OK, what I found so far is that section 2340 was last modified by public law 108-375 (HR 4200. The section assigned to it was the following:I haven't found the effective date other than it is one year after the regulations are adopted by the commission.SEC. 1089. DEFINITION OF UNITED STATES FOR PURPOSES OF FEDERAL
CRIME OF TORTURE.
Section 2340(3) of le 18, United States Code, is amended
to read as follows:
‘‘(3) ‘United States’ means the several States of the United
States, the District of Columbia, and the commonwealths, territories,
and possessions of the United States.’’.
It appears you complain about a crime where the law was changed after the fact.
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 08-25-2009 at 02:40 PM.
Eh, there's enough in the UN convention against torture and other agreements that the US ratified before Iraq to make me include mock executions as torture.
I complain about a law before the effect. The code statute seems to be overkill, simply clarifying and putting some federal teeth into what is already law so people like you can't try to weasel out of it.
But wait, who gets to determine when a child is annoyed, hm? And how can you even tell if a child is annoyed? It's not like they can tell you, can they? How do you know, for sure?Main Entry: molestmu-!lest
Pronunciation: \ mə-ˈlest \
Function: transitive verb
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French molester, from Latin molestare, from molestus burdensome, annoying; akin to Latin moles mass
Date: 14th century
Results
1. 1 to annoy, disturb, or persecute especially with hostile intent or injurious effect
2. 2 to make annoying sexual advances to especially to force physical and usually sexual contact on
As far as mock executions...the prisoner/detainee that information is wanting to be retrieved from while apparently witnessing an execution of another is neither physically harming, humiliating or degrading to the prisoner/detainee themselves.
Now IF the person that is perpetrated in the mock execution is being effected with either physical injury, humiliation or degradation...then violation of the law is certainly committed to that individual.
But there is nothing in law that states it's a violation of an individual's rights in witnessing that act.
And are you of the opinion that there is no such thing as mental torture?
So we are to assume that "witnessing" a mock execution is mental torture? Do you not think they are already under mental and physical distress just by being in the camp/prison?
How can one "force" anyone to witness an execution real or mocked?
The only way to force somebody to witness this is to bind them in such a way where they cannot move their head up or down or from side to side and wire their eyes open.
That would be in violation.
To me it looks like you wouldn't even have these people placed in holding since it would be "mental" torture to even have them existing in a confined space.
You forgot to answer my question about child molestation.
I tried making that point earlier. Our entire correctional system in this country involves putting criminals in ins utions where we know full well that they'll be physically assulted. Shouldn't that meet the definition of torture?
You're missing the point, again. The point is very real THREAT OF IMMINENT DEATH. If a person brings a gun into your cell, then points it at your head, you are being threatened with imminent death, which is considered torture. It doesn't matter whether or not you "see" the gun.
Being confined is not defined either by US law or by international standards as "torture". Threat of imminent death is. Nice try.
We don't "know" they'll be physically assaulted. There is a chance it may occur, which is why we have prison guards and whatnot. We don't 'accept' that abuse may occur and not guard them, and we certainly don't authorize physical assault, enshrine it into law, and have the guards perform it themselves.
Tell me Coyotes, what would YOU define as torture? Give me your concrete, surely-can't-be-twisted-around definition.
I never said the threat was being made to the detainee. I am referring to a detainee witnessing somebody else's mock execution.
Except that happened before 2004. The law was changes after the fact.
You still haven't answered my question about child molestation. How do you know the child is being annoyed?
So, you don't see how the belief that the person next door to you was just killed by gunfire might cause the fear of imminent death?
Or that the sound of a power drill being used in your room while you were naked and hooded might cause the fear of imminent death?
Why do you ask? And how does it pertain to this topic? I don't recall anything about detainee molestation being discussed or even the issue.
But...How do you know if a child is being molested? I would guess there is su ion...followed by investigation to be followed up with arresst and arrainment of the person suspected after all the proof is gathered.
As Chump said, I would think that mock execution would fall under our treaty obligations.
http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cat.html
I don't think anyone can argue that mock executions are used for this specific purpose. I agree that the above explanation would be better served by a more concrete definition, but I would argue that mock executions fall under this, and wouldn't be covered under "pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in, or incidental to lawful sanctions.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.
And yes, the Treaty covers everyone, not just lawful combatants.
What person in a prisoner of war camp wouldn't have fear of imminent death. The fear of imminent death would already be a factor in their mental psyche regardless.
Again...you wouldn't even have these people detained much less worried about what the rules of detainment were.
The ones not being threatened with imminent death.
It's to show that it's hard to legally quantify what torture is. You can do the same thing with nearly any kind of mental abuse though. It's obviously not easy to see, because it's mental. That doesn't mean it's not there.
You can get around mental abuse, if you really want to. I could argue circles with you, redefining child abuse to fit my needs, or, like you, arguing about who gets to make the decision on what is considered abuse or not. But we all know what child molestation/abuse is. And the same should go for torture.
So in other words, if we play dumb, turn a blind eye and don't condone it, it's not torture. I guess all the CIA has to do is turn over the detainees to some "independent contractors" and explicitly tell them not to torture those guys and then they're off the hook. After all, they won't have known that those detainees would be tortured. And if it happened, well they certainly didn't condone it.
Um, I'm the one who's been saying throughout this thread that there's no such thing as a concrete, surely can't be twisted around definition. I have my definition, you have yours. Let's take mock executions. If we're just talking about letting a detainee hear screams and a gunshot from the next room, I'll say no, that's not torture. Extremely unpleasant and unnerving? Yes. Torture? No. I don't think that's any worse than a police detective trying to get a confession out of a murder suspect by bringing up the death penalty. You've gone on record and said yes, it is torture. Okay, we disagree. Now what?Tell me Coyotes, what would YOU define as torture? Give me your concrete, surely-can't-be-twisted-around definition.
Way to conflate. There's a difference between a fear of death (hey, I might get hit by a car today) and an imminent fear of death (hey, a car is rushing to hit me headon at 100 MPH).
Additionally, the fear of death in these cases is ACTIVELY generated by the captors. They are DELIBERATELY INDUCING this fear in order to gain information.
That becomes very subjective. Cannot convict without solid definitions. We all have different beliefs of things worded in generalities.
Is a mock execution torture? That depends on the person I would say, if you are going to consider such things. Myself, I would prefer to be executed than being locked up for life. I would call it a relief, not torture.
Perspectives and points of view are hard to legislate. Without specifically mentioning threats of death, as a form of torture, you cannot call it torture in my opinion.
That's already happened... see extradition...
But the difference is that we take active steps to PREVENT those conditions in jail. Guards/jailors aren't the ones performing the torture.
You may say it's not torture, but the majority of medical professionals and legal scholars say it is. Who should we side with?
Your false equivalence is the same as saying, "Well, I think that child molestation is bad, but NAMBLA says its ok. How will we ever determine what's right and moral?"
Mock executions are a fun pastime for the whole family.
Yes, fear I would say is the primary focus of psychological torture.
Do you think terrorists fear dying?
To me, that's like saying you can't prosecure child molestation unless you specifically list the acts in the bill against it.
extradition, or do you mean rendition?
Extradition and rendition are two entirely different things, and often confused (purposely by the left.)
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
