US opposes UN Convention Against Torture

fable · Post by **fable** » Wed Jul 24, 2002 12:17 pm

Yes, I know: it's ridiculous. But what's oddest about this latest Dubyah administration move is that the CAT was simply *optional.* It was a series of measures designed to make torture more visible, more internationally embarassing, and less easy to accomplish behind closed doors. It's already been accepted by a large number of nations, but there are a few significant holdouts.

Thus, the US thus joins Iran and Cuba in opposing international efforts to stop torture. Line up with all the democracies: good job, Dubyah!

HighLordDave · Post by **HighLordDave** » Wed Jul 24, 2002 12:29 pm

Have you heard what Dubya's rationalisation for this is?

Tybaltus · Post by **Tybaltus** » Wed Jul 24, 2002 12:38 pm

Have you heard what Dubya's rationalisation for this is?

Id like to hear it, because the way fable states it, it sounds like he is making another big "flop" idea.

Word · Post by **Word** » Wed Jul 24, 2002 1:00 pm

LMAO

(sarcasm alert )

HOW IN THE WORLD COULD WE ACCEPT THIS I MEAN WE DO HAVE AL-QUEADA MEMBERS TO TORTURE UH .... I MEAN INTEROGATE CAUSE THIS A BILL TO HELP THE TERRORISTS WIN IF WE ACCEPT IT THEY WIN YA KNOW CAUSE ITLL STOP US FROM TORTURING THEM AND THEREFORE WE CANT DISCOVER ALL THEIR LITTLE SECRETS LIKE THE KINDA THING WE WANNA KEEP FROM THE PPL ANYWAY!!!

WOO-HOO DUBYA ROCKAS(end of sarcasm )

fable · Post by **fable** » Wed Jul 24, 2002 1:18 pm

Originally posted by HighLordDave
Have you heard what Dubya's rationalisation for this is?

You mean, Steve Solomon's (he's the head of the US delegation) remarks that the Constitution prohibits "unreasonable searches and seizures"? Or that "as a matter of principle, unrestricted authority granted to a visiting mechanism is incompatible with the need for checks and balances"?

Hey, if it works for Libya and Syria, why not make it work for us? I mean, they're our natural allies...

Tybaltus · Post by **Tybaltus** » Wed Jul 24, 2002 1:23 pm

Oh boy, looks like Dubya has got another winner.

You know, I passed by a car on my way to high school that was covered with bumper stickers supporting Dubya. It said stuff like "Im so glad I voted for Bush." And things like "Thank you Florida!" It was pretty annoying to look at that, I mean hes done some things right, but for the most part, I think he is just improvising everything, or hes just not that smart.

Gwalchmai · Post by **Gwalchmai** » Wed Jul 24, 2002 1:30 pm

Originally posted by fable
You mean, Steve Solomon's (he's the head of the US delegation) remarks that the Constitution prohibits "unreasonable searches and seizures"? Or that "as a matter of principle, unrestricted authority granted to a visiting mechanism is incompatible with the need for checks and balances"?

Hey, if it works for Libya and Syria, why not make it work for us? I mean, they're our natural allies...

I'm not sure I understand. Is Solomon implying that the US already has a convention against terrorism in place, and therefore signing the international one would be superfluous?

@Tybaltus: What kind of car was it?

Tybaltus · Post by **Tybaltus** » Wed Jul 24, 2002 1:40 pm

The car? I wish it was a Yugo-that would be funnier. Unfortunetly it was a GMC SUV, so there isnt a whole lot of comedy there. Though, you could hardly see the car under all the bumper stickers.

Obsidian · Post by **Obsidian** » Wed Jul 24, 2002 3:11 pm

Perhaps it falls under the USA's our way or no way policy? I'm sure they'll come up with a new anti torture bill in 6 months... and take the credit for being enlightened etc.

I think its also part of the same mindset that keeps the US opposed to the world court. They don't want anything they do being judged by anybody else because frankly, nobody else can stop them from doing whatver the hell they want. By merely "opposing" it, they seem kinda sorta semi resonable.

fable · Post by **fable** » Wed Jul 24, 2002 3:41 pm

I'm not sure I understand. Is Solomon implying that the US already has a convention against terrorism in place, and therefore signing the international one would be superfluous?

No, he means that he sees the CAT as invasive to US territorial sovreignty.

Robnark · Post by **Robnark** » Wed Jul 24, 2002 3:51 pm

Originally posted by fable
No, he means that he sees the CAT as invasive to US territorial sovreignty.

uh, so essentially, their argument is that they will not back a proposal that takes away their right to torture who they want?

okay, maybe that was a bit harsh, but refusing to back a proposal of this sort is pedantic to say the least, and serves only to imply that the US government doesn't condemn torture.

HighLordDave · Post by **HighLordDave** » Wed Jul 24, 2002 4:42 pm

I think the main reason why Dubya doesn't want any part of the Convention Against Torture is that he doesn't want international inspectors showing up at Guantanamo Bay and looking in at what we're doing to the folks being held there in his "war" on terror.

PosterX · Post by **PosterX** » Wed Jul 24, 2002 5:18 pm

There seems to be some misunderstanding regarding what is going on here. It is not the CAT that is being debated here it is a proposed addition to the CAT which sets up an international inspection bureacracy. The US argument against it is not pedantic. The national government does not have the authority to grant access to state prisons.

RandomThug · Post by **RandomThug** » Wed Jul 24, 2002 5:46 pm

@ Fable

PosterX makes a good point, I think. Fable you got a link to this statement? Usually ya do. To me it sounds like the UN wants to make some changes to the CAT and america with its ability to CYA (cover your ass) is just making sure that states dont flip out because the UN can invade thier prisons etc...

There has to be a lot more to this then just "We want to torture people" Its just illogical.

thug

fable · Post by **fable** » Wed Jul 24, 2002 6:39 pm

Originally posted by PosterX
There seems to be some misunderstanding regarding what is going on here. It is not the CAT that is being debated here it is a proposed addition to the CAT which sets up an international inspection bureacracy.

The protocol finally gives the CAT some teeth, albeit baby ones, since any nation may object to UN inspections, and refuse them. Like I wrote earlier, its optional (and we all know no UN Assembly is ever going to vote restrictions on members found guilty of torture; the idea itself is laughable). Why is this bad?

The US argument against it is not pedantic. The national government does not have the authority to grant access to state prisons.

If the matter was as simple as you stated, then the US government would presumably have no problem with looking good before its international allies, signing piously, then prodding any proposed inspection system immediately into the US Courts for quick dismissal. Oh, too bad, the Bu****es could say; we tried, UN! No; the Bush administration is refusing to allow the matter to go before the law courts for a reason. And that reason is that they are quite afraid that inspections are not opposed in the Constitution, and that even a conservative Supreme Court (such as we currently have, stacked still with Reagan appointees) would throw out Dubyah's argument based on the 4th amendment principle prohibiting "unreasonable searches and seizures." The Bush administration definitely doesn't want to chance this.

As a result, the US has lined up against all its allies, and alongside Iran, Syria, Cuba, and Libya, in opposing the CAT protocol. It is also doing its damndest to convince others to vote the same way.

Here are a few links to the basic story from different sources:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0419/p07s01-wogi.html

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld ... -headlines

http://www.humanrightsforum.com/p/76/5e3933baa42c.html

HighLordDave · Post by **HighLordDave** » Wed Jul 24, 2002 6:47 pm

Originally posted by fable
The Bush administration definitely doesn't want to chance this.

Nor does Dubya want anyone looking in on our federal detention facilities, like the ones holding "material witnesses" from 11 September or the folks sitting in outdoor cages at Gitmo.

Tamerlane · Post by **Tamerlane** » Wed Jul 24, 2002 11:25 pm

Thats really sad to hear. After labelling countries as rogue nations, the Bush government is literally leading the States down that very path.

Tybaltus · Post by **Tybaltus** » Wed Jul 24, 2002 11:38 pm

Thats really sad to hear. After labelling countries as rogue nations, the Bush government is literally leading the States down that very path.

It is sad, indeed. But, as much as I hate to admit it, Im not surprised at all. I mean I forsaw problems when Bush got elected. Everybody in my school felt that same way to, I believe. My friends and I came to the conclusion about Dubya and his presidency: "Whatever doesnt kill us will make us stronger." Thats not a good way to think about a presidency, especially as its being viewed as an endurance run.

But, how surprised is everyone else? Bad things happen when a leader is slightly incompetent at the level of responsibility as a leader of a country.

Tamerlane · Post by **Tamerlane** » Wed Jul 24, 2002 11:52 pm

Well I had always been an admirer of Colin Powell, but he doesn't exactly want to get into potential conflicts with Bush and Cheney. I thought that he would guide the President through some of the more trickier situations, but alas it hasn't worked the way I expected it to.

fable · Post by **fable** » Thu Jul 25, 2002 12:35 am

Originally posted by Tamerlane
Well I had always been an admirer of Colin Powell, but he doesn't exactly want to get into potential conflicts with Bush and Cheney. I thought that he would guide the President through some of the more trickier situations, but alas it hasn't worked the way I expected it to.

Powell is a general who led American troops through a successful campaign. He's got a spotless record. He's a moderate. Right now, for all of these reasons, he's probably the man Dubyah fears the most. If things don't get better and Bush keeps digging himself into deeper holes, Powell could be put the next Republican Presidential candidate in 2004.

As a result, Dubyah has been busily snubbing Powell, and trying to make him appear as powerless as possible without kicking him out of the Cabinet. He has allowed Powell to make policy statements that were obviously agreed upon in advance (State Department heads don't create policy, they advise upon it, but they announced what the President decides), only to have Bush reverse him publically. Bush has also taken to sending lower level officials from other departments to major international crisis points where Powell was formerly seen as a strong, positive force.

Given Powell's ability to calmly see things through with determination, I wouldn't expect him to jump ship--not unless and until the snubs get much worse. But in the meantime, remember that Powell has zero influence with Bush these days.