Pages: 1 … 5 6 7

 

Poll

Would you submit to CIA waterboarding to reduce sentence?

yes, but it is still torture31%31% - 14
yes, is it really torture if a person would volunteer?35%35% - 16
no, it is torture31%31% - 14
no, it is not torture but noway Jose'2%2% - 1
Total: 45
2009-06-08 07:02:35
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6712|'Murka

Bertster7 wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Bertster wrote:

They're not violating the GC on torture. Just the UDHR.
They are violating the GC and the International Convention on Torture also.

Really without a specific UN resolution the whole Iraq invasion was illegal.
You're right about the International Convention on Torture.

Which bit of the GC have they broken?
Dilbert keeps "forgetting" the clause that says if one party (even if a non-signatory) does not abide by the tenets of the GC, then the other party (even if a signatory) does not.

Torture is open to interpretation. Once our law making body (the Congress) deemed certain activities torture, they were stopped.

Countries don't need UN OK to protect their national interests...whether Dilbert agrees with the assessment or not.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2009-06-08 07:05:54
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6882|SE London

FEOS wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:


They are violating the GC and the International Convention on Torture also.

Really without a specific UN resolution the whole Iraq invasion was illegal.
You're right about the International Convention on Torture.

Which bit of the GC have they broken?
Dilbert keeps "forgetting" the clause that says if one party (even if a non-signatory) does not abide by the tenets of the GC, then the other party (even if a signatory) does not.

Torture is open to interpretation. Once our law making body (the Congress) deemed certain activities torture, they were stopped.

Countries don't need UN OK to protect their national interests...whether Dilbert agrees with the assessment or not.
He does, doesn't he.

Countries kind of do need UN approval to invade places. For it to be legal anyway.

How was invading Iraq protecting US interests anyway?
2009-06-08 07:09:47
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,817|6407|eXtreme to the maX
I'm not forgetting it, either the US acts within the GC or it doesn't.

Nuremburg and the international convention on torture don't have get out clauses however.

Countries do need the UN to OK actions to protect their 'national interests', except when said country has been attacked.
Going to war because you've been attacked - No UN authorisation required.
Going to war because you think a country has something, which they might be inclined to give to someone else, who could then possibly use it to attack you - UN authorisation is required - assuming you've signed the UN charter and agreed to abide by its rules.

Waterboarding has been classed as torture for at least the last 60 years, except a couple of years when Cheney decided it wasn't.
Pretty sure its the US govt in the wrong and not the definition.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2009-06-08 07:11:49)

Fuck Israel
2009-06-08 07:10:20
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6712|'Murka

Bertster7 wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

You're right about the International Convention on Torture.

Which bit of the GC have they broken?
Dilbert keeps "forgetting" the clause that says if one party (even if a non-signatory) does not abide by the tenets of the GC, then the other party (even if a signatory) does not.

Torture is open to interpretation. Once our law making body (the Congress) deemed certain activities torture, they were stopped.

Countries don't need UN OK to protect their national interests...whether Dilbert agrees with the assessment or not.
He does, doesn't he.
Yes. And it gets tiresome.

Bertster7 wrote:

Countries kind of do need UN approval to invade places. For it to be legal anyway.
No. They don't. They only need it for the invasion to be popular with the media and Europe.

Bertster7 wrote:

How was invading Iraq protecting US interests anyway?
Their apparent WMD program was deemed a clear and present danger to US interests, and was amplified by Saddam's antics WRT weapons inspection teams from the UN and his repeated violations of UN resolutions/sanctions.

Not saying I agree that Iraq was a threat to US national interests--based on what we know now...just relaying the causus belli.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2009-06-08 07:12:03
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6712|'Murka

Dilbert_X wrote:

I'm not forgetting it, either the US acts within the GC or it doesn't.
And it's been proven time and again that the US is acting within the bounds of the GC.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Nuremburg and the international convention on torture don't have get out clauses however.
But their "definition" of torture is open to interpretation...widely.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Countries do need the UN to OK actions to protect their 'national interests', except when said country has been attacked.
Going to war because you've been attacked - No UN authorisation required.
Going to war because you think a country has something, which they might be inclined to give to someone else, who could then possibly use it to attack you - UN authorisation is required - assuming you've signed the UN charter and agreed to abide by its rules.
I'm pretty sure no countries have subjugated their sovereignty to the UN.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2009-06-08 07:13:19
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,817|6407|eXtreme to the maX
How was Saddams supposed WMD program a threat to the US?
Saddam never attacked the US, nor did he use WMD outside Iraq, nor did he have contact with any US enemy.
Fuck Israel
2009-06-08 07:14:51
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6882|SE London

FEOS wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Countries kind of do need UN approval to invade places. For it to be legal anyway.
No. They don't. They only need it for the invasion to be popular with the media and Europe.
That has nothing to do with International law laid out under the UN charter. The US has signed the UN charter, therefore not acting in accordance with it is illegal.

FEOS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Nuremburg and the international convention on torture don't have get out clauses however.
But their "definition" of torture is open to interpretation...widely.
Not under the UHDR it isn't. There have been precedent setting rulings made regarding this already (decades ago, regarding British treatment of IRA prisoners) in the International courts.

Last edited by Bertster7 (2009-06-08 07:22:09)

2009-06-08 07:14:56
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,817|6407|eXtreme to the maX

FEOS wrote:

But their "definition" of torture is open to interpretation...widely.
Neither are remotely interpretable, they're crystal clear.

Nuremburg says 'ill-treatment' is a war crime.
Interpret that.
Fuck Israel
2009-06-08 08:06:35
Braddock
Agitator
+916|6591|Éire

usmarine wrote:

i have been thru waterboarding.  no big deal.  so yes, i would take it.
Usmarine eats waterboarding for breakfast.
2009-06-08 08:08:40
AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,761|6453|what

Braddock wrote:

usmarine wrote:

i have been thru waterboarding.  no big deal.  so yes, i would take it.
Usmarine eats waterboarding for breakfast.
Provided someone is there holding his hand reminding him it's just a training exercise he can stop at any point he chooses.

Last edited by AussieReaper (2009-06-08 08:12:47)

https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png
2009-06-08 20:54:27
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6712|'Murka

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

But their "definition" of torture is open to interpretation...widely.
Neither are remotely interpretable, they're crystal clear.

Nuremburg says 'ill-treatment' is a war crime.
Interpret that.
Ill treatment is open to a very wide range of interpretation. Ill treatment in one country is good treatment in another. Good treatment in some circumstances is ill treatment in others.

See how that works? It's called "interpretation".
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2009-06-08 20:55:54
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6712|'Murka

Bertster7 wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Countries kind of do need UN approval to invade places. For it to be legal anyway.
No. They don't. They only need it for the invasion to be popular with the media and Europe.
That has nothing to do with International law laid out under the UN charter. The US has signed the UN charter, therefore not acting in accordance with it is illegal.
Again, no international agreement obviates a nation's basic sovereign rights. That includes military action if deemed in that country's interests.

Bertster7 wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Nuremburg and the international convention on torture don't have get out clauses however.
But their "definition" of torture is open to interpretation...widely.
Not under the UHDR it isn't. There have been precedent setting rulings made regarding this already (decades ago, regarding British treatment of IRA prisoners) in the International courts.
Yes. Even under the UHDR it is.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

 

Pages: 1 … 5 6 7

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard