congress can modify or repeal treaties by subsequent legislative action, even if this amounts to a violation of the treaty under international law.
----
But in a just world, their desires would have no bearing on the situation. Either Iran is within its rights and obligations under the NPT, or its not.
In a just world, Iran wouldn't hint at destroying Israel. In a just world, etc. :rolleyes:
-
International law should always supercede domestic law. Otherwise it is worthless; things like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights become worthless and open to arbitrary overridal and suspension. Treaties such as the NPT become literally worthless rather than just effectively worthless (i.e. UK Trident Replacement, US nuclear bunker buster programme).
You guys are so freaked out.
Chill, people. You'll die of a heart attack before the Bush Administration leaves!
2. Violating the Torture Convention of the Geneva Conventions, “a treaty regarded as supreme law by the United States Constitution;”
I'm highly disturbed by this charge, however. The Geneva Convention isn't part of the Constitution. IT ISN'T SUPREME LAW. Not even "regarded by the Constitution". Ultimately, US interests come before any treaty.
And if US interests begin to involve arbitrary detention and torture of US-born white people rather than abducted foreign nationals?
-
And if US interests begin to involve arbitrary detention and torture of US-born white people rather than abducted foreign nationals?
Then that's actually a violation of supreme law, since that's covered in the Bill of Rights. And you can use that phraseology in impeaching the sitting president. However, you cannot use it here.
-
International law should always supercede domestic law. Otherwise it is worthless; things like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights become worthless and open to arbitrary overridal and suspension. Treaties such as the NPT become literally worthless rather than just effectively worthless (i.e. UK Trident Replacement, US nuclear bunker buster programme).
That's just so utterly ridiculous. How can we claim to be democratic at all if people from other friggan countries make laws for us without the consent of the friggan governed!? That's absurd!
Ultimately, international law is subject to US law which is the voice of the people. That's sounds idealistic, and maybe it is, but so is international law.
And if US interests begin to involve arbitrary detention and torture of US-born white people rather than abducted foreign nationals?
Not discussing torture. However, that sounds like a highly unlikely scenario. "What is US interests involved gravity stopping?"
-
Sure, everyone can be sarcastic about "Bush = a future like Eurocorp + Nation split between the UN/EU + people marching on the whitehouse like in the '60s" but it's not realistic. If Bush is a globalist, a lot of these things will happen on thier own, without a civil war taking place. But in two years, having the nation transform so dramatically like that is just nonsense.
During the French Revolution...the Monarchy power structure that was in place for hundreds of years was dismantled virtually overnight. It doesn't take long for a political system to topple over and come crashing down. I'm a bit worried over the undertones of American politics right now. I'm also worried about what another few Katrina's may do to the southern states over the next few years...the economics of the situation with the war(s) and the disasters already here and those yet to come and all of that...shakey ground. Moreso than for a very long time.
-
And if US interests begin to involve arbitrary detention and torture of US-born white people rather than abducted foreign nationals?
Then that's actually a violation of supreme law, since that's covered in the Bill of Rights. And you can use that phraseology in impeaching the sitting president. However, you cannot use it here.
But you can surely change the law, amend it, etc. After all, it's ok to do it to non-nationals (actually, I have a feeling there are a few US citizens held in said black sites, not 100% sure), so there's precedent. Whereas international law would in theory prohibit that sort of local change.
Besides which, I don't see the Bill of Rights prohibiting torture except as punishment. Not as an interrogation tactic (besides which, electrocuting or gassing people isn't considered cruel or unusual in the US, is it?)
-
The laws weren't made without the consent of the government though, they were agreed to by the American government when the forms were signed. I think that's the whole purpose of international law.
We have a similar situation developing in the UK with European Law and it's effect on our own law, it's now illegal in the UK, unless under specific circumstances, to force someone to wear a suit to work, for example, since that would be a violation of their human rights.
