The great and all-powerful political thread!
- Thread starter Ender Rises
- Start date
Because we are high and mighty and have to show the world we are better then them... even though we still have the death penalty and a few other issues which doesn't shed good light on us... but anyways torturing a terrorist or anyone for that matter is counter productive because anyone will say anything to stop the torture therefor you do not know how reliable or truthful the information is...
Krigloch the Furious
Pants full of poo
challenge_everything
Active Member
Exactly. Torturing terrorists (or more accurately, terror suspects, since they have rarely been convicted) is basically the worst thing you can do because it is precisely those kind of actions which fuel the terrorists in the first place and allow them to gain the support or acquiescence of less extreme people.
Additionally, studies of countries that have had endemic terrorist problems (latin america, spain, ireland etc) have shown that terrorist attacks actually increase as the government passes laws restricting or derogating people's rights.
I didn't say that but are you going to trust information that someone under duress gives you and send in your soldiers to act on that information? ... could be a ambush for all you know or someone innocent could be named and then killed based on that information... then when its brought out that it was the wrong person or wasn't involved in whatever... who looks like the bad guy? ... yah.. the U.S. who relied on that info...
This iraq situation reminds me of a scene in the Godfather Part 2:
Michael Corleone: I saw a strange thing today. Some rebels were being arrested. One of them pulled the pin on a grenade. He took himself and the captain of the command with him. Now, soldiers are paid to fight; the rebels aren't.
Hyman Roth: What does that tell you?
Michael Corleone: It means they could win.
challenge_everything
Active Member
Torturing people makes you as bad as the terrorists. Have a read of Solzhenitysn's book 'The Gulag Archipelago' and then see how you feel about torture.
LithiumLulu
Member
- Jul 17, 2007
- 207
- 0
- 16
I know you meant that sarcasticly, but do you really think it's that bad an idea? Who are you more likely to share secrets with? Your bro with the pie or that asshole with the pliars?
I don't know how it is for everyone else, but my experiences with the police really shaped how I see authority figures and the potential for abuse that exists when we trust them to do the right thing.
Krigloch the Furious
Pants full of poo
they are terrorists! They want to kill you and everyone else. yet you wanna be nice to em?
challenge_everything
Active Member
Incidentally, I wrote a paper for my International Law class on the legality of the Iraq war a few years ago. It's not as clear cut as many would think. There is scope to argue a form of pre-emptive self defence, however, the justification for the existence of a threat to the US was pretty weak. My view was ultimately that it was against international law.
challenge_everything
Active Member
I didn't say I wanted to be nice to them. I wouldn't want to torture a man who killed my family just as I wouldn't want to torture someone who steals a loaf of bread. I would want justice in a manner that doesn't amount to barbarism.
challenge_everything
Active Member
Is this true? Actionable domestic law? That's not my understanding. Can someone else verify this? The US and its government would be facing litigation left, right and centre if this were the case, I could name countless breaches of treaties committed by the US in countless different fashions.
LithiumLulu
Member
- Jul 17, 2007
- 207
- 0
- 16
I don't know if it's true of not, but as a practical matter (as my lawyer is so fond of saying) who would do anything about it? And if they did get a judgement or finding, who would enforce it?
Article VI, paragraph 2
Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby
Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby
challenge_everything
Active Member
That's very different from my country. We're free to break our treaties as we please because international law has no domestic effect in Australia.
challenge_everything
Active Member
You'll find that the government is frequently a party to litigation and bound by decisions they don't necessarily like. If the Supreme Court found (or does find in future) that the trial of Guantanamo Bay prisoners in military tribunals was unlawful, the government would have to comply with that.
hibernal_dream
A Mind Forever Voyaging
But does legitimation of the military action depend on the existence of a threat to the peace?
There are arguments in favor of implied and/or assumed powers necessitating the use of force to fulfill the duties of the UN.
hibernal_dream
A Mind Forever Voyaging
challenge_everything
Active Member
When your asserted right to military action is based on self-defence, then the answer is yes.
But you're right in that self-defence is not the only basis you could mount a legal justification for the war. It just happens to be the strongest one. The UN Security Council can authorise the use of force but the US didn't get such an authorisation. What they effectively argued was that previous UN resolutions dealing with Iraq (mainly those made around the time of the Gulf War) were still applicable and created implied justification for the US to use force against Iraq on the basis of its non-compliance with those resolutions. It was a tenuous case to say the least.
challenge_everything
Active Member
Smart man. Have you studied law? Teoh means that treaties are a matter that has to be 'considered' by govt decision-makers where it is appropriate to do so, but it does not make treaties justiciable or binding in domestic law.
Similar threads
