08-12-2004 20:18									#31
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by MikeH So... basically your argument is that they aren't being tortured but if the US wanted to torture them it'd be perfectly legal?

Absolutely wrong. I'm say that what certain people are claiming is torture is not in any way considered torture under the Geneva or Hague conventions. In fact the restraints, blind folding, and solitary confinment are expressly allowed under the Geneva and Hague conventions.

A reasonable person could say they object to the policy, a reasonable person could say the stridently oppose the policy, but a reasonable person cannot say it is torture or against international law.

	08-12-2004 20:19									#32
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Oerdin In fact the restraints, blind folding, and solitary confinment are expressly allowed under the Geneva and Hague conventions. .

What about beatings, molestations and sleep deprivation?

	08-12-2004 20:21									#33
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Oerdin Absolutely wrong. I'm say that what certain people are claiming is torture is not in any way considered torture under the Geneva or Hague conventions. In fact the restraints, blind folding, and solitary confinment are expressly allowed under the Geneva and Hague conventions. A reasonable person could say they object to the policy, a reasonable person could say the stridently oppose the policy, but a reasonable person cannot say it is torture or against international law.

Well I guess as long as you are just arguing semantics and aren't condoning them as acceptable practices.

	08-12-2004 20:22									#34
	Full PM-box? Change here!

The only cases of beatings or molestation (I.E. Abu Gherab_ have been severely punished by the proper authorities. Sleep Deprivition is a legitament interrogation technique which causes no physical pain or severe mental anguish so it doesn't fall under the GC's definition of torture.

	08-12-2004 20:25									#35
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by MikeH Well I guess as long as you are just arguing semantics and aren't condoning them as acceptable practices.

I continue to argue against the use of the word torture since the internationally agreed definirion doesn't even come close. Unfortunately a few ingornant people insist on using the word without any knowledge of the Geneva or Hague Convention's definition of the word nor of the tactics which are expressly authorized under said treaties.

	08-12-2004 20:26									#36
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by MikeH Well if that is true, and I think it isn't. Then that's a bad thing. The UN convention is very clear and clearly a much better rule.

I think it is not. In fact I think it is so broadly worded that it includes just about everything as torture. The Geneva Convention is very precise and definitive in its definition and that is why it is the better definition.

	08-12-2004 20:31									#37
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara Oh quite whinning, Oerdin. Imran mentioned the UN Convention on Tortore, to which the U.S. is a signatory. We ratified it, it is U.S. Law.

I agree we ratified it but we also ratified the numerous Geneva and Hague Conventions which declared themselves to be the Supreme law of war including declared wars or other armed conflicts". The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are clearly wars or armed conflicts so why should the "supreme law of war" not apply? Especially since the GC says it take precidence over conflicting "treaties, proclamations, agreements, or national laws"?

	08-12-2004 20:33									#38
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Oerdin I continue to argue against the use of the word torture since the internationally agreed definirion doesn't even come close. Unfortunately a few ingornant people insist on using the word without any knowledge of the Geneva or Hague Convention's definition of the word nor of the tactics which are expressly authorized under said treaties.

That's because psychological torture methods have progressed a lot since those conventions were written.

	08-12-2004 20:41									#39
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: I agree we ratified it but we also ratified the numerous Geneva and Hague Conventions which declared themselves to be the Supreme law of war including declared wars or other armed conflicts". The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are clearly wars or armed conflicts so why should the "supreme law of war" not apply? Especially since the GC says it take precidence over conflicting "treaties, proclamations, agreements, or national laws"?

That doesn't magically invalidate every other treaty or law passed after it. The GC certainly do not say that prosecuting people for conducting torture as defined by other treaties and laws is illegal.

	08-12-2004 20:51									#40
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Oerdin the second world is the communist states,

No, it only applied to those states in the Soviet Bloc, the USSR and Eastern Europe (including Yugoslavia and Albania). China, Cuba, Vietnam, etc. are part of the Third World.

	08-12-2004 20:52									#41
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Ramo, have you paid any attention what so ever? The Geneva Convetion declares itself to be the supreme law of war which covers all declared wars and armed conflicts further it deckares that should conflicts arise between the Geneva Convention and other "treaties, proclamations, agreements, or national laws" then the Genveva Convention trumps all.

The writers were obviously worried that other treaties would be seen as superior to the Geneva or Hague Conventions so they took steps to insure that their treaty was the supreme treaty in the event of conflict. They took great pains to define terms and I for one think they knew what they were talking about.

	08-12-2004 20:55									#42
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Your rediculous interpretation of the GC ain't one anyone accepts.

If the GC invalidates every other treaty concerning war, why would anyone bother to pass the uncountable numbers of treaties concerning war? This as absurd.

	08-12-2004 20:56									#43
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Oerdin I agree we ratified it but we also ratified the numerous Geneva and Hague Conventions which declared themselves to be the Supreme law of war including declared wars or other armed conflicts". The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are clearly wars or armed conflicts so why should the "supreme law of war" not apply? Especially since the GC says it take precidence over conflicting "treaties, proclamations, agreements, or national laws"?