-
But you can surely change the law, amend it, etc. After all, it's ok to do it to non-nationals (actually, I have a feeling there are a few US citizens held in said black sites, not 100% sure), so there's precedent. Whereas international law would in theory prohibit that sort of local change.
Besides which, I don't see the Bill of Rights prohibiting torture except as punishment. Not as an interrogation tactic (besides which, electrocuting or gassing people isn't considered cruel or unusual in the US, is it?)
Mostly true. However I have a sneaky suspicion of how the Supreme Court would rule on the use of torture for information against a US citizen. More to the point, amending the Constitution at this point is a nightmare. The last attempt to amend it was in what, the '70s? It died a long, slow, agonizing death, unable to find support despite actually just restating what was already federal law. If they couldn't ramrod the equality amendment, well...there's not much hope for anything. Which is both fortunate and unfortunate.
And actually, electrocution, gassing, and even lethal injection have been ruled cruel and usual. (Though the lethal injection one is in appeals around the circuit court level I believe; it hasn't made it as far as the Supreme Court yet.) About all we've got left are the old standbys of hanging and the firing squad.
-
We have a similar situation developing in the UK with European Law and it's effect on our own law, it's now illegal in the UK, unless under specific circumstances, to force someone to wear a suit to work, for example, since that would be a violation of their human rights.
One of the most powerful arguments against this kind of nonsense I can think of. :rolleyes:
The laws weren't made without the consent of the government though, they were agreed to by the American government when the forms were signed. I think that's the whole purpose of international law.
However, UN resolutions can be passed without consent from the US, right?
-
The laws weren't made without the consent of the government though, they were agreed to by the American government when the forms were signed. I think that's the whole purpose of international law.
We have a similar situation developing in the UK with European Law and it's effect on our own law, it's now illegal in the UK, unless under specific circumstances, to force someone to wear a suit to work, for example, since that would be a violation of their human rights.
Albeit the same thing makes it illegal to force someone to wear a gimp suit to work.... I'm not sure that's too useful a statement without said circumstances being detailed, though, have you got a source for it?
Mostly true. However I have a sneaky suspicion of how the Supreme Court would rule on the use of torture for information against a US citizen. More to the point, amending the Constitution at this point is a nightmare. The last attempt to amend it was in what, the '70s? It died a long, slow, agonizing death, unable to find support despite actually just restating what was already federal law. If they couldn't ramrod the equality amendment, well...there's not much hope for anything. Which is both fortunate and unfortunate.
Yeah, but you'd have to get caught doing it first........
Plus, we've seen how politically appointed judiciary can be abused or coerced through fear in various countries. So it's not impossible. Perhaps not plausible, even with the current US government, but you have to keep an eye on the potentials if you're assessing the relevant protections of things like international law over domestic.
And actually, electrocution, gassing, and even lethal injection have been ruled cruel and usual. (Though the lethal injection one is in appeals around the circuit court level I believe; it hasn't made it as far as the Supreme Court yet.) About all we've got left are the old standbys of hanging and the firing squad.
So you can snap or strangle but not buzz? Although only 'cruel and unusual' in certain states, not on a national level. Nebraska IIRC still uses the electric chair, for example.
-
Resolutions can, but Resolutions are different, they are reactions to the behaviour of member nations, Laws are slightly different, they've already been agreed to as being law with no 'crime' being commited.
And yeah, International law can be bloody inconvenient at times, but like all things, they aren't perfect, but, in the case of the European laws, we still have to ride the wave until the sillier problems are solved.
Edit : http://www.bryancave.com/files/tbl_s7Publications/Details33/108/UK-LaborAlert-10-2000.pdf#search='clothing%20at%20work%20human%20rights%20uk'
Article 10 is the one that covers clothing, just for clarification :)
-
One of the most powerful arguments against this kind of nonsense I can think of. :rolleyes:
Except you don't have any context for it, the actual mechanics of the decision and how it's applied or not.
However, UN resolutions can be passed without consent from the US, right?
