I know, that's why I said you're addressing the wrong poster. It's the 'other guy' that's claiming he doesn't care if anti-torture = UN Charter.
Your reply to pyr3 (the ?other guy? in question): ?The UN Charter is US law? was misleading in its saying that the UN Charter was the relevant document here, legally, while the relevant document is, as said, the UN Convention Against Torture. It's that imprecision which, I think, needed addressing.
But, the UN doesn't really say it is wrong, not explicitly anyway. Open to interpretation and you'd have to use a pretty loose interpretation to imply this is a case of actual torture, even by the UN's definition.
I'll withhold judgement on if it's torture or not, but I'd guess if the US interpreted it as something that would be considered torture they would think of something else, at least less obvious, to do.
Your reply to pyr3 (the ?other guy? in question): ?The UN Charter is US law? was misleading in its saying that the UN Charter was the relevant document here, legally, while the relevant document is, as said, the UN Convention Against Torture. It's that imprecision which, I think, needed addressing.
Look, he brought it into the discussion. Tell pyr3 that he shouldn't. Regardless of the specific document, his point is still absurd and your desire to pin that on me is equally absurd.
Look, he brought it into the discussion. Tell pyr3 that he shouldn't. Regardless of the specific document, his point is still absurd and your desire to pin that on me is equally absurd.
Regardless of what I said, you're the one that claimed the UN Charter was US Law. I think that you just can't admit that you were wrong...
I'll withhold judgement on if it's torture or not, but I'd guess if the US interpreted it as something that would be considered torture they would think of something else, at least less obvious, to do.
Withholding judgement makes sense, since it so obviously not torture.
Your guess is probably right. If the US believed that is was torture, then they probably would think of something to do...something they thought wasn't torture. As they sem to have done in this case.
Is anybody besides me having a REAL HARD TIME taking this hardcore U.N. validation thingy seriously? Cuba, Saudi Arabia and Libya are on the U.N.'s.......
....Human Rights Commission.
Exactly how constructive is that?
Maybe with a little help from the clowns from SA we can get the UN to mandate Clitoris excision and infibulation worldwide---boy, wouldn't that be a big hit?
Of course if you can't celebrate that kind of diversity you can go rot in Cuban prison.
Is anybody besides me having a REAL HARD TIME taking this hardcore U.N. validation thingy seriously? Cuba, Saudi Arabia and Libya are on the U.N.'s.......
....Human Rights Commission.
Exactly how constructive is that?
Makes sense. The ones that need it the most are on the commission. Hopefully it's a self-help tactic.
Look, he brought it into the discussion. Tell pyr3 that he shouldn't. Regardless of the specific document, his point is still absurd and your desire to pin that on me is equally absurd.
The specificity of the document and other pesky details should not be disregarded.
Now, let's see what part of pyr3's message you replied to:
Quote:
I don't care about the UN charter.
That's a personal opinion, about which one can have one's own opinion, I don't see any absurdity.
Your affirmation, as a response on a thread about torture, that ?The UN Charter is US law? implies the Charter's being legally relevant to torture which it's not.
Maybe we just have different definitions here, but to me US Law implies that the law was created by the US. Other laws maybe be applicable in the US due to the constitution, but they were not created by the US, the US just chooses to accept them as being legal.
Its more sophisticated and less physically damaging then the medieval forms of torture applied in Iraq and other places. I't doesn't leave permanent scars. (at least not visible ones).
The question is why this is being done. Obviously to break the POWs metally. If anyone has seen the late effects on mentally abused children, they'd know how devastating the effects might be.
Not according to the Constitution. They are considered 'the supreme law of the land', which in my book is fairly serious.
Why not real the whole post next time?
Quote:
Other laws maybe be applicable in the US due to the constitution, but they were not created by the US, the US just chooses to accept them as being legal.
That is what I said. The US can choose to reject the constitution and form a different government. The US citizens CHOOSE to follow the current government. It's only the 'law of the land' as long as we hold the Constitution to be our outline for government. Don't hack my sentences into peices so that you can comment on part of it to make yourself look good.
The US can choose to reject the constitution and form a different government. The US citizens CHOOSE to follow the current government. It's only the 'law of the land' as long as we hold the Constitution to be our outline for government.
I'm not sure about that. A number of citizens tried opting-out of the Constitution once, and it didn't work out so well. One of the main legal arguments against it then was that the Constitution has no exit clause (which, of course, it doesn't). The only way out is the right of revolution - which leaves it open to victors to decide if the revolution was worthy or not.
Anyway, the idea that international treaties might have the force of law inside the US is an interesting one. A roommate of mine of mine in college (lawyer-to-be) was very interested in that. One reason was because if a treaty has the force of law inside the US, it has the force of law inside other countries as well (e.g. Cuba and the human rights conventions). But there's no precedent for that sort of thing at all, yet. There is clear precedent that no treaty can override the US Constitution, or (I think) even exisiting law.
Comments
Originally posted by bunge
I know, that's why I said you're addressing the wrong poster. It's the 'other guy' that's claiming he doesn't care if anti-torture = UN Charter.
Your reply to pyr3 (the ?other guy? in question): ?The UN Charter is US law? was misleading in its saying that the UN Charter was the relevant document here, legally, while the relevant document is, as said, the UN Convention Against Torture. It's that imprecision which, I think, needed addressing.
