Torture

Southern Man said:
It is an agreement between civilized peoples. Of course it doesn't cover those who didn't agree to it. *shrug*
Click to expand...

But the agreement covers us, and that is the important point. We did not agree to abide by certain rules as long as the other side did too. We agreed to abide by the rules.
 
Southern Man said:
I have yet to see that written anywhere.
Click to expand...

I posted the link in another thread. It is the "Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment
Adopted by General Assembly resolution 43/173 of 9 December 1988".

And we, as a nation, signed the document.
 
WinterBorn said:
I posted the link in another thread. It is the "Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment
Adopted by General Assembly resolution 43/173 of 9 December 1988".

And we, as a nation, signed the document.
Click to expand...
And obviously there is a disagreement if that covers terrorists. My position is that it does not.
 
Southern Man said:
And obviously there is a disagreement if that covers terrorists. My position is that it does not.
Click to expand...

Principle 6 states "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."

That seems to be clearly saying everyone is covered by it. "No person" doesn't leave much room for interpretation. And "No circumstance whatever may be invoked as a justification for torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" seems to be clear.
 
WinterBorn said:
Principle 6 states "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."

That seems to be clearly saying everyone is covered by it. "No person" doesn't leave much room for interpretation. And "No circumstance whatever may be invoked as a justification for torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" seems to be clear.
Click to expand...

What is clear that these rules define persons as the residents of the States that signed onto the rules.

Also I'm not sure what's so degrading about water boarding.
 
Southern Man said:
What is clear that these rules define persons as the residents of the States that signed onto the rules.

Also I'm not sure what's so degrading about water boarding.
Click to expand...

No, the measure does not define persons as residents of any single nation. This measure was proposed by the United Nations and accepted by the General Assembly (including the US)
 
WinterBorn said:
No, the measure does not define persons as residents of any single nation. This measure was proposed by the United Nations and accepted by the General Assembly (including the US)
Click to expand...
It defines persons who are members of the signing nation, does it not?
 
Southern Man said:
It defines persons who are members of the signing nation, does it not?
Click to expand...

It does not define persons as anything member of any nation. The measure describes what is not allowed to be done to any persons by any government that signed the document.
 
Dixie said:
No, they believe CORN is our relative! REALLY! I couldn't make this shit up!
Click to expand...

Tabasco said:
WTF?
Click to expand...

ib1yysguy said:
It's hilarious he says he can't make it up right after he went and made it up.
Click to expand...

Seriously! Mott spent several days here, pontificating on how we all share common descent. His "evidence" was some convoluted comparison between Krebbs Syndrome in corn versus Krebbs in humans. Never mind the essential purpose and functioning of this syndrome is entirely different in both species, the syndrome is present in both, therefore it "proves" we all obviously evolved from corn.

I'm telling you... not in my wildest most bizarre pinhead dreams, could I have come up with something like this! I always heard there were people who believed this kind of thing, but I had never actually held a conversation with one, until Mott came along. Ib1, I though you were in on that thread as well, am I mistaking you for Waterhead?
 
Dixie said:
Seriously! Mott spent several days here, pontificating on how we all share common descent. His "evidence" was some convoluted comparison between Krebbs Syndrome in corn versus Krebbs in humans. Never mind the essential purpose and functioning of this syndrome is entirely different in both species, the syndrome is present in both, therefore it "proves" we all obviously evolved from corn.

I'm telling you... not in my wildest most bizarre pinhead dreams, could I have come up with something like this! I always heard there were people who believed this kind of thing, but I had never actually held a conversation with one, until Mott came along. Ib1, I though you were in on that thread as well, am I mistaking you for Waterhead?
Click to expand...

Dixie, you shouldn't reference that which you don't understand. We all understand that you're not a biologist, we don't need proof.

For those not in the know, Dixie if refering to where I crushed him with an overwhelming amount of data supporting macroevolution in a debate in the "Anything Goes" Sig, in which Dixie was trying to refute with bells, whistles, superstition and a lot of wishful thinking.

What Dixie is refering to is the Krebbs cycle (not Krebbs syndrome) which is a biochemical process where by a cell converts chemical energy into mechanical energy. The evidence for common decent is that the Krebbs cycle is exactly identical (not "entirely different") in corn plant cells and in human cells (actually it's identical in all cells where aerobic metabolism occurs) and it serves the exact same function in all cells.

Some how in Dixie's warped point of view fundamentally sound conventional science is a liberal conspiracy and thus scientist are liberal pinheads.
 
Last edited:
Mottleydude said:
Dixie, you shouldn't reference that which you don't understand. We all understand that you're not a biologist, we don't need proof.

For those not in the know, Dixie if refering to where I crushed him with an overwhelming amount of data supporting macroevolution in a debate in the "Anything Goes" Sig, in which Dixie was trying to refute with bells, whistles, superstition and a lot of wishful thinking.

What Dixie is refering to is the Krebbs cycle (not Krebbs syndrome) which is a biochemical process where by a cell converts chemical energy into mechanical energy. The evidence for common decent is that the Krebbs cycle is exactly identical (not "entirely different") in corn plant cells and in human cells (actually it's identical in all cells where aerobic metabolism occurs) and it serves the exact same function in all cells.

Some how in Dixie's warped point of view fundamentally sound conventional science is a liberal conspiracy and thus scientist are liberal pinheads.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Southern Man said:
I'd like to see where it says that instead of your opinion.
Click to expand...

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".
 
WinterBorn said:
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".
Click to expand...
The meaning to only include persons of signor nations is implied.
 
Southern Man said:
The meaning to only include persons of signor nations is implied.
Click to expand...

It means "No person". There is no mention of any nationality. The nations that signed it are responsible to make sure that their official representatives abide by the rules. But there is no mention at all of any group of people that they would not have to treat in the manner outlined.
 
Tabasco said:
If it can be demonstrated that waterboarding has saved American lives, I'm all for it, so long as it is also proven that the recipient is involved in terrorism. At that point, who really gives a fuck? Would you prefer another attack on American soil? Apparently that is the case...
Click to expand...

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?

McCain: Japanese Hanged For Waterboarding

(AP) Republican presidential candidate John McCain reminded people Thursday that some Japanese were tried and hanged for torturing American prisoners during World War II with techniques that included waterboarding.

"There should be little doubt from American history that we consider that as torture otherwise we wouldn't have tried and convicted Japanese for doing that same thing to Americans," McCain said during a news conference.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/29/politics/main3554687.shtml
Click to expand...
 
WinterBorn said:
It means "No person". There is no mention of any nationality. The nations that signed it are responsible to make sure that their official representatives abide by the rules. But there is no mention at all of any group of people that they would not have to treat in the manner outlined.
Click to expand...
There doesn't have to be a mention of nationality because only those persons of the signor nations are involved. Besides, we tortured no one.
 
Southern Man said:
There doesn't have to be a mention of nationality because only those persons of the signor nations are involved. Besides, we tortured no one.
Click to expand...

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?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top