That depends. General Assembly resolutions are the most democratic ones, but are generally regarded as non-binding in terms of affecting nations (although they can be binding as things like budgetary decisions and instructions to lesson UN bodies). Security Council - binding - resolutions can be veto-ed by any nation on the council. The US has actually used its veto far more than any other nation, usually against any resolutions criticising Israel (see http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/membship/veto/vetosubj.htm).
-
I don't see how the Dems would do a better job at this point, because Bush has shown he's been the most liberal republican out there. He's a globalist, not a true republican, along most of his party, who have been bailing out while they still can. If he'd actually have a backbone and show a little nationalism, things would be quite a bit better, and so what if we had to step on some people's toes in order to stick up for our own nation............
(and all that other stuff you wrote)
Do you want some lebensraum with that?
-
That's just so utterly ridiculous. How can we claim to be democratic at all if people from other friggan countries make laws for us without the consent of the friggan governed!? That's absurd!
Ultimately, international law is subject to US law which is the voice of the people. That's sounds idealistic, and maybe it is, but so is international law.
Correct me if i'm wrong, but are you saying that you shouldn't have to listen to other countries because they're not Americans? We're not talking about laws dictating that Ducks must wear long pants, we're talking about basic conventions for human rights! I don't understand how you can advocate the alterations [and sometimes plain contravention] of such laws, but maybe you'll change your tune should Homeland Security ever pick you up under suspicion of "terrorist links".
The whole f***ing point of 'international law' is to set out the most basic of principles for every country, and it is supposed to compliment existing laws, while you seem to think they override them. Frankly, your attitude towards it is bordeline xenophobic.
Not discussing torture. However, that sounds like a highly unlikely scenario. "What is US interests involved gravity stopping?"
Well, we are discussing Torture. The use of torture is a pivotal point in this arguement, you can't just dismiss it. The fact of the matter is, the US has unequivocally exercised torture on potentially innocent people, in direct contravention to International Law, and you're defending that?! :wtf:
Stop dancing around the issue and give us your standing on torture.
-
Correct me if i'm wrong, but are you saying that you shouldn't have to listen to other countries because they're not Americans? We're not talking about laws dictating that Ducks must wear long pants, we're talking about basic conventions for human rights! I don't understand how you can advocate the alterations [and sometimes plain contravention] of such laws, but maybe you'll change your tune should Homeland Security ever pick you up under suspicion of "terrorist links".
The whole f***ing point of 'international law' is to set out the most basic of principles for every country, and it is supposed to compliment existing laws, while you seem to think they override them. Frankly, your attitude towards it is bordeline xenophobic.
Consent of the governed. The beaurocrats in the UN could make an international law codifying a right to an abortion - some would argue that's a human right. That gives the shaft to the people opposed to abortion (not to mention unborn human beings) and they wouldn't have a chance to do anything about it (because their representatives wouldn't have a say in the matter).
There are debates over what exactly is a human right. You get past the basics and then you have people arguing high speed internet access is a human right. Lawmaking on an international level is a very unseemly business, in my mind.
And if putting your country first is xenophobic, so be it. I think it's more like patriotism.
Well, we are discussing Torture. The use of torture is a pivotal point in this arguement, you can't just dismiss it. The fact of the matter is, the US has unequivocally exercised torture on potentially innocent people, in direct contravention to International Law, and you're defending that?!
Stop dancing around the issue and give us your standing on torture.
Firstly, torture (not counting Abu Graib) has not necessarily been committed. Sure, unpleasant things have been done to people. When you get down to it, though, putting somebody in a holding cell before trial can be considered an unpleasant experiance.
Secondly, those potential innocents were picked up opposing coalition forces without an official military and stuff. The Geneva Convention technically applies only between signers, as far as I know. It wouldn't include a professional insurgent from Saudi Arabia. Which undoubtedly some are. You and I cannot know how many of those interrogated are innocent or guilty.
Personally though, I don't like the use of torture. I don't really know how effective it is, and I have mixed feelings.
