Planetarion Forums

Kurashima · 16 Dec 2005, 00:15

Can ANYONE remind me why the US needs a new law on this when theyre already signed up to the Geneva Convention?

wu_trax · 16 Dec 2005, 01:36

i was wondering the same thing, probably it has to do something with them not beeing on us-soil or calling the 'forces of dark' whatever term Bush made up instead of enemy soldiers.
I guess you need at least some ethical standards to even get the idea that torture is a bad thing and should not be used in any case.

dda · 16 Dec 2005, 02:20

The law is meaningless and won't do anything really. Bush had originally said that he would veto any bill of this sort. However, McCain being a Republican and a tortured Viet Nam vet made this politically unviable.

There still won't be any true definition of torture and anyone wanting to do it will just say "no, that isn't torture."

Tactitus · 16 Dec 2005, 06:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by dda

There still won't be any true definition of torture and anyone wanting to do it will just say "no, that isn't torture."

Or the job will be subcontracted out to other countries...

Ramihyn · 16 Dec 2005, 07:06

Its really just political mindf*ck.

The selective and temporary loss of memory about signed international conventions fits Mr Bushs view on international law and relations perfectly. He acts like a kid who stole a candy knowing that stealing candy is forbidden but when beeing asked about it, says that he just borrowed it and intends to give it back sometimes ... in a few years ... or decades - but its NOT stolen!

Ärketrollmannen · 16 Dec 2005, 09:24

So what is the defintion of torture? Is it different in the US than in Europe?

mist · 16 Dec 2005, 09:35

didn't ms rice have a spate of "we've not doing anything against US law" when asked if the US had been torturing people, one assumes to avoid actually answering the question?

maybe someone felt it was making them look silly?

Radical Edward · 16 Dec 2005, 09:44

because all laws that are passed are immediately obeyed by the government, they don't even do secret things that would break the law. I really can't see who this is supposed to convince. I mean if someone comes out of gitmo claiming they were tortured, and the US points to their law and say "look no, we didn't because we have a law against it, see?" That will do nothing to convince me that the claimant is lying. The only thing I can see that would convince me, is some impartial group like the Red Cross or someone being about to observe what they do with their prisoners.

wu_trax · 16 Dec 2005, 11:29

btw, i also would have thought they have a law against abducting citzens of other countries without even telling the government of that country. After all, they threatened to invade the Netherlands if an american citzen is even put to trial at the ICC in Den Haag. To kidnap someone and fly him to Syria to torture him sounds SLIGHTLY worse to me.

All Systems Go · 16 Dec 2005, 13:24

What exactly is the official reason for rendition?

I know it's moving people from one country to another but I can't really see a point to it.

Dante Hicks · 16 Dec 2005, 14:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by All Systems Go

I know it's moving people from one country to another but I can't really see a point to it.

Presumably if you had one big super prison on US soil where all terrorists were held for long periods (a) this might be a security risk, in the long term (b) it might attract domestic protests etc.

Or it could be something about moving suspects nearer to specialist teams in place who are experts in this particular case/field/etc.

Obviously the actual reason seems to be torture but there probably is some other justification for it, and they're the only ones I can think of.

Ärketrollmannen · 17 Dec 2005, 13:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by wu_trax

btw, i also would have thought they have a law against abducting citzens of other countries without even telling the government of that country. After all, they threatened to invade the Netherlands if an american citzen is even put to trial at the ICC in Den Haag. To kidnap someone and fly him to Syria to torture him sounds SLIGHTLY worse to me.

I remember them complaining about it, but invading?

That isn't practically possible is it?

All Systems Go · 17 Dec 2005, 15:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by horn

why was bush grandstanding with sentences such as "We have sent a message to the world that the US is not like the terrorists,", if he had originally said he'd veto such action ?
I know hypocrisy is hardly unique amongst politicians but surely being defeated on something you publically threatened to veto and then adopting it as part of your rhetorical mantra is a bit "bate".

Also, (because i keep missing the news recently), what's happening to blair & co over the torture thingy.
I managed to miss both series on the subject (i think panorama did one a good few months ago and then channel 4 did a similar thing recently which seems to have sparked off this whole thing) and am not terribly clued up. I'm assuming he can't just get away with "dunno mate, weren't me anyway".

Atm they are going with the 'we could find out what's going on but it would be far too costly for it to be worthwhile' excuse, while a document showing one of these planes landing at the most secure airport in the UK was leaked the other day.

Marilyn Manson · 17 Dec 2005, 17:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by dda

The law is meaningless

It's not meaningless. The fact that someone feels the need to support a law unambiguously banning tourture in 2005 is very informative.

dda · 17 Dec 2005, 18:48

The "law" is so vague that it won't change anything. It is meaningless. It was passed because the presidential election cycle is begining. McCain wants to be president and this "law" sounds good to voters. The Democrats want to become the power party and this embarrasses the current administration. No one in Congress wants to go on record against the "law" because they would be branded as supporting torture.

The Bush administration is going along with the law because it would look bad not to.

The law talks about torture but really doesn't give a good definition of it (too vague).

There are various definitions of torture in the law of California.

Penal Code Section 206 state:
Every person who, with the intent to cause cruel or extreme pain and suffering for the purpose of revenge, extortion, persuasion, or for any sadistic purpose, inflicts great bodily injury upon the person of another, is guilty of torture.
The crime of torture does not require any proof that the victim suffered pain.

I don't think the new law is even this clear and this, I assure you, is not all that clear when it comes to application. In California it requires physical pain in addition to suffering.

Sleep deprivation, for example, would probably not qualify as torture in California.

Kurashima · 18 Dec 2005, 03:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by dda

There are various definitions of torture in the law of California.

Penal Code Section 206 state:
Every person who, with the intent to cause cruel or extreme pain and suffering for the purpose of revenge, extortion, persuasion, or for any sadistic purpose, inflicts great bodily injury upon the person of another, is guilty of torture.
The crime of torture does not require any proof that the victim suffered pain.

This sounds like its going to see several hundred S&M Enthusiasts thrown into jail in California for their sexual practices.

However i doubt itll make much of an inroad into the use of Torture by any authorities. If they can be prosecuted under state law, hell, just move the guy to another state.

I wonder how Texas and Nevada laws would look under scrutiny for Torture?