"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."
I believe the US government should reject all such laws as infringing on our sovereignty as a nation of free people. International laws should bind the US government and American citizens only when such laws have been ratified by our elected representative. I believe the US Constitution mandates that. 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]
