Originally Posted by the_13th_redneck

The conduct of the prison guards on the prisoners was unacceptable, but I wouldn't go so far as to call it torture.
It's just the way you wouldn't call someone killing one other person a massacre.
Torture... that is not a word to be taken lightly. From a torture chamber, people emerge with missing fingernails, fingers, hands, arms, feet, legs, eyes, tongues... sometimes carved into the shape of a "pig." That is their hands and feet are cut off as well as the tip of their nose. All kinds of permanent mutilation. You think I'm making this up? And then there's rape (which certainly qualifies as torture). THAT'S torture. Being stacked up naked into the shape of a pyramid is completely unacceptable and it is certainly abuse (if anything of the authority the prison guards have been issued) I think it's a tad silly to call it torture.
When you shoot a guy (which is a heck of a lot worse than stacking him up in a pyramid shape while alive), you commit murder. You haven't committed a massacre nor have you committed an atrocity nor are you guilty of crimes against humanity.

The UN Convention Agaist torture gives a very clear definition of it:
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


For the exintence of torture you do not need many people tortured,with just one is enough.

I think the whole going into Iraq was debated like h3ll in here. And I think the charge that it was "illegal" is extremely ambiguous. I think all sides messed up badly in the runup to the war. Also remember, WMDs were actually just one part of the whole argument, but of course the one that got sensationalized both in the UN and in the press. There were other violations of 1441 that Saddam violated that the UN turned a blind eye to.

I think that given the UN secretary generals statements about the war not being the right thing to do indicate that it was illegal, and exactly how did "all sides mess up badly"?. I am sorry but we now do have the benefit of hindsight and Hans Blix and co must be smirking all the way to the bank now as they were spot on.

Anyway you asked why I dont just let the Americans have their reality and I have explained that reason basically because the US has gone from a nation that meddles in peoples affairs quietly to a nation that is trying to impose its will world wide and I consider that a bad thing therefore if I leave it until the point that it is affecting me then it will be too late.

Managed to keep it simple for times sake.

The UN SG's opinion does not make anything illegal. No more than the UNSC's opinion makes anything illegal. They are unenforcable opinions.

What people seem to forget is that membership in the UN does not mean a nation gives up it's freewill to self protection or self determination . No member Nation needs to seek the approval or permission from the UN for anything. The UN paper tiger.

Originally Posted by 03USMC

The UN SG's opinion does not make anything illegal. No more than the UNSC's opinion makes anything illegal. They are unenforcable opinions.

What people seem to forget is that membership in the UN does not mean a nation gives up it's freewill to self protection or self determination . No member Nation needs to seek the approval or permission from the UN for anything. The UN paper tiger.

You are wrong:

Charter of the UN

Article 39
The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.

Article 43
All Members of the United Nations, in order to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security, undertake to make available to the Security Council, on its call and in accordance with a special agreement or agreements, armed forces, assistance, and facilities, including rights of passage, necessary for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security.

Article 44
When the Security Council has decided to use force it shall, before calling upon a Member not represented on it to provide armed forces in fulfilment of the obligations assumed under Article 43, invite that Member, if the Member so desires, to participate in the decisions of the Security Council concerning the employment of contingents of that Member's armed forces.

Article 46
Plans for the application of armed force shall be made by the Security Council with the assistance of the Military Staff Committee.

Article 51
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.

http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/index.html


The UNSC has a LOT to say!!!!!!!!

Read Article 51 (as quoted by YOURSELF above, for future reference, reading what you copy before you past it might be a good idea).

Bwa ha ha ha ha ha!!!

The Charter of the UN is just that. A Charter. Bylaws of an Organization.


Not International Law. Not in anyway shape or form can it be construed as such. The most that can be effected by the Charter is removal of the Nation from Organization.

So yes they have a lot to say. Mostly US bashing as they get deeper into Oil for Food Scandals. But no they don't legislate anything.

Originally Posted by Redneck

Read Article 51 (as quoted by YOURSELF above, for future reference, reading what you copy before you past it might be a good idea).

I am the one that should laugh at you. Even english is your tongue language it seems that you do not understand. WHEN did Saddam attacked you?????????????????????????

yep....article 51 does not justify the invasion of iraq. in fact, pre emptive war is not covered...ummmmm. ANYWHERE


so, yes afghanistan was the right thing to do....evryone can accept that the US was completely in the right to attack afghanistan and depose the taliban. that's why no one really kicked up about it.


but when the gaze turned to iraq, thats when things got muddy for you, and you know what, i think you would've had a better chance of convincing the world what you were doing had the US attacked Nth Korea or Iran.

He presented a threat to our own security and that of others, but I guess a nod is as good as a wink to a blind man, eh?


And chewie, as 03USMC has said MANY times, world opinion has absolutely zilch, zero, nothing to do with whether our actions were right or not, they were right for our own security and that of our citizens. And that is the only justification I believe we need.