W
WCFields
Rock Star
Silver Level
Think of it this way. Sometimes you just don't know, the greater good, and Mary Mallon.
What do y'all think about some Doyle's recent blog commentaries?
Think of it this way. Sometimes you just don't know, the greater good, and Mary Mallon.
Worak
Legend
Bronze Level
To the OP:
I don't mind Doyle having his (somewhat controversial) opinion,
but I find it unwise of him to broadcast in his blog as if he was an expert in politics and/or ethics.
Making a difference between "innocent prisoners" and "terrorists" the one being tortured wrongly and the other being tortured rightfully is complete BS.
germany has some history in torturing - most of you will know that -
but torture was abolished after WW2 - this was put into the constitution.
The allied control board (yes there were US in that, too) strongly insisted on that.
Now here a definition on torture (for all that don't know...)
Throughout history, torture has often been used as a method of effecting political re-education. In the 21st century, torture is widely considered to be a violation of human rights, and is declared to be unacceptable by Article 5 of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Signatories of the Third Geneva Convention and Fourth Geneva Convention officially agree not to torture protected persons (POWs and enemy civilians) in armed conflicts. Torture is also prohibited by the United Nations Convention Against Torture, which has been ratified by 145 states.
National and international legal prohibitions on torture derive from a philosophical consensus that torture and ill-treatment are immoral, as well as being impractical.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture#cite_note-2 These international conventions and philosophical propositions notwithstanding, many organizations (e.g. Amnesty International) that monitor abuses of human rights report a widespread use of torture condoned by states in many regions of the world.
And here where it applies to the US:
Ending judicial review of torture against terror suspects Main article: Military Commissions Act
In October 2006, the United States enacted the Military Commissions Act of 2006, authorizing the executive to conduct military tribunals of so-called enemy combatants and to hold them indefinitely without judicial review under the terms of habeas corpus. Testimony coerced through humiliating or degrading treatment would be admissible in the tribunals. Amnesty International and numerous commentators have criticized the Act for approving a system that uses torture, destroying the mechanisms for judicial review created by Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, and creating a parallel legal system below international standards.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture_and_the_United_States#cite_note-2Part of the act was an amendment which retroactively rewrote the War Crimes Act effectively making policy makers, i.e. politicians and military leaders, and those applying policy, i.e. CIA interogators and soldiers, no longer subject to legal prosecution under US law for what before the amendment was defined as a war crime, such as torture.. Because of that critics describe the MCA as an amnesty law for crimes committed in the War on Terror.
:deal:
I don't mind Doyle having his (somewhat controversial) opinion,
but I find it unwise of him to broadcast in his blog as if he was an expert in politics and/or ethics.
Making a difference between "innocent prisoners" and "terrorists" the one being tortured wrongly and the other being tortured rightfully is complete BS.
germany has some history in torturing - most of you will know that -
but torture was abolished after WW2 - this was put into the constitution.
The allied control board (yes there were US in that, too) strongly insisted on that.
Now here a definition on torture (for all that don't know...)
Throughout history, torture has often been used as a method of effecting political re-education. In the 21st century, torture is widely considered to be a violation of human rights, and is declared to be unacceptable by Article 5 of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Signatories of the Third Geneva Convention and Fourth Geneva Convention officially agree not to torture protected persons (POWs and enemy civilians) in armed conflicts. Torture is also prohibited by the United Nations Convention Against Torture, which has been ratified by 145 states.
National and international legal prohibitions on torture derive from a philosophical consensus that torture and ill-treatment are immoral, as well as being impractical.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture#cite_note-2 These international conventions and philosophical propositions notwithstanding, many organizations (e.g. Amnesty International) that monitor abuses of human rights report a widespread use of torture condoned by states in many regions of the world.
And here where it applies to the US:
Ending judicial review of torture against terror suspects Main article: Military Commissions Act
In October 2006, the United States enacted the Military Commissions Act of 2006, authorizing the executive to conduct military tribunals of so-called enemy combatants and to hold them indefinitely without judicial review under the terms of habeas corpus. Testimony coerced through humiliating or degrading treatment would be admissible in the tribunals. Amnesty International and numerous commentators have criticized the Act for approving a system that uses torture, destroying the mechanisms for judicial review created by Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, and creating a parallel legal system below international standards.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture_and_the_United_States#cite_note-2Part of the act was an amendment which retroactively rewrote the War Crimes Act effectively making policy makers, i.e. politicians and military leaders, and those applying policy, i.e. CIA interogators and soldiers, no longer subject to legal prosecution under US law for what before the amendment was defined as a war crime, such as torture.. Because of that critics describe the MCA as an amnesty law for crimes committed in the War on Terror.
:deal: