Torture

[zappasguitar]

I gave you a link. Principle 6 says "No person under any form of detention or imprisonment shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.* No circumstance whatever may be invoked as a justification for torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment".

It does not say "No person from nations agreeing to this measure". It says "No person".

It never ceases to amaze how some will split the tiniest of hairs to justify their double standard.

 

[DamnYankee]

Is there two standards? Why others did it would be called savage, tyrant and be hanged (like Saddam and Hitler), when American did it, it becomes save lives?

Because they are the bad guys and we (real Americans) are the good guys.

Are you seriously trying to equate what the Japanese did to our guys during WW2 with this? If so you have an awfully weak position.

 

[DamnYankee]

So you are saying that the nations who signed this measure do not have to recognize anyone as "persons" except the citizens of the nations that also signed this measure?

So we have to treat the citizens of certains nations with dignity, and other nation's citizens we can be as cruel or as vicious to as we want?

Again I don't advocate cruelty to anyone. But yes, if their countries don't sign the agreement, they ain't covered.

 

[WinterBorn]

Again I don't advocate cruelty to anyone. But yes, if their countries don't sign the agreement, they ain't covered.

I posted the link to the agreement that we signed. Did you read it? There was no mention that anyone was exempt from being treated properly.

The title of the measure was "Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment".

That does not mean only those who signed it are covered. It means "All Persons".

 

[WinterBorn]

Because they are the bad guys and we (real Americans) are the good guys.

Are you seriously trying to equate what the Japanese did to our guys during WW2 with this? If so you have an awfully weak position.

Its got nothing to do with good guys and bad guys. It has to do with either torturing or not torturing. The fact that our torture wasn't as bad as the torture someone else used has no bearing in the argument.

 

[DamnYankee]

I posted the link to the agreement that we signed. Did you read it? There was no mention that anyone was exempt from being treated properly.

The title of the measure was "Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment".

That does not mean only those who signed it are covered. It means "All Persons".

I'm assuming that this follows the rues of all contracts, and governs the parties that sign it. So unless it specifically says "all citizens of the world" or such my opinion won't change.

 

[DamnYankee]

Its got nothing to do with good guys and bad guys. It has to do with either torturing or not torturing. The fact that our torture wasn't as bad as the torture someone else used has no bearing in the argument.

I again go back to the common, unbiased, dictionary definition of torture, which clearly exempts the methods that the CIA used, and clearly includes the methods that the Japanese used.

 

[WinterBorn]

I'm assuming that this follows the rues of all contracts, and governs the parties that sign it. So unless it specifically says "all citizens of the world" or such my opinion won't change.

It does govern the parties that signed it. Those parties that signed it are required to treat all persons in a way that fits within the parameters of the agreement.

And the only interpretation of "all persons" is all persons.

 

[WinterBorn]

I again go back to the common, unbiased, dictionary definition of torture, which clearly exempts the methods that the CIA used, and clearly includes the methods that the Japanese used.

I go back to the fact that we signed an agreement, in which there are outlined ways that it is unacceptable to treat people. We either abide by the rules of that agreement or we are violation of that agreement.

 

[DamnYankee]

It does govern the parties that signed it. Those parties that signed it are required to treat all persons in a way that fits within the parameters of the agreement.

And the only interpretation of "all persons" is all persons.

That is merely your opinion, apparently.

 

[DamnYankee]

I go back to the fact that we signed an agreement, in which there are outlined ways that it is unacceptable to treat people. We either abide by the rules of that agreement or we are violation of that agreement.

As I interpret it, we have abided.

 

[WinterBorn]

As I interpret it, we have abided.

You are interpreting "All Persons" to mean a select group of people.

And the entire body of the measure is written to provide protection for "All Persons", and yet you want it to mean just certain persons.

Your interpretation is clearly wrong.

 

[Socrtease]

Good, you're here Mott! You can explain to them, how we all evolved from corn, they don't believe I was serious! You really do believe that, don't you? Please, explain it to the rest of them, so they won't think I was making that shit up!

I swear, it's right up there with Brent's thinking the world is hollow and gnomes are running around inside it.

He never said we evolved from corn you illiterate hillbilly, and in refuting that he once again blinded you with science. Dixie owned!

 

[DamnYankee]

You are interpreting "All Persons" to mean a select group of people.

And the entire body of the measure is written to provide protection for "All Persons", and yet you want it to mean just certain persons.

Your interpretation is clearly wrong.

Again, mine is common contract interpretation. So unless you have something that states otherwise...

 

[WinterBorn]

Again, mine is common contract interpretation. So unless you have something that states otherwise...

I asked once if you had read the information.

If you had, you would have read:

"Principle 5
1. These principles shall be applied to all persons within the territory of
any given State, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex,
language, religion or religious belief, political or other opinion, national,
ethnic or social origin, property, birth or other status."

I think that states otherwise.

 

[DamnYankee]

I asked once if you had read the information.

If you had, you would have read:

"Principle 5
1. These principles shall be applied to all persons within the territory of
any given State, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex,
language, religion or religious belief, political or other opinion, national,
ethnic or social origin, property, birth or other status."

I think that states otherwise.

I was hoping that you'd bring that up, because I don't see how it supports your position. In fact I see it supporting my position.

 

[WinterBorn]

I was hoping that you'd bring that up, because I don't see how it supports your position. In fact I see it supporting my position.

It certainly supports my position. "all persons within the territory of
any given State" states that it does not matter where, these rules apply.

"Any given State" means that within any State these rights are expected to be honored.

"without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex,
language, religion or religious belief, political or other opinion, national,
ethnic or social origin, property, birth or other status" means that these rights are not to be limited by any means. Certainly it does not means that only citizens of the signing nations should expect these protections.

 

[Socrtease]

It certainly supports my position. "all persons within the territory of
any given State" states that it does not matter where, these rules apply.

"Any given State" means that within any State these rights are expected to be honored.

"without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex,
language, religion or religious belief, political or other opinion, national,
ethnic or social origin, property, birth or other status" means that these rights are not to be limited by any means. Certainly it does not means that only citizens of the signing nations should expect these protections.

and just so you know SM when such as is used it means that this is not all inclusive, these are just a few examples. There could be more.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

our nation is governed by its laws... and, like it or not, not only the Geneva ConventionS, but also the UN Convention against torture is the supreme law of OUR land. That is what Article VI of our constitution says. sorry.

When the UN decides to abide by it's own laws, then I'll listen to them; but until then, they don't mean shit and I don't remember voting to turn our Courts or Military over to the control of any other body but that of the US.

 

[DamnYankee]

When the UN decides to abide by it's own laws, then I'll listen to them; but until then, they don't mean shit and I don't remember voting to turn our Courts or Military over to the control of any other body but that of the US.

Good point. I'm sure the Founders would have told the UN to pound sand a long time ago.