1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.
2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.
3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.
Article 3
1. No State Party shall expel, return ("refouler") or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.
2. For the purpose of determining whether there are such grounds, the competent authorities shall take into account all relevant considerations including, where applicable, the existence in the State concerned of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights.
Article 16
1. Each State Party shall undertake to prevent in any territory under its jurisdiction other acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment which do not amount to torture as defined in article I, when such acts are committed by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. In particular, the obligations contained in articles 10, 11, 12 and 13 shall apply with the substitution for references to torture of references to other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
There are several points which need highlighting:
Section 1: torture is defined as severe pain or suffering, which means there must be levels of pain and suffering which are not severe enough to be called torture (often termed "cruel, degrading or inhumane treatment"). However, "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" is independently proscribed by Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Discussions on this area of international law are influenced by a ruling of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) on sensory deprivation.
Section 2: If a state has signed the treaty without reservations,[1] then there are no exceptional circumstances whatsoever where a state can use torture and not break its treaty obligations. However the worst sanction which can be applied to a powerful country is the publishing of the information that they have broken their treaty obligations. In certain exceptional cases the authorities in those countries may consider that with plausible deniability that this is an acceptable risk to take as the definition of severe is open to flexible interpretation.
Section 16: contains the phrase territory under its jurisdiction other acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, so if the government of a state authorises its personnel to use sensory deprivation on a detainee in territory not under its jurisdiction then it is suggested that that government has not broken its treaty obligations.
The above letter from the UN High Commissioner on Human Rights is directly related to the 2002 Convention as the U.S.A. did not sign the Treaty. Also noticeably absent from the list is ALL of the countries that have been identified as working with the US on the suspected transport and torture of POWs, excuse me detainee's or is it enemy combatants.
I know this is allot to digest but you have to have all the facts prior to explaining what was the thought process that this administration has used to conduct itself with citizens and non-citizens in custody of the State.
After 911 this country went wild, as we did after Perl Harbor, to seek and destroy the person(s) responsible for the attack in NYC. Like the McCarthy era it has become terrorists coming out of the wood work instead of communists. While we knew it was sponsored by a mid-eastern terrorist group it was not until President Bush identified Al-Qaeda and its leader Osama Bin Laden did we have a face and a target. With that we obtained permission from the Afghanistan Government to help rout Al-Qaeda and the Taliban from the mountains bordering Pakistan and to bring in "Dead or Alive" Osama Bin Laden to justice. As all of this was happening, the UN was trying to put into force the Treaty signed in 1984 and add new or reworded Articles as they had information that Articles of the Treaty were being violated by the United States in Afghanistan and other parts of the world.
Michael C. Morris has been involved in racing since the age of twelve (12) when he took a summer job working at Terry's Speed Shop located in Phoenixville PA.
With the help of his brother John Morris, they teamed up and joined Razzberry Racing. In the 90's, the team was building their own cars to complete in the Sports Car Club of
America's National Classes when in 1993 Michael joined Ed Arnold Racing with David
Donahue, son of the legendary Mark Donahue, to run in the 1993 IMSA Supercar.
Michael Morris is accredited and newly accepted journalist with the World Bank. Michael Morris as worked for ABC News Radio covering auto racing venues such as LeMans and SEMA.
His special interests in journalism are politics with special interest in the nation's court system, especially the Family Court System and the intentional use of children for profit by that system, and the special interest groups that control our nation's courts.
You are obviously living in another time when all that is written in those laws meant something - good for you. But that was before the Constitution became a "God-damn piece of paper".
We in live a lawless totally corrupt state now. Written laws have no meaning other than to suppress those unfortunate enough not to be able to enforce them. It's why the Attorney General can spit in our faces and brazenly tell us he's not going to do a damn thing about the crimes committed by an obviously criminal organization we refer to as our government.
But keep up that fight if it makes you happy. But please don't look for justice in what's become a Deadwood of nations.
by
Mr M (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 1427 comments)
on Tuesday, February 12, 2008 at 12:32:24 PM
But I still think that the People of the United States know the truth, and can find the time to care about the truth, that we do have the power to right this great nation.But it will take the courage demonstrated by our founding fathers to cast off this plague growing on our backs and restore the ideals and words, The Constitution and Bill of Rights, that our the true foundation of this nation.
Of course, it also could also mean the end of the greatest nation on the face of the earth to date.The choice is the peoples.
by
Michael Morris (18 articles, 0 quicklinks, 15 diaries, 300 comments)
on Tuesday, February 12, 2008 at 12:54:06 PM
Will you be willing to shed your own and other's blood for the 'saving of our state'? I believe that FEW of this "homeland" will be willing to do that and without that kind of STAND, the 'neocons' (read that nationalists .... [german:Nazis].....) will continue their pillage of our once proud nation even if they are not 'in office'. The "corporados" (read...fascists) have the controls regardless which group of 'the politic' is seated.
