"If your post, Bob, is to imply support for the Bush administration's "enemy-combatant" excuse for torturing, ..."
No, I'm just wondering about it, and I'm assuming there are others who might want to see the details. I recall reading way back in 2002 the arguments from the right on why detainees like the three who were waterboarded are not protected by the Geneva Conventions. But I haven't followed the debate closely since then. You have noted the Convention Against Torture, arguments related to which I have not read. Since the US govt signed it, they must follow it. "In the mean time, maybe you could explain why you automatically assume hundreds of 'POWs' are truly guilty of being 'illegal enemy combatants'. " Actually, that's something that has always troubled me. Even if I accepted that an "illegal combatant" has absolutely no rights under international law, there's still the issue of proving the person is indeed an "illegal combatant." It seems the government hasn't done that very well, if at all. Based on the Wikipedia page you cited, the only possible loophole I can see is the statement, "...for international conflicts the Geneva Conventions III and IV." The Bush Administration may have argued that the persons waterboarded were captured as part of an "international conflict," and so only the Geneva Conventions apply. I don't know enough to say when one law supersedes another. In case you're wondering, I say the US government must first follow all its own laws, then all international laws and treaties it has signed. After that, the US government must do whatever is within the law that can save the lives of US citizens. If there are cases where it's legal, then I would support the use of torture only when it is likely to save American lives. From: ma ni Sent: Saturday, May 16, 2009 9:52 AM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [Libertarian] scramble for cover http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture#Laws_against_torture Laws against torture On December 10, 1948 the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). Article 5 states, "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."[6] Since that time a number of other international treaties have been adopted to prevent the use of torture. Two of these are the United Nations Convention Against Torture and for international conflicts the Geneva Conventions III and IV. http://www.amnestyusa.org/war-on-terror/reports-statements-and-is sue-briefs/torture-and-the-law/page.do?id=1107981 The Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1984 and entered into force on June 26, 1987. The United States ratified the Convention against Torture in October 1994. The Convention entered into force for the United States on November 20, 1994. In 1994, Congress enacted a new federal law to implement the requirements of the Convention against Torture relating to acts of torture committed outside United States territory. This law, which is codified at 18 U.S.C. ยง 2340 et seq., extends United States criminal jurisdiction over any act of (or attempt to commit) torture outside the United States by a United States national or by an alleged offender present in the United States regardless of his or her nationality. The prohibition of torture has a special status in international law. It is part of customary international law, which means it is binding on all states, whether or not they have ratified any of the international human rights treaties. The prohibition on torture is also a ''peremptory norm,'' which means that it cannot be overruled by any other law or by local custom. Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions prohibits ''violence to life and person,'' in particular ''mutilation, cruel treatment and torture'' and also prohibits ''outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment''. These terms include ''other forms of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment." ******** If your post, Bob, is to imply support for the Bush administration's "enemy-combatant" excuse for torturing, I think we are all seeing how that particular bit of legal "genius" is working out. In the mean time, maybe you could explain why you automatically assume hundreds of "POWs" are truly guilty of being "illegal enemy combatants". It's not clear to me which particular court was provided and what particular evidence was submitted and what particular convictions were made. Surely you, Bob, do not presume guilt before innocence. ---------------------------------------- It's not clear to me which particular law was violated here. I thought there was no international law that applies to illegal combatants. Can anyone point to something specific? [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