-
Consent of the governed. The beaurocrats in the UN could make an international law codifying a right to an abortion - some would argue that's a human right. That gives the shaft to the people opposed to abortion (not to mention unborn human beings) and they wouldn't have a chance to do anything about it (because their representatives wouldn't have a say in the matter).
There are debates over what exactly is a human right. You get past the basics and then you have people arguing high speed internet access is a human right. Lawmaking on an international level is a very unseemly business, in my mind.
And if putting your country first is xenophobic, so be it. I think it's more like patriotism.
Ah, so you're claiming your right to only obey laws you like. That's fair... oh, wait, no it isn't.
Your example is thoroughly fallacious, as that particular law would most likely never be introduced, and if it were, it would be vetoed so fast it would make your hat spin. Again, it comes down to basic laws that everyone is meant to abide by, you can't simply say 'nah, don't like that one, screw it' when others seem to abide by it just fine.
And please, there is no link between Patriotism and Xenophobia. Patriotism is love for one's nation, in no way does the term include "dislike towards people not of your nation". What you displayed earlier, well, it's just plain xenophobia.
Firstly, torture (not counting Abu Graib) has not necessarily been committed. Sure, unpleasant things have been done to people. When you get down to it, though, putting somebody in a holding cell before trial can be considered an unpleasant experiance.
Secondly, those potential innocents were picked up opposing coalition forces without an official military and stuff. The Geneva Convention technically applies only between signers, as far as I know. It wouldn't include a professional insurgent from Saudi Arabia. Which undoubtedly some are. You and I cannot know how many of those interrogated are innocent or guilty.
Personally though, I don't like the use of torture. I don't really know how effective it is, and I have mixed feelings.
No. Torture is being committed. That is a fact and there can be no disputing that fact. For example, why would the UN lodge a formal complaint and [attempt] to shut down Gitmo if they were only doing 'unpleasant things'?
As has been demonstrated many times, the Geneva Convention does apply to those held at Gitmo and elsewhere. I don't feel like having to wade through old threads to find one of Aldo or Kara's eloquent demonstrations of how the GC applies to insurgents, so i'll leave that to you. But, let's think about this for a second, just because a group hasn't signed the Geneva Convention, you argue that we've got free reign to get POWs and strap their testicles to a car-battery. Fun times to be had by all! Now, think of it this way; relgious groups have tax-exempt status, does that mean that, because they don't have to pay taxes, nobody else has to? The whole point of the Geneva Convetion is to stop signatories like the United States from torturing people willy-nilly, and in no way allows those nations to torture people from groups that haven't signed it. The mere idea of that is ludicrous.
Finally, what the hell does that mean "You and I cannot know how many of those interrogated are innocent or guilty."? That line of arguement supports my position, in that we don't know if innocent people are being tortured, so maybe - just maybe - we shouldn't torture anyone?
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition
-
Consent of the governed. The beaurocrats in the UN could make an international law codifying a right to an abortion - some would argue that's a human right. That gives the shaft to the people opposed to abortion (not to mention unborn human beings) and they wouldn't have a chance to do anything about it (because their representatives wouldn't have a say in the matter).
Wow, you really don't have the slightest clue how the UN works do you? First off, the UN does not pass laws, it passes resolutions. Only SC resolutions are legally binding, and as a permanent member the US has a veto on those. So the UN can't pass anything legally binding without the agreement of the US.
Second, the actual laws come from various treaties, such as the Geneva conventions, the Hague conventions, the NPT and so on. Some may have been sponsered or pioneered by the UN, but it does not pass them. And a country still has to sign and ratify them before they are binding, so again, nothing gets forced on you.
The international laws the US are currently in breach of stem from treaties which have long since been signed by a US president and ratified by the US congress. And as such, breaking them is the same as breaking US law, because congress did pass them.
-
Firstly, torture (not counting Abu Graib) has not necessarily been committed. Sure, unpleasant things have been done to people. When you get down to it, though, putting somebody in a holding cell before trial can be considered an unpleasant experiance.
since youve somehow decided to dodge Abu Ghraib, let's take a trip to guantanamo
this isn't keeping people in cells, it's keeping people in CAGES. there's a big difference to being given a cell to yourself, and the reassurance that you'll have legal representation, or the resignment that comes with knowing you belong in that cell. a cage is a different story. when they lead people from one place to another, it's done with bags over their heads. im sure i've read about beatings somewhere. That's just what we know they do. I'm sure theyre trying to get away with more.
-
[q]Consent of the governed. The beaurocrats in the UN could make an international law codifying a right to an abortion - some would argue that's a human right. That gives the shaft to the people opposed to abortion (not to mention unborn human beings) and they wouldn't have a chance to do anything about it (because their representatives wouldn't have a say in the matter).
There are debates over what exactly is a human right. You get past the basics and then you have people arguing high speed internet access is a human right. Lawmaking on an international level is a very unseemly business, in my mind.
And if putting your country first is xenophobic, so be it. I think it's more like patriotism.[/q]
You have a veto power for any binding resolution. And those bureaucrats are the peoples representatives, at least for any democratic system. If you are that concerned about the actions of the US' representative and don't trust your own government (who could? who does!), than call for greater democratic control such as referendums on key UN issues, etc. Or, I suppose, admit you have no interest in getting on with the rest of the world and just decline to participate in the UN or Security Council.
[q]Firstly, torture (not counting Abu Graib) has not necessarily been committed. Sure, unpleasant things have been done to people. When you get down to it, though, putting somebody in a holding cell before trial can be considered an unpleasant experiance.
Secondly, those potential innocents were picked up opposing coalition forces without an official military and stuff. The Geneva Convention technically applies only between signers, as far as I know. It wouldn't include a professional insurgent from Saudi Arabia. Which undoubtedly some are. You and I cannot know how many of those interrogated are innocent or guilty.
Personally though, I don't like the use of torture. I don't really know how effective it is, and I have mixed feelings.[/q]
Firstly, it has. Techniques like waterboarding, forcing to stand until you wet yourself, sleep deprivation, etc are all forms of torture and UN inspectors have already called it such. Now you can quibble with the UNs verdict (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4718724.stm) should you wish, but ultimately it is the UN Convention Against Torture (http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cat.html), not US, and if you can't abide the rules then admit it and leave the convention.
Secondly, some of these innocents (innocent until proven guilty, remember? Article 11 (http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html)) were abducted from soveriegn states like Italy or Germany, and even without consent of their government. Those captured in, say, Afghanistan are highly suspect; the US criteria for an illegal combatant consisted of khaki clothes, a gun and a swatch, which applies to pretty much every adult male in Afghanistan. Many individuals were captured by the Northern Alliance for reward money, with no checks implemented to prevent them being simply kidnappings.
Also, the Geneva convention applies to any action performed by the signing nation, regardless of whom they are fighting (i.e. you can't gas an enemy because you signed but they didn't; it's a code of conduct). It does include provision for irregular fighters, as well as civillians, and even if you can abstract out a specific group, then international law such as the aforementioned convention against torture and universal declaration of human rights still applies (as well as civillian protections in the GCs, i.e. to protect criminals from abuse). Also, IIRC capture for terrorist acts (a different issue to capture for guerilla warfare or military insurgency) should be treated under the laws of the region the act took place in; there's no way to legally just remove the rights accorded by international convention. Lastly (but not finally) there is a Geneva Convention requirement for a court to fairly identify the POw or otherwise status of any individual wishing to assert rights as a POW.
It is a massive problem that we don't know how many guilty people there are in Gitmo or soforth. As it stands, none, because there is no legal system to fairly try them. The 'gulag archipelago' was an effective term for this system, which is nothing more than arbitrary detention. We've seen people being held for months or years, including those tortured under extraordinary rendition, on a bases that have proven to be critically and obviously wrong. The 2 Brits sent to Guantanamo for having a battery charger spring to mind (even though MI5 had checked and cleared them).
