The UN wants to put Bush on trial
- Smeghead
- Bear Hunter S
- Posts: 2409
- Joined: 15 Apr 2008, 23:46
- First Video: The Writers Room
- Location: *sigh* Haparanda, Sweden
- Contact:
The UN wants to put Bush on trial
Manfred Nowak, the UN specialist on torture matters (I'm not sure if I've translated it right), have requested that the US places Bush and Rumfeld on trial for the torture that occurred on Guantanamo, and he does have legal support for it.
He points to the UN anti torture resolution that the US have ratified and that states that all nations have to intervene to stop torture committed by anyone from that nation, and bring those responsible to justice.
I bet he's been waiting a long time for the day when he could say that, don't ya?
It's all about choosing the right moment...
He points to the UN anti torture resolution that the US have ratified and that states that all nations have to intervene to stop torture committed by anyone from that nation, and bring those responsible to justice.
I bet he's been waiting a long time for the day when he could say that, don't ya?
It's all about choosing the right moment...
- AlexanderDitto
- Better Than the First Alexander
- Posts: 4382
- Joined: 28 Nov 2007, 07:41
- First Video: Desert Bus 1: The Original!
- Location: Phailadelphia (Again)
- Contact:
- Smeghead
- Bear Hunter S
- Posts: 2409
- Joined: 15 Apr 2008, 23:46
- First Video: The Writers Room
- Location: *sigh* Haparanda, Sweden
- Contact:
and that on it's own is a sad thing. But sure they might have had it better.Please. The prisoners at Guantanamo have it better than some US citizens.
well except for during the actuall torture
I'm honestly not expecting anything to happend. It's seems to be a trend, if you like, that nothing will happend
-
- Posts: 298
- Joined: 05 Mar 2008, 21:36
- Location: Nanaimo
- Emperor Gum
- Posts: 2110
- Joined: 24 May 2008, 20:02
- First Video: Moving Out
- Location: Cheltenham, UK
- Contact:
- Red Charlie
- Posts: 1060
- Joined: 06 Mar 2007, 16:17
- Location: Northern Ireland
- Contact:
- spartanhelmet
- Posts: 1072
- Joined: 01 Aug 2008, 22:21
- Location: Perth, Phailstralia
- Contact:
SilentBobCDN wrote:So the UN is actually going to do something about something? Nice.
This...
It's almost like the UN is just humanitarian. Don't get me wrong, that's nice, but it's useless when they do nothing about the root cause - ie. the freakin' civil war taking place in <country here>.
I'm hoping Obama is supportive of this. He appointed a special prosecutor for an investigation, but who knows if he'll follow through. Did he backflip on the telecoms' immunity recently? Sure did...
"LRR för 4 av 5 toasts"
- Metcarfre
- Posts: 13676
- Joined: 08 Jul 2008, 13:52
- First Video: Not Applicable
- Location: Vancouver, B.C.
I'm a big fan of the UN. They do a lot that people don't know or care about. Many of the problems (ie. not stopping civil war "X") can be traced to member country's unwillingness to provide soldiers for peacekeeping.
As for Bush... I doubt it will actually happen. I'm not sure it would be a good idea.
As for Bush... I doubt it will actually happen. I'm not sure it would be a good idea.
*
- Master Gunner
- Defending us from The Dutch!
- Posts: 19383
- Joined: 29 Oct 2006, 12:19
- First Video: How To Talk Like A Pirate
- Location: In Limbo.
My big problem with the UN is with the security council. It has far too much power in the UN, and is entirely based on who the major powers coming out of WWII were. Countries which have veto power, and are completely opposed to each other.
Restructure the security council into something that makes sense, and the UN would probably be able to get a lot more done. Of course, guess who the only people that can do that are? That's right, the security council. Not even the General Assembly can overrule them, by my understanding, which is just wrong.
Restructure the security council into something that makes sense, and the UN would probably be able to get a lot more done. Of course, guess who the only people that can do that are? That's right, the security council. Not even the General Assembly can overrule them, by my understanding, which is just wrong.
Twitter | Click here to join the Desert Bus Community Chat.TheRocket wrote:Apparently the crotch area could not contain the badonkadonk area.
- Lyinginbedmon
- Posts: 10808
- Joined: 20 Dec 2007, 18:08
- First Video: BioShocked
- Location: Darlington, Co. Durham
- Contact:
- tak197
- Feito Com Fruta
- Posts: 9010
- Joined: 13 Mar 2007, 19:20
- First Video: How To Talk Like A Pirate
- Location: Stroudsburg, PA
- Contact:
The UN security council should just be integrated into the War Tribunal in The Hague. And technically, while the UN has some say, because Guantanamo Bay inmates are largely there because of the "War on Terror", any torture allegations can be labeled as "war crimes" and are covered by the War Tribunal.