Lean 'dressing' would be highly advisible over the next decade; physical, fiscal, material; all the better to survive the upcoming onslaught. It will not be pretty!
by
Kahnaya Wasahtoha (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 28 comments)
on Tuesday, February 12, 2008 at 1:18:49 PM
I on the other hand am a Pragmatist and as such don't hold much faith in "the people". Maybe before this society became an under-educated, misinformed, lazy, spoil lot there may have been some hope of righting this ship but not from my vantage point is it going to happen. Too many holes in this ship to have it float much longer.
Believe me, I would be the first to say I hope I'm wrong. But from observation of recent acts by this so-called government I see nothing short of a revolution rivaling one that the Founding Fathers had to separate themselves from the oppression of the English Crown do I see any hope and even then I envision a descent into a Hell on Earth as our economy crashes, more wars for dwindling resources expand, loss of habitable land from climate change and population explosion produces forces beyond reason and allows the darkest elements of human-nature to propel us into a Dark-Ages we may never recover from.
I wish I could say something positive but every day that goes by, every article, book, news story I read gives me no hope we can escape the physical, emotional, environmental and economic damage we've inflicted with out coming away severely scared, if we come away at all. I see no reason to believe that as a species we haven't run our course and like other species that were stronger than ourselves vanished from this planet. Only with us we have had a major roll in causing our own extinction.
I take that back - maybe I'm more of a Fatalist as a Pragmatist, but believe me, show me a sign and I'm willing to change - but until then ...
by
Mr M (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 1427 comments)
on Tuesday, February 12, 2008 at 3:45:49 PM
We humans are mortal and the price of each of our one births is our one death.
Whether humanity progresses (or regresses) in our lifetimes can depend on nothing other than the people alive and active in our lifetimes.
Why not take a stand Mr M? Post another letter, send another email. Resist the regression that you see in your own way.
We humans look to each other for our signs and whilst you are still typing you are still one of us. There'll be plenty of time to be a fatalist when you are dead but your chance to stand for something other than yourself and to be appreciated for standing for it comes now while you are alive.
In the Vietnam war there was a monk that set himself on fire in protest. For seconds certainly and a minute possibly he was probably in agony. But he sent a message. We don't have to do those sorts of extreme things but if we choose to we could. Individuals can choose their degrees of heroism and/or villainy. There is power in being alive and the future is not yet written.
by
Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 2 quicklinks, 22 diaries, 1010 comments)
on Tuesday, February 12, 2008 at 8:38:26 PM
All I see here is the Congress stating that they will enforce this insofar as it does not interfere with the Constitution. What do you see wrong in that? You seem to think that just because we agree to something that the UN proposes, that it automatically makes us a defacto extension of Europe and that we should automatically do everything the way Europe does it. Sorry, but I believe in the Constitution and American sovereignty. Our membership in the UN is not absolute. It is by authority of the Congress by way of the powers granted by the Constitution. The Congress can pull us out of the UN at any time with the stroke of a pen. We are not subservient to the United Nations, the E.U., or anyone else. Implementing UN resolutions without taking our own Constitution or framework of laws into consideration would be a bigger crime.
by
Watching (0 articles, 1 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 313 comments)
on Tuesday, February 12, 2008 at 6:58:39 PM
All I see here is the Congress stating that they will enforce this insofar as it does not interfere with the Constitution. What do you see wrong in that? You seem to think that just because we agree to something that the UN proposes, that it automatically makes us a defacto extension of Europe and that we should automatically do everything the way Europe does it. Sorry, but I believe in the Constitution and American sovereignty. Our membership in the UN is not absolute. It is by authority of the Congress by way of the powers granted by the Constitution. The Congress can pull us out of the UN at any time with the stroke of a pen. We are not subservient to the United Nations, the E.U., or anyone else. Implementing UN resolutions without taking our own Constitution or framework of laws into consideration would be a bigger crime.
by
Watching (0 articles, 1 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 313 comments)
on Tuesday, February 12, 2008 at 6:59:36 PM
of the Constitution that states that all treaties signed and ratified become The Supreme Law of the Land...that means they are part of the Constitution.
While you are right and we could withdraw....at the time all of this was going down this treaty was part of our Constitution and therefore part of our laws.
by
Michael Morris (18 articles, 0 quicklinks, 15 diaries, 300 comments)
on Tuesday, February 12, 2008 at 7:05:32 PM
From your comments elsewhere I'd formed the opinion that you were Republican. In my experience Republicans in particularly tend to be very touchy about sovereignty and very confused about where treaties fit into the supreme law of the United States.
Sovereigns (nation states) can freely form contracts when it is in their interests to do so.
And contracts involve the forgoing of some freedoms (like the freedom to torture or launch aggressive invasions) in exchange for other freedoms (like the freedoms that come from having a rule of law where others will be less likely to do those things because they will incur the opposition of the many) are generally recognized as contracts that increase rather than decree the net amount of freedoms/benefits.