Originally posted by Tulkas
But, the UN doesn't really say it is wrong, not explicitly anyway. Open to interpretation and you'd have to use a pretty loose interpretation to imply this is a case of actual torture, even by the UN's definition.
I'll withhold judgement on if it's torture or not, but I'd guess if the US interpreted it as something that would be considered torture they would think of something else, at least less obvious, to do.
Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein
Your reply to pyr3 (the ?other guy? in question): ?The UN Charter is US law? was misleading in its saying that the UN Charter was the relevant document here, legally, while the relevant document is, as said, the UN Convention Against Torture. It's that imprecision which, I think, needed addressing.
Look, he brought it into the discussion. Tell pyr3 that he shouldn't. Regardless of the specific document, his point is still absurd and your desire to pin that on me is equally absurd.
Originally posted by bunge
Look, he brought it into the discussion. Tell pyr3 that he shouldn't. Regardless of the specific document, his point is still absurd and your desire to pin that on me is equally absurd.
Regardless of what I said, you're the one that claimed the UN Charter was US Law. I think that you just can't admit that you were wrong...
Originally posted by bunge
I'll withhold judgement on if it's torture or not, but I'd guess if the US interpreted it as something that would be considered torture they would think of something else, at least less obvious, to do.
Withholding judgement makes sense, since it so obviously not torture.
Your guess is probably right. If the US believed that is was torture, then they probably would think of something to do...something they thought wasn't torture. As they sem to have done in this case.
....Human Rights Commission.
Exactly how constructive is that?
Maybe with a little help from the clowns from SA we can get the UN to mandate Clitoris excision and infibulation worldwide---boy, wouldn't that be a big hit?
Of course if you can't celebrate that kind of diversity you can go rot in Cuban prison.
Hellooooooooooo? Reality check anyone?
Originally posted by ena
Is anybody besides me having a REAL HARD TIME taking this hardcore U.N. validation thingy seriously? Cuba, Saudi Arabia and Libya are on the U.N.'s.......
....Human Rights Commission.
Exactly how constructive is that?
Makes sense. The ones that need it the most are on the commission. Hopefully it's a self-help tactic.
Originally posted by pyr3
Regardless of what I said, you're the one that claimed the UN Charter was US Law.
Go read the US Constitution.
Originally posted by bunge
Look, he brought it into the discussion. Tell pyr3 that he shouldn't. Regardless of the specific document, his point is still absurd and your desire to pin that on me is equally absurd.
The specificity of the document and other pesky details should not be disregarded.
Now, let's see what part of pyr3's message you replied to:
I don't care about the UN charter.
That's a personal opinion, about which one can have one's own opinion, I don't see any absurdity.
Your affirmation, as a response on a thread about torture, that ?The UN Charter is US law? implies the Charter's being legally relevant to torture which it's not.
That is what I addressed.
Originally posted by bunge
Go read the US Constitution.
Maybe we just have different definitions here, but to me US Law implies that the law was created by the US. Other laws maybe be applicable in the US due to the constitution, but they were not created by the US, the US just chooses to accept them as being legal.
Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein
That's a personal opinion....
And as such was completely useless in this thread.
End of line.
Originally posted by pyr3
...the US just chooses to accept them as being legal.
Not according to the Constitution. They are considered 'the supreme law of the land', which in my book is fairly serious.
Originally posted by bunge
Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein
That's a personal opinion....
And as such was completely useless in this thread.
That's a personal opinion.
Its more sophisticated and less physically damaging then the medieval forms of torture applied in Iraq and other places. I't doesn't leave permanent scars. (at least not visible ones).
The question is why this is being done. Obviously to break the POWs metally. If anyone has seen the late effects on mentally abused children, they'd know how devastating the effects might be.
Joking about it does not make it any less real.
Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein
And as such was completely useless in this thread.
That's a personal opinion. [/QUOTE]
Great. Now why were you bothering me with this then?
Originally posted by BuonRotto
We should feed these guys ice cream, sweeten them up. Then when they get ice cream headaches, Amnesty International can throw fits.
hmm, how 'bout making them read threads like this over and over again, now thats torture...
Originally posted by bunge
Not according to the Constitution. They are considered 'the supreme law of the land', which in my book is fairly serious.
Why not real the whole post next time?
Other laws maybe be applicable in the US due to the constitution, but they were not created by the US, the US just chooses to accept them as being legal.
That is what I said. The US can choose to reject the constitution and form a different government. The US citizens CHOOSE to follow the current government. It's only the 'law of the land' as long as we hold the Constitution to be our outline for government. Don't hack my sentences into peices so that you can comment on part of it to make yourself look good.
Originally posted by pyr3
The US can choose to reject the constitution and form a different government. The US citizens CHOOSE to follow the current government. It's only the 'law of the land' as long as we hold the Constitution to be our outline for government.
I'm not sure about that. A number of citizens tried opting-out of the Constitution once, and it didn't work out so well. One of the main legal arguments against it then was that the Constitution has no exit clause (which, of course, it doesn't). The only way out is the right of revolution - which leaves it open to victors to decide if the revolution was worthy or not.
Anyway, the idea that international treaties might have the force of law inside the US is an interesting one. A roommate of mine of mine in college (lawyer-to-be) was very interested in that. One reason was because if a treaty has the force of law inside the US, it has the force of law inside other countries as well (e.g. Cuba and the human rights conventions). But there's no precedent for that sort of thing at all, yet. There is clear precedent that no treaty can override the US Constitution, or (I think) even exisiting law.