Then you don't mind other nations kidnapping/imprisoning/doing bad things to US citizens abroad? After all, if you're not on your home turf, then clearly you don't deserve rights other than what the guy with a gun to your head feels like giving you. Not to mention the fact that the overwhelming majority of these people are captured in foreign countries. So we're essentially dragging them over here and saying , "Hah, now your a foreign national on US territory, so you have no rights!" Oh, I don't know, the hojillion other rights and priveleges given to Citizens that foreigners don't have? Can you seriously be so thick as to think that protection from torture is the single important difference between being a citizen and not?
Not to mention the fact that cluster bombs were droped in and near cities during the Kosovo War and was supposedly about humanitary concerns.
Special consideration is given. Citizens can vote, they can run for office, there's probably some important government jobs that non-citizens aren't allowed to hold (can you get, for instance, a non-American Supreme Court judge?), don't have to shell out thousands of dollars every couple of years to renew their right to stay in the country, so on and so forth. The fact that you think non-citizens don't deserve the same civil rights as citizens is pretty disgusting.
So you don't think that people are entitled certain universal rights? A fair trial. The right to due process. The right not to be punished without first seeing trial. You don't think non-citizens should have these things?
Tortured doesn't make people tell you the truth, it makes them tell you what they think you want to hear. Any intelligence gleaned from torture is unreliable at best. Soldier's are citizens, and yet they waive quite a few of these rights simply by being soldiers. They have court marshal instead of trial by jury, limitations on free speech, and may be punished without trial. just sayin' they ain't exactly universal.
Soldiers loose relatively few rights actually. And they had to sign a written waiver. You don't have your rights waived without your consent.
See, so we do have to define torture so the law courts and voters know what they're talking about. Thank you for your agreement. And most of them have signed on to human rights law, yes. If there ever was a time when a state's internal affairs were absolutely unquestioned by outsiders, including other states, it's long gone. Those 'trials' weren't trials because the verdict was already decided, Es, which defeats the whole point. Our trials don't work like that. In fact our trials forbid the use of evidence obtained under duress- including under torture. Would you like to draw some more false parallels? I don't remember claiming you didn't. If you go back far enough, sure. You can take lessons in governance from Tamerlane, the Khans, Ivan the Terrible, and the Romans. I would advance the theory that it's more use to us in the 21st century to look at rulers who were around...y'know, kinda more recently. If most of your 'great rulers' came back to life now, they'd be regarded as madmen and war criminals just like Saddam Hussein and Hitler. No, you're just talking out your hat and ascribing positions to me that I don't hold. A strict utilitarian ethicist might condone torture if it was the lesser evil. Simple.
Other than political activity, none of what you say are remotely applicable. A court martial is still a trial, just without a jury of your peers. As for punished without trial, what do you mean? Most countries all have laws and regulations specifying what kinds of punishment are applicable in which situations.
The US refused to be on the council and with good reason, the 'council' is a bad joke, the only nation it ever actually criticises is Israel and some of its current, past and future members have far, far worse 'human rights' violations under their belts than the US (or Israel for that matter) and they're still committing them. Painrack: Yes it is. If someone is caught in combat against you, and they're un-uniformed then their life is forefeit, if the suspician is very high that they've been in combat against you and they're armed then the same can apply if needed, if theres enough doubt then disarm them, and if you catch them armed again in suspicious circumstances, execute them. War doesn't allow for all the legalistic niceties of peacetime and innocent people will be killed sometimes despite reasonable attempts in the field to prevent it. Its genuinely sad and unfortunate but shit happens.
Yes you can. There are no qualifications for Supreme Court justices. A non citizen can be appointed. For that matter one can be on the Supreme Court with no legal background whatsoever.
For those not under the protection of the state, no we don't. You recieved no agreement fishpig. Stop wasting peoples time. UN agreements are more worthless than the paper they're written on when it comes to the security of the state. Then those 'confessions' weren't confessions because the 'confessions' were already decided upon and were the goal of the torture, not the truth. Gee that was simple. Oh thats right you didn't have the balls to just outright say it to me. "but I know that there are people around who think that 'Ethics' is a book by some dead Greek guy and so I wanted to provide something for them to chew on as well. " Because of course my viewpoint is only conducive with those blokes. I don't even have to go back, its happening today and will continue to happen into the future. And any 'list' I come up with includes probably the vast majority of rulers throughout all of human history the great ones with more stake in international affairs and more gifted at rulership are just the ones who probably had more cause. Are you claiming to be a utilitarian ethicist?, because we can have fun with defining "the greater good" all day So you support torture under certain circumstances. Good to know. Thanks.