And torture is grossly ineffective. It leads the captive to say what they think the captor wishes to hear in order to survive, rather than the truth.
-
Secondly, those potential innocents were picked up opposing coalition forces without an official military and stuff.
Bet your life on that? Cause I know for a fact that one Briton was picked up in a jail cell where he was being held on charges of spying on the Taliban for the British!
And that is before you consider the fact that the Americans were paying a bounty to the Northern Alliance for any members of Al-Quida that were captured resulting in a huge motive to simply round up some people at random and claim that they were terrorists before handing them over to to the Americans.
Don't kid yourself into thinking that everyone in Gitmo is guilty.
-
Secondly, those potential innocents were picked up opposing coalition forces without an official military and stuff.
Bet your life on that? Cause I know for a fact that one Briton was picked up in a jail cell where he was being held on charges of spying on the Taliban for the British!
And that is before you consider the fact that the Americans were paying a bounty to the Northern Alliance for any members of Al-Quida that were captured resulting in a huge motive to simply round up some people at random and claim that they were terrorists before handing them over to to the Americans.
Don't kid yourself into thinking that everyone in Gitmo is guilty.
Hell, don't kid yourself into thinking everyone held in Gitmo has grounds to be held, let alone guilty. Not to mention the thousands (14,000 IIRC) held without charge in Iraq.
-
don't kid yourself into thinking everyone held in Gitmo is innocent.
-
don't kid yourself into thinking everyone held in Gitmo is innocent.
They are until proven guilty.
-
apparently not
-
apparently not
Which is exactly the problem.
-
Guantanamo's existence could be argued for during wartime, perhaps as a distasteful but temporary stopgap measure, but so many have been held without charge there, for years, that it has since galvanised most of the civilized world against it.
Consider a serial killer who might have murdered a dozen people - if the police can't find evidence to charge him within so much time (typically less than a week), he gets released. However, if someone is suspected of being an insurgent or terrorist, or however the US defines its captives these days, they can be held without charge indefinitely, and subjected to torture to boot. Who would be the greater threat to US citizens? Considering that some held there have just been in the wrong place at the wrong time - that MI5 agent, for instance - it cannot be justified.
-
Guantanamo's existence could be argued for during wartime, perhaps as a distasteful but temporary stopgap measure...
With similar logic it could be said that Nazi death camps were just ok as they in war at that time.. Surely those were just a similar stopgap measures...
Or perhaps not.
-
But this is the US we're talking about, they get away with a hell of a lot more nowadays than 1930-40's Germany ever could or did.
-
Guantanamo's existence could be argued for during wartime, perhaps as a distasteful but temporary stopgap measure, but so many have been held without charge there, for years, that it has since galvanised most of the civilized world against it.
Consider a serial killer who might have murdered a dozen people - if the police can't find evidence to charge him within so much time (typically less than a week), he gets released. However, if someone is suspected of being an insurgent or terrorist, or however the US defines its captives these days, they can be held without charge indefinitely, and subjected to torture to boot. Who would be the greater threat to US citizens? Considering that some held there have just been in the wrong place at the wrong time - that MI5 agent, for instance - it cannot be justified.
When did the US lock up a MI5 agent in Gitmo???
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4851478.stm
-
Wow, can't believe I havn't seen this.
Where's the media coverage!? :wtf:
Wait, don't bother answering, think I know the answer...
-
"It was completely dark, they could not see anything, there was no light, they could not tell day from night."
"There were speakers blaring music 24 hours a day that made sleep almost impossible."
"They could hear screams on occasion from other prisoners."
How did Eightball put it? 'Unpleasant Experience'? I'll bet.
-
"It was completely dark, they could not see anything, there was no light, they could not tell day from night."
"There were speakers blaring music 24 hours a day that made sleep almost impossible."
"They could hear screams on occasion from other prisoners."
How did Eightball put it? 'Unpleasant Experience'? I'll bet.
Pff? That?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4499528.stm
The CIAs 'Enhanced' Interrogation Techniques
1. Grab: the interrogator grabs a suspect's shirt front and shakes him.
2. Slap: an open-handed slap to produce fear and some pain.
3. Belly Slap: a hard slap to the stomach with an open hand. This is designed to be painful but not to cause injury. A punch is said to have been ruled out by doctors.
4. Standing: Prisoners stand for 40 hours and more, shackled to the floor. Said to be effective, it also denies them sleep and is part of a process known as sensory deprivation ( this was a technique used by British forces in Northern Ireland for a time until it was stopped).
5. Cold Cell: a prisoner is made to stand naked in a cold, though not freezing, cell and doused with water.
6. Water Boarding: the prisoner is bound to a board with feet raised, and cellophane wrapped round his head. Water is poured onto his face and is said to produce a fear of drowning which leads to a rapid demand for the suffering to end.
Let's see 6 in particular.
[q]"The prisoner is bound to an inclined board, feet raised and head slightly below the feet. Cellophane is wrapped over the prisoner's face and water is poured over him. Unavoidably, the gag reflex kicks in and a terrifying fear of drowning leads to almost instant pleas to bring the treatment to a halt. According to the sources, CIA officers who subjected themselves to the water boarding technique lasted an average of 14 seconds before caving in. They said al Qaeda's toughest prisoner, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, won the admiration of interrogators when he was able to last over two minutes before begging to confess."[/q]
-
Wow, i've got to try some of these out on my mates. Torture techniques or party games? I'll be the judge of that.
6. Water Boarding: the prisoner is bound to a board with feet raised, and cellophane wrapped round his head. Water is poured onto his face and is said to produce a fear of drowning which leads to a rapid demand for the suffering to end.
I'm not sure why, but I kept reading that as "and a cellphone is wrapped round his head." Which confused me greatly.
-
Well, he may be in prison and about to be tortured, but you just don't deny a man his phonecalls. After all, it could be important.
-
[q]"The prisoner is bound to an inclined board, feet raised and head slightly below the feet. Cellophane is wrapped over the prisoner's face and water is poured over him. Unavoidably, the gag reflex kicks in and a terrifying fear of drowning leads to almost instant pleas to bring the treatment to a halt. According to the sources, CIA officers who subjected themselves to the water boarding technique lasted an average of 14 seconds before caving in. They said al Qaeda's toughest prisoner, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, won the admiration of interrogators when he was able to last over two minutes before begging to confess."[/q]
Which is actually nothing more than US servicemen with access to sensitive information are subject to when being taught to resist interrogation during training.
With that being the only thin I have to add to this, I'll close the door on my way out...
-
Which is actually nothing more than US servicemen with access to sensitive information are subject to when being taught to resist interrogation during training.
With that being the only thin I have to add to this, I'll close the door on my way out...
I think we already know 'the bad guys' use torture (most Middle East countries do, whether ally or enemy to the US), the point is that doesn't make it right for the US to apply it to prisoners. I mean, said SERES training is consensual, after all. The whole point is that adopting the techniques used by morally reprehensible countries tends to make you, well, morally reprehensible.
-
Plus, you actually have to sign a paper saying you waive your rights to protection under the geneva conventions before suchs training, otherwise even doing the training would be illegal. Or at least, they require that here. But given the severe risk of lawsuits over practically anything in the US, I'd be surprised if they didn't require something similar and indeed probably much broader.
-
Guantanamo's existence could be argued for during wartime, perhaps as a distasteful but temporary stopgap measure...
With similar logic it could be said that Nazi death camps were just ok as they in war at that time.. Surely those were just a similar stopgap measures...
Or perhaps not.
Yes, because the logic of committing genocide on your own people and obtaining information pertinent to national security by torture is soooo similar. :rolleyes:
-
Except many of those in Guantanamo were picked up simply for looking suspicious. Or for getting on the bad side of an afghan warlord with decent US connections who then decided handing them over as terrorists would be a convenient way to disappear them. One case that springs to mind is the cab driver who was sent there for simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time while doing his job. I'm sure there are some actual terrorists there, but that does not justify the indefinite detention and in some cases torture of many innocents.