That means states can't sign treaties to contravene the GC and HC, not that states can't enact laws which give even greater protections. The U.S. has enacted into law extra proctections for human rights and the definition of torture. Those laws cannot be ignored simply because the GC and HC say they are the supreme law. Furthermore, under U.S. law, which is the only law enforcable here, it's torture and it's illegal.

	08-12-2004 21:01									#44
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Ramo Your rediculous interpretation of the GC ain't one anyone accepts. If the GC invalidates every other treaty concerning war, why would anyone bother to pass the uncountable numbers of treaties concerning war? This as absurd.

Don't blame me, I didn't ratify the treaty but just about every country on Earth did. Do you really expect reasonable people to believe that all of those national governments had no idea what they were ratifying? Clearly, their legal experts knew what the treaty said and the various governments agreed with it or they wouldn't have voted for it.

	08-12-2004 21:02									#45
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

If the GC specifically allows certain actions, then a treaty forbidding them is contradicting the GC.

	08-12-2004 21:04									#46
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara That means states can't sign treaties to contravene the GC and HC, not that states can't enact laws which give even greater protections. The U.S. has enacted into law extra proctections for human rights and the definition of torture. Those laws cannot be ignored simply because the GC and HC say they are the supreme law. Furthermore, under U.S. law, which is the only law enforcable here, it's torture and it's illegal.

The united States Supreme Court disagrees with you. Further more I think the case is very clear. The UN Declaration against tortue has a radically differnet definition of what constitutes torture. Clearly, the two treaties are in conflict since the Geneva Convention also defines torture. Every country ratified the 1949 GC treaty plus the various supplimental treaties so why should we believe all of those countries didn't understand what they were ratifing?

	08-12-2004 21:05									#47
	Increase the size of your Attachments

No, they know perfectly well what they were signing. You clearly don't. Again, if we suppose that your interepretation is accurate, how do any of the thousands of treaties signed afterwards make any sense? Hell, how is there supposed to be a peace treaties?

	08-12-2004 21:05									#48
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker If the GC specifically allows certain actions, then a treaty forbidding them is contradicting the GC.

Does the GC specifically allow for certain actions, or is their acceptance assumed by their absence?

	08-12-2004 21:06									#49
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

According to Oerdin's post, the former.

	08-12-2004 21:09									#50
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Ramo If the GC invalidates every other treaty concerning war, why would anyone bother to pass the uncountable numbers of treaties concerning war? This as absurd.

Ramo, we often pass treaties with absurd claims. Have you ever heard of the League of Nations' 1925 Declaration which outlawed war? That's right they attempted to outlaw war. While we are in La-La land we might as well outlaw poverty, disease, and death because such proclamations have about as much chance of success.

	08-12-2004 21:11									#51
	Got spare money?

Are Peace Treaties illegal by the GC?

	08-12-2004 21:11									#52
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara Does the GC specifically allow for certain actions, or is their acceptance assumed by their absence?

Certain actions it does allow and certain actions it doesn't allow. For instance it allows for solitary confinment and for reasonable restraints upon prisoners but it doesn't allow for torture of for subjecting prisoners to public curiocity. Please note that the treaty also defines torture very specifically.

	08-12-2004 21:12									#53
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Ramo Are Peace Treaties illegal by the GC?

Not at all. The GC only covers warring parties in armed conflict.

	08-12-2004 21:12									#54
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Oerdin Every country ratified the 1949 GC treaty plus the various supplimental treaties so why should we believe all of those countries didn't understand what they were ratifing?

Because we've expanded the definition of human rights since then as well. Do you really want to go back to the way the laws were in 1949? Expanding the protection of human rights and the definition of torture is not a bad thing.

	08-12-2004 21:13									#55
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Oerdin Please note that the treaty also defines torture very specifically.

Well, aparently in the 1980s, the world felt it didn't go far enough, and so expanded the definition of torture and the protections against it.

	08-12-2004 21:15									#56
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by MikeH That's because psychological torture methods have progressed a lot since those conventions were written.

I'd agree that the publics' perception of what was allowable in 1907 or 1949 is very different from public perception today but the fact remains that these are the treaties which every country agrees are the "Supreme laws of war". We are bound by them.

	08-12-2004 21:16									#57
	Inflate your Upload Space

Yes, that doesn't mean we can't be bound by newer more strict rules AS WELL. No-one's saying that the new rules break the GC, only that they enhance it.

What's so hard to understand about that? The US signed up to both and has to follow both.

	08-12-2004 21:17									#58
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara Well, aparently in the 1980s, the world felt it didn't go far enough, and so expanded the definition of torture and the protections against it.

Please note the claus about which treaty take precidence when conflicts arise.

	08-12-2004 21:17									#59
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Yes, that doesn't mean we can't be bound by newer more strict rules AS WELL. No-one's saying that the new rules break the GC, only that they enhance it.

If an action is specifically authorized by the GC, then any treaty banning that action is in conflict with the GC and loses out.

	08-12-2004 21:18									#60
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Not at all. The GC only covers warring parties in armed conflict.

Eh? Peace treaties cover warring parties in armed conflicts.

If the GC are the only laws that govern the state of war, then Peace Treates are illegal. So are Declarations of War.