Even if we accept your premise that the state protects its citizens from torture, the state still has to define exactly what torture is. Say the state's definition of 'torture' excluded waterboarding. What happens for one of its citizens subjected to it? Ah, shucks. I don't think there's a middle ground on this point. So...torture can't be blamed for results torture produces. Interesting. Those 'confessions' are as legitimate as they would be today if our police tortured them out of a suspect. The difference? Our courts would throw them out. Stalin's didn't. The facetious argument that we should abandon fair trials because the Soviets used rigged ones is a distraction. This is a public message board, Es. Anyone is free to quote and reply to anything. If I meant to say that you're a moral vacuum I'd have said so. So which 'great rulers' were you pointing to? Churchill? Roosevelt? Nehru? Because although torture has indeed been common practice throughout history, so was child labour and slavery and nobody's calling for them to be returned just because the great powers of the past did at times. If I was a strict utilitarian, I'd be pretty well bound to support torture under certain circumstances, wouldn't I? Those circumstances where the good gained from the act outweighs the bad of the act itself. As you say, defining the 'greater good' is a pain so it's easier and more ethical just to oppose torture on spec.
Why? What makes them less deserving of legal protections as anyone else? Whats more, your claim is more then this. You have stated that foreign nationals have NO protection what so ever. They don't vote. They don't live here. They don't get to do a great many things. Provide moral justification for refusing legal protection to everyone.
Not now, but back in the day it was possible. For example, John Marshal only had about a year's worth of legal education before being admitted into the Bar (even in the 18th century a legal education required abit more time albeit usually in a clerking position). But nowadays you generally require a judgeship (I think Federal is perfered) and of course (and since at least the Brennen nomination if not earlier) you must have the "right" politics.
The point is irrelevant. The process for appointing a SCOTUS justice means you will get someone with experience. Even the first justices if not with a great deal of legal experience had education and knowledge in government workings. So your entire point is a red herring.
It also criticised Rwanda and other geoncides before. Except that a good majority of them wasn't. If you read the testimony, what happens is many of them were detained while either in their homes, or were captured when on the streets when an IED or other action occured. And as for the legalistic niceties, war has very nice, legalistic rules regarding treatment of prisoners. Its very simple. Either the people you captured are either prisoners of war, prisoners of the Iraqi civil government, or you're unlawfully detaining people. Since the governance of those people are not under US or Iraqi civil jurdistiction, they HAVE to fall under the military definition of POWs, or the US is illegally kidnapping people. Let's use an example of tihs in real life. The Japanese executed, tortured, including using waterboarding and all the forms of torture that's being discussed here on asian detainees during WW2. Their excuse was it was in the interest of state security, and that they were GUERILLAs. The Sook Chin in Singapore for example, for which General Yamashita was executed for war crimes, even though he was only tangentially involved was described as a preventive security measure against known guerilla supporters, aka, people who had contributed to the KMT and CCP. The poor treatment of European civilians, those who had by some means or other remained in Malaya was justified by the fact that the Japanese had not signed the Geneva conventions, and even so, they were not Prisoners of War. Therefore, they could be illegally detained, tortured under suspicion of supporting the resistance and etc etc etc. There was no need to maintain records and communications with others, since, again, they weren't POWs. When they were caught smuggling rice and other supplies to the POWs in Changi, they were brutally tortured under suspicion of being a resistance movement. Under your definition of "torture", what the Japanese did was perfectly legal. Congratulations, you just justified the horrible treatment the Japs did to the Europeans and Australian detainees, the wives and children of Australian servicemen in Malaya and Singapore
DOh really?, did it it condemn it? what measures did it pass? Once again your unusual pre-occupation with the issue of 'legality' in all things is amazing. I've presented my arguments clearly on this matter. I have no intention of bumbling through yet another boring as fuck discussion with you on the matter of the real world vs your lawyering.
What legality? Your definition of torture is the exact same justification the Japs used. IOW, they weren't war criminals and you condone the multiple acts of brutality and atrocity done towards Australian servicemen and European dependents during WW2.
The Soviets never signed the Geneva Convention before WWII - Soviet soldiers were legally forfeited of their chance of being deemed as legitimate POWs by the Axis powers and were treated accordingly, but was it morally sound?
