[NeedKarma]

Ex you are obssessed with "torture" of suspected terrorist, but have offered no solutions. This is all Monday morning quarterbacking. Anyone can complain and criticize but it does not hold water unless you can give us an answer as to what you would have done or what your solution is.

That kind of much sums up pretty all the threads in the Current Events section here don't you think?

[speechlesstx]

Hello again, Steve:

It got this far because you guys don't yet realize that torture is against the very notion of what the United States of America stands for. But, I ain't going to give up. I LOVE my country too much to see it devolve into madness.

Re:#42, you're right. But what I said DOES require a comment. Or do you think Reagan was a hard lefty?

Ex

PS> (edited) What?? I got to DRAG you into an argument with me??

Nah, but when someone mentions me by name I've usually made a recent comment. Here is what Reagan said to the Senate:

With a view to receiving the advice and consent of the Senate to ratification, subject to certain reservations, understandings, and declarations, I transmit herewith the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. The Convention was adopted by unanimous agreement of the United Nations General Assembly on December 10, 1984, and entered into force on June 26, 1987. The United States signed it on April 18, 1988. 1 also transmit, for the information of the Senate, the report of the Department of State on the Convention.

The United States participated actively and effectively in the negotiation of the Convention . It marks a significant step in the development during this century of international measures against torture and other inhuman treatment or punishment. Ratification of the Convention by the United States will clearly express United States opposition to torture, an abhorrent practice unfortunately still prevalent in the world today.

The core provisions of the Convention establish a regime for international cooperation in the criminal prosecution of torturers relying on so-called "universal jurisdiction." Each State Party is required either to prosecute torturers who are found in its territory or to extradite them to other countries for prosecution.

In view of the large number of States concerned, it was not possible to negotiate a treaty that was acceptable to the United States in all respects. Accordingly, certain reservations, understandings, and declarations have been drafted, which are discussed in the report of the Department of State. With the inclusion of these reservations, understandings, and declarations, I believe there are no constitutional or other legal obstacles to United States ratification, The recommended legislation necessary to implement the Convention will be submitted to the Congress separately.

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.

By giving its advice and consent to ratification of this Convention, the Senate of the United States will demonstrate unequivocally our desire to bring an end to the abhorrent practice of torture.

RONALD REAGAN

Sounded like he had his doubts, too. I'd love to be able to hear Reagan's opinion now.

[ETWolverine]

If we DON'T agree with the laws, and we only obey them when its convenient, then let's have THAT system.

You already do that, by yoiur own admission, vis-à-vis drugs... specifically marijuana. You have said on any number of occasions that you ignore the laws vis-à-vis marijuana because you don't believe them to be fair, just, whatever. You clearly only obey laws that you find convenient and disobey them if they don't suit you.

You know who else thinks our country is better than us?? That would Ronald Reagan. In fact, if you adopted Reagan's views on torture, you would be called a rabid score settler from the hard left. You'd be a Bush hater.

To wit: Convention Against Torture, signed and championed by Ronald Reagan, Article II/IV:

"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. . . Each State Party shall ensure that all acts of torture are offences under its criminal law."

Interestingly enough, though, Ronald Reagan's CIA tortured captured KGB agents and other foreign combatants captured by the USA. And that was REAL torture, not the so-called "torture" used at Gitmo.

Reagan was nothing if not a realist.

It's certainly true, of course, that Ronald Reagan was very pre 9/11, but the concept of a uniquely scary Islamic terrorists was hardly unknown. Our client, the Shah of Iran was overthrown by them in 1979 and they occupied our embassy; we funded and supported them in Afghanistan in the early 1980s; 280 U.S. Marines were killed by them in Lebanon in 1982; Jewish community centers in Argentina were exploded by them in 1984; and Reagan himself invoked their Grave Threat in order to justify the American bombing of Libya in 1986 where we killed the adopted infant daughter of its leader. We were bombing, occupying, interfering in and trying to control Muslim countries way back then, too.

Yet even with all those Islamic terrorists running around, Reagan insisted that torture could never be justified under any circumstances and that those who do it must be criminally prosecuted.

Excon

No... he left it to the CIA to deal with.

Furthermore, you ignore the definition of torture defined in Article I of the convention:

"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."

What was done at Gitmo did not constitute "severe pain and suffering", and was not "based on descrimination of any kind". There was no descrimination involved, and the "pain and suffering" was anything but severe, as seen from the memos themselves. Furthermore, these actions DID arise only from "lawful sanctions" as defined by the Department of Justice under the Bush Administration, and as seen in the memos.

Reagan would have had absolutely NO PROBLEM WHATSOEVER with what was done in Gitmo, because it didn't constitute torture under any definition, and certainly not under the UN Convention Against Torture.

Elliot

[tomder55]

The CIA ran School of the Americas under his watch.