I agree that comparing it to the concentration camps during WW2 is not fair though, that was on a vastly different scale and for a much more sinister purpose, but it is nonetheless a huge wrong that is being committed.
-
With similar logic it could be said that Nazi death camps were just ok as they in war at that time.. Surely those were just a similar stopgap measures...
Or perhaps not.
Yes, because the logic of committing genocide on your own people and obtaining information pertinent to national security by torture is soooo similar. :rolleyes:
Well, Jews (and gypsies, communists, etc) were regarded as enemies of the state by the Nazis. You can encapsulate pretty much any crime as being within the national interest if you don't have oversight.
-
I'd like to point out we're not killing them.
The US is decidedly not Nazi Germany. :rolleyes: Nor is it worse.
And I said I was conflicted over the torture stuff. :doubt:
-
Not them, no. On the subject of killing though, Bush's misguided war in Iraq have so far cost about 35000 innocent civilians their life, or more than 10 times the number dead from the WTC collaps that Bush repeatedly referred to when talking about and trying to justify the war - Regardless of the fact that there was no link between Iraq and the WTC attack whatsoever, and that he very well knew that. Hell, the US had closer ties to Bin Laden than Iraq did. He used to be one of the pals after all, back when he was killing russians instead of americans.
-
This does raise the interesting question...
Did Nazi Germany know that it was Nazi Germany?
-
Not them, no. On the subject of killing though, Bush's misguided war in Iraq have so far cost about 35000 innocent civilians their life
At least 35000. The Lancet estimated last (?) year that the number of deaths caused as a result of the war beyond normal mortality was about 100,000, and I don't think that included the people who are and will die as a result of the failure to provide both basic hygience and healthcare following the destruction of what Iraqi infrastructure there was before the war.
I'd like to point out we're not killing them.
Yet. The US has IIRC introduced changes to the US military tribunal system (court martial) to allow the use of the death penalty. There are also believed to be (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2979076.stm) plans for a gas chamber at Camp Delta.
This is of course ignoring the 'ghost' detainess believed to be held in places like converted naval vessels (I believe one is based at Diego Garcia), whose execution would remain as unknown as their detention location. And those who've died.
Yes, it's not Nazi-esque ethnic cleansing. But it is still wrong, and it is still a massive crime.
This does raise the interesting question...
Did Nazi Germany know that it was Nazi Germany?
I thought it was quite well established that the majority of Germans didn't realise the extent and horror of the crimes committed by the Nazis.
-
This does raise the interesting question...
Did Nazi Germany know that it was Nazi Germany?
I thought it was quite well established that the majority of Germans didn't realise the extent and horror of the crimes committed by the Nazis.
Exactly, and a lot of those who did have an inkling glossed it over or refused to see the full extent of the atrocity.
I agree that America is nowhere near as terrible in it's action as Nazi Germany, but Apathy is the paving stones on that road...
-
Exactly, and a lot of those who did have an inkling glossed it over or refused to see the full extent of the atrocity.
I agree that America is nowhere near as terrible in it's action as Nazi Germany, but Apathy is the paving stones on that road...
Doesn't have to be 'as terrible' of course, just terrible.
-
To Quote Jefferson himself, the price of Freedom is Eternal Vigilance.
I'd like to think that included coming to terms with truths that people would rather not face.
-
$20 says Republicans support the impeachment, get him impeached and turn on him, then tell the voters how good they are by getting rid of such a horrible man. After that, bang, they put someone even worse in power; for instance, if he gets impeached, doesn't Cheney take over directly?
-
Not if Cheney gets charged too :)
-
To Quote Jefferson himself, the price of Freedom is Eternal Vigilance.
i thought that was wing commander 4
-
Thomas Jefferson created Wing Commander 4.
-
Something somewhat related.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HD26Ak01.html