It seems that many Americans are of the view that any constraints on behavior or misbehavior in contracts and treaties made only apply to the non-American signatories to those treaties. Obviously that sort of wilfull self serving hypocrisy and ignorance is going to annoy non-Americans and the more it occurs the less trusted Americans will be and the more anti-American sentiment will increase because it will have a sound rational basis.
The nuttiest thing about the war on terror is that by using torture and aggressive invasions as tactics the United States is absolutely guaranteeing that the rest of the world will be more not less likely to use terror and to sympathise with terror as a tool against Americans.
When one is watching a fight between a small nasty meanspirited creature and large nasty meanspirited creature one tends to want to see the small nasty meanspirited creature not victorious but successful in doing its worst.
The Bush administration has cast America in the role of that large nasty meanspirited creature. No terrorists could have done that to America without the assistance of America. That was America's own choice.
by
Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 2 quicklinks, 22 diaries, 1010 comments)
on Tuesday, February 12, 2008 at 8:05:19 PM
Thank you for your comments and you are dead on target....
This War on Terror has created more terrorists than we started with, and with that same mentality being used by local law enforcement, it will not be long before something breaks and this country find itself in another war, an internal one.
by
Michael Morris (18 articles, 0 quicklinks, 15 diaries, 300 comments)
on Tuesday, February 12, 2008 at 9:42:13 PM
is that even though treaties become part of the Supreme Law of the Land, they cannot at the same time be in contradiction with the Constitution. If the U.N. passed a resolution that said citizens of member nations no longer have the right to elect their leaders, that they will henceforth be appointed by the U.N. and Congress adopted it, would you sit idly by and accept it? Of course not, because it violates your Constitutional rights. Congress has every right to ignore or alter any part of any proposed legislation on Constitutional grounds and that includes the adoption of U.N. resolutions.
by
Watching (0 articles, 1 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 313 comments)
on Tuesday, February 12, 2008 at 8:41:39 PM
is that even though treaties become part of the Supreme Law of the Land, they cannot at the same time be in contradiction with the Constitution. If the U.N. passed a resolution that said citizens of member nations no longer have the right to elect their leaders, that they will henceforth be appointed by the U.N. and Congress adopted it, would you sit idly by and accept it? Of course not, because it violates your Constitutional rights. Congress has every right to ignore or alter any part of any proposed legislation on Constitutional grounds and that includes the adoption of U.N. resolutions.
by
Watching (0 articles, 1 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 313 comments)
on Tuesday, February 12, 2008 at 8:42:28 PM
Isn't it remarkable that we are even discussing the acceptance of torture in this Country? After being leaders of the world against it, we have become leaders of the world DOing it.
I have to agree with the interpretation that the constitution is no longer top priority since it became the "goddamn piece of paper". Nice how the media doesn't play that clip over and over, eh? America would have rejected George Bush in a second.
I'm ready to shed some blood. It's plain and clear that this Government doesn't give a rat's butt about our Rule Of Law. The Senate voted against Dodd's bill and that included at least 20 Democrats voting against it. The corporations want immunity. The point of lawsuits is a smoke screen. What we would get with even one trial, would be the TRUTH about all the spying and just what and whom they were spying. You can bet it wasn't terrorists.
We are on Canada's "list of country's that torture". Britain has almost cashed us in as an ally for torturing their ppl. We have become the Rome, the imperialistic military power that whips every human being on the planet if they want to because they can.
I hope the UN holds our country accountable. However, the next Prez will probably just bow out of the UN and justify itself in that manner. Russia is getting wealthy(2nd largest oil holding nation in the world and their economy is rocking). CHina has 2400 miles of border with Russia and China's economy is rocking--largest growing middle class on the planet.
Call us a Superpower, but the only thing "super" about this country are ppl like you and me.
by
shirley reese (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 316 comments)
on Tuesday, February 12, 2008 at 7:18:27 PM
Do you have that "god damned piece of paper" clip?
I've heard others say Bush said it, and it is an extraordinary thing to say for a President that takes an oath to the Constitution, but probably a very George W Bush-like thing to say.
by
Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 2 quicklinks, 22 diaries, 1010 comments)
on Tuesday, February 12, 2008 at 7:42:15 PM
that the mentality of the people in control of this nation is that should it come to the point that they are about to lose it all, they will destroy the world in a bright flash rather than becomeing # 2 or # 3 in the world...
by
Michael Morris (18 articles, 0 quicklinks, 15 diaries, 300 comments)
on Tuesday, February 12, 2008 at 9:47:21 PM
17 comments
How would you rate this?
You must be logged in (if signed up) to do ratings.
It's free to signup! And easy. And takes just a minute or two....
Must Read (
Well Said (
News (
Touching (
Funny (
Supported (
Interesting (
Inspiring (
Valuable (
