Quote:
Quote by: xyzer  You guys and the Guardian are stretching the term truth along with term torture. Torture is defined generally as inflicting great physical pain or mutilation on someone? The Guardian article and other Red Cross gibberish merely mention shackling a recalcitrant for several hours or allowing him to lie on a cold floor for a period of time? Discomfort is not torture nor is the so called psychological effect of noise or light. I want to see some mangled bodies before I'll believe the camel hockey about torture?
Nowhere have I seen evidence of an officially sanctioned policy of actuial torture at Gtmo? There have been no trials or indictments of anyone involved and whether you believe it or not we still have a justice system in the USA? All I read and see is a bunch of whacko claims by the press and anti war zealots(even whacko British professors who don't know their a**es from their elbows?
Second point! The Geneva Convention applies to signatory nations in war time? None of the terrorists and suspects detained at Gtmo claimed any allegience other than to Allah..and Allah is not a signatory. They are renagades in a so called holy war.
The dilema has been whether to treat these bozos as POWs or just plain criminals? They aren't US citizens so the latter is out. They are a threat thats why they were captured. When Bush proposed military tribunals he was shouted down by Congress and antiwar types. So these potential(or actual) murders have been held in limbo rather than shot. But I haven't heard of any valid evidence that they were tortured? |
Sadly, Afghanistan signed the treaties along with every other nation and the treaties protect all citizens of that nation regardless of motivation.
The treaty is also quite clear. Both physical and mental torture are categorically not allowed, as is any form of "coercion". Read the treaties.
There are smart ways to weasel out of the Convention; it was penned by ordinary human beings and after I read it I found a few useful loopholes. If Bush had smarter lawyers he really could make torture completely legal without changing a definition.
Fortunately, Bush and his aides are spastic morons and couldn't lawyer their way out of a wet paper bag. I can't believe they missed the exploits based on article 4.
Anyways,
Instead of dwelling on the legality, consider whether torture is useful. It makes the torturing nation look bad, and maintaining U.S. popularity is the prime objective. It also does not produce very high quality information; if you tortured everybody who came into Gitmo eventually they would all spill the beans on something real or fanciful to make it stop and resources would be wasted chasing down stories designed to stop the torture. I assure you this is just an all around bad idea.