The fact that certain members of this asinine administration are attempting to condone and utilize torture based on a semantic argument is a complete outrage. No matter what anyone tries to call it, waterboarding is torture.
The Kids in the Hall had "30 Helens Agree," well, below we have "30 High Ranking Officers of the U.S. Military Agree." This is related to Section 327 of H.R. 2082, which has passed the house and will be voted on tomorrow by the senate. It would force the CIA and other intelligence organizations to abide by regulations in the Army Field Manual, which prohibits torture and other inhumane practices that so many of these jackasses seems so eager to utilize.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/12/13/military-leaders-ignore-_n_76656.html
I don't think it can be overstated that not only is torture wrong (especially when sanctioned by the government), but the use of waterboarding is a violation of the Geneva convention relative to the treatment of prisoners of war, which the U.S. ratified in August 1949 (replacing the original 1929 convention). The entire thing can be found here: http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/375?OpenDocument
The documents related to this convention state, repeatedly and explicitly, that torture is forbidden. Among much else, it specifies the following:
In Article 3: "In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:
(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria. To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) taking of hostages;
(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;
(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
(2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.
An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict."
In Article 17: "No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind."
In Article 87: "Collective punishment for individual acts, corporal punishment, imprisonment in premises without daylight and, in general, any form of torture or cruelty, are forbidden."
Article 130: "Grave breaches to which the preceding Article relates shall be those involving any of the following acts, if committed against persons or property protected by the Convention: wilful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments, wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, compelling a prisoner of war to serve in the forces of the hostile Power, or wilfully depriving a prisoner of war of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed in this Convention."
To claim that not calling it "torture" makes waterboarding exempt from international treaties on human rights is weak logic in an extreme. It's like saying stabbing someone in the chest is merely "a temporary spatial disassociation of cells." Scalia's comments (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7239748.stm) are putting us on an ever-steepening slippery slope. This is a dangerous trend. Taken logically, torture also violates the 8th article of the Bill of Rights, however, apparently our Constitution isn't explicit enough for Scalia.
Posted by Isaac at February 12, 2008 10:36 PM
The fact that certain members of this asinine administration are attempting to condone and utilize torture based on a semantic argument is a complete outrage. No matter what anyone tries to call it, waterboarding is torture.
The Kids in the Hall had "30 Helens Agree," well, below we have "30 High Ranking Officers of the U.S. Military Agree." This is related to Section 327 of H.R. 2082, which has passed the house and will be voted on tomorrow by the senate. It would force the CIA and other intelligence organizations to abide by regulations in the Army Field Manual, which prohibits torture and other inhumane practices that so many of these jackasses seems so eager to utilize.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/12/13/military-leaders-ignore-_n_76656.html
I don't think it can be overstated that not only is torture wrong (especially when sanctioned by the government), but the use of waterboarding is a violation of the Geneva convention relative to the treatment of prisoners of war, which the U.S. ratified in August 1949 (replacing the original 1929 convention). The entire thing can be found here: http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/375?OpenDocument
The documents related to this convention state, repeatedly and explicitly, that torture is forbidden. Among much else, it specifies the following:
In Article 3: "In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:
(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria. To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) taking of hostages;
(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;
(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
(2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.
An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict."
In Article 17: "No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind."
In Article 87: "Collective punishment for individual acts, corporal punishment, imprisonment in premises without daylight and, in general, any form of torture or cruelty, are forbidden."
Article 130: "Grave breaches to which the preceding Article relates shall be those involving any of the following acts, if committed against persons or property protected by the Convention: wilful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments, wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, compelling a prisoner of war to serve in the forces of the hostile Power, or wilfully depriving a prisoner of war of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed in this Convention."
To claim that not calling it "torture" makes waterboarding exempt from international treaties on human rights is weak logic in an extreme. It's like saying stabbing someone in the chest is merely "a temporary spatial disassociation of cells." Scalia's comments (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7239748.stm) are putting us on an ever-steepening slippery slope. This is a dangerous trend. Taken logically, torture also violates the 8th article of the Bill of Rights, however, apparently our Constitution isn't explicit enough for Scalia.
Posted by Isaac at February 12, 2008 10:36 PM