'No exceptional circumstances whatsoever... may be invoked as a justification of torture.'

[blueduck37.livejournal.com]

*Explanation of subject title... here.

(PS- Regarding the second word balloon in the fourth panel... judging by a certain recent entry here, it's sad how good Tom Tomorrow is at anticipating wingnut memes. As the above link shows, recognizing that torture is wrong didn't used to be a partisan issue.)

Comments

[texas-reddmann.livejournal.com]

*Explanation of subject title...

Thanks for that, and spot on. I'd love to see the local Reaganites argue that one...

[xforge.livejournal.com]

< HARRUMPH >

< CHANGE SUBJECT >

Every time, guaranteed.

[jlc20thmaine.livejournal.com]

I know it must be an oversight, but ther is no mentino of Pelosi or Reid or any of the other high ranking dems and what they knew of the "torture" and what they did to stop it.

[xforge.livejournal.com]

And again, not the point. Is the point about the people who ordered the torture, or the people who were told about it?

Hey JLC, I'm gonna go hold up a liquor store.

There, now I can arrest you for not doing anything about it.

See how fucking ridiculous that sounds?

You really just don't fucking get it do you? The people who were told about it are not the hot issue. The people who actually did the thing the people were told about are the important ones. Let's have an investigation of who did what and when and who told whom and when and see what shakes out. Then you can talk.

What the socialists here won't admit

[reality-hammer.livejournal.com]

Is that there has always been a debate over what constitutes torture:

Should the Senate give its advice and consent to ratification of the Convention, I intend at the time of deposit of United States ratification to make a declaration pursuant to Article 28 that the United States does not recognize the competence of the Committee against Torture under Article 20 to make confidential investigations of charges that torture is being systematically practiced in the United States. In addition, I intend not to make declarations, pursuant to Articles 21 and 22 of the Convention, recognizing the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and consider communications from States and individuals alleging that the United States is violating the Convention. I believe that a final United States decision as to whether to accept such competence of the Committee should be withheld until we have had an opportunity to assess the Committee's work. It would be possible for the United States in the future to accept the competence of the Committee pursuant to Articles 20, 21, and 22, should experience with the Committee prove satisfactory and should the United States consider this step desirable.

And that prior to Obama's attempt to distance himself from Bush by publishing these documents while still maintaining the same programs there wasn't any peep of dissent from Democrats over what the CIA was doing.

So indeed, "why is this still being debated"?

Re: What the socialists here won't admit

[blueduck37.livejournal.com]

And that prior to Obama's attempt to distance himself from Bush by publishing these documents while still maintaining the same programs there wasn't any peep of dissent from Democrats over what the CIA was doing.

That is 100% bullshit.

One of the big reasons that Obama released these memos despite fighting doing so-- besides the FOIA request and other legal reasons-- was pressure from the left. If you don't think Bush's critics have been just as hard on Obama over his refusal to fully end Bush-era policies (and so glad we all agree they should be ended and investigated), then go read Glenn Greenwald's daily posts, Digby, TPM, or any number of top liberal sites.

As for the quote you posted, it is irrelevant. The law signed by that President, still the law of the land, which was never questioned until President Bush deemed himself The Unquestionable Decider states-

Article 1.
1. For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
2. This article is without prejudice to any international instrument or national legislation which does or may contain provisions of wider application.

Article 2.
1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.
2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.
3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.

This is the law. Period.

Re: What the socialists here won't admit

[jblaque.livejournal.com]

"and so glad we all agree they should be ended and investigated..."

Not so fast, there. I don't think that's what our friend Private Pyle here said. Nor what he believes. Most of these mouth-breathers are still convinced that torture is OK as long as we're the ones doing the torturing. Either that, or they'll dumb-dance you to death on the definition of "torture" vs. "enhanced interrogation."

Go ahead, ask him. See if you get a straight answer.

Re: What the socialists here won't admit

[texas-reddmann.livejournal.com]

Gomer's gonna be mad at you, even he knows an insult like this...

Re: What the socialists here won't admit

[texas-reddmann.livejournal.com]

And considering this was signed by his hero, I'm still shaking my head at the back and forth logic used.

Re: What the socialists here won't admit

[jblaque.livejournal.com]

I've always enjoyed re-reading this from time to time. You might, too.

http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn06112004.html

Re: What the socialists here won't admit

[xforge.livejournal.com]

I got an idea, why don't we just define torture the way Ronald Reagan did when he signed off on that treaty 30 years ago?