At least that is what I remember from Recent History class and International Affairs class from High School.
At least that is what I remember from Recent History class and International Affairs class from High School.
- tak197
- Feito Com Fruta
- Posts: 9010
- Joined: 13 Mar 2007, 19:20
- First Video: How To Talk Like A Pirate
- Location: Stroudsburg, PA
- Contact:
metcarfre wrote:tak197 wrote:The UN security council should just be integrated into the War Tribunal in The Hague.
Wait... what? Do you even know what the UN does? Hint; they don't just charge people with war crimes.
That's why I said the SECURITY COUNCIL. Not the whole friggin UN.
Remember that International Affairs class I mentioned in High School? Yeah, a big part of that was the UN, what it's goals are, and so on. I even had to, during a class group debate, help choose which 4 of those goals would be cut if we were the UN and we were low on our budget.
During that debate, I managed to, almost singlehandedly, save the two goals the UN has with regards to women's literacy (using the logic that by getting rid of literacy education only, it would be as if we were saying that women can read the materials we provided, but they have to figure it out themselves).
slayer41 wrote:I have no problem with torture. If some scumbag terrorist knows something about a pending terrorist attack on U.S. soil then we should do whatever it takes to get that info out of him. Sure its not pretty but it would same some lives.
Protecting the rights of some people by denying them for others? No thanks.
Well, the problem with torture is that it doesn't generally work, and someone who'll fold under torture and start talking will generally do so whether he knows anything or not. If he doesn't know anything, he'll start making up lies to save his own hide.
More ideal is if you can trap someone emotionally, and convince him to plea-bargain in exchange for pointing out accomplices or higher-ups. Anybody who denies involvement when presented with contrary evidence either believes the evidence has been falsified, or is an utter fool.
Other than that, I have no issue with torture.
More ideal is if you can trap someone emotionally, and convince him to plea-bargain in exchange for pointing out accomplices or higher-ups. Anybody who denies involvement when presented with contrary evidence either believes the evidence has been falsified, or is an utter fool.
Other than that, I have no issue with torture.
In my opinion, if you have already denied another person their rights to life and liberty, such as by participating in terrorist activities, you have already willingly forfeited your rights and status as a human being, and your treatment is under the jurisdiction of the SPCA.davefp wrote:Protecting the rights of some people by denying them for others? No thanks.
- eiopqrtuwy
- Smartest SpamBot Ever
- Posts: 139
- Joined: 14 Nov 2006, 00:14
- First Video: Rejected 'Get a Mac' Ad's
- Location: San Rafael, CA, USA
- Contact:
I don't normally like to go off on rant's but this is just asking for it.
So nothing personal but <RANT>:
Well, thats all well and good, but according to my sources YOU are a 'scumbag terrorist who knows something about a pending terrorist attack on U.S. soil'.
So now what? Should I torture you until you talk? Would torturing you actually save any lives? And if you are unable/unwilling to give useful information, after what point, after what degree of torture should I stop?
And how sure of my sources do I need to be to justify tourturing/killing you? 10%? 50%? 90%? Do statistics even mean SHIT when you could be torturing innocent people?
IMHO - You're way too eager to sacrifice the human rights of yourself and others for supposed 'safety'.
If torture is only justifiable in a scenario which doesn't exist (100% certainty of guilt) then it probably shouldn't be justified ever.
~Eiopqrtuwy
PS what ever happened to "Innocent until proven guilty" anyways?
</RANT>
So nothing personal but <RANT>:
slayer41 wrote:I have no problem with torture. If some scumbag terrorist knows something about a pending terrorist attack on U.S. soil then we should do whatever it takes to get that info out of him. Sure its not pretty but it would same some lives.
Well, thats all well and good, but according to my sources YOU are a 'scumbag terrorist who knows something about a pending terrorist attack on U.S. soil'.
So now what? Should I torture you until you talk? Would torturing you actually save any lives? And if you are unable/unwilling to give useful information, after what point, after what degree of torture should I stop?
And how sure of my sources do I need to be to justify tourturing/killing you? 10%? 50%? 90%? Do statistics even mean SHIT when you could be torturing innocent people?
IMHO - You're way too eager to sacrifice the human rights of yourself and others for supposed 'safety'.
If torture is only justifiable in a scenario which doesn't exist (100% certainty of guilt) then it probably shouldn't be justified ever.
~Eiopqrtuwy
PS what ever happened to "Innocent until proven guilty" anyways?
</RANT>
Last edited by eiopqrtuwy on 20 Jan 2009, 20:16, edited 1 time in total.
Return to “General Discussion”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 35 guests