Make sure not to use the "T" word....it's interrogation or enhanced interrogation.WoodPeckr said:
Damn, George C. would love this stuff.
Guantanamo Khadr interrogations
- Thread starter danmand
- Start date
Damn, George C. would love this stuff.
I now know why the US did not ratify this:
"The Committee on the Rights of the Child is the UN body of experts responsible for monitoring countries’ compliance with the Convention on the Rights of the Child and its two optional protocols, including the protocol on the involvement of children in armed conflict. The United States ratified the optional protocols in 2002, but is one of only two countries in the world that has not ratified the main Convention on the Rights of the Child (Somalia is the other)."
They have over 500 Iraqi children imprisoned.
http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2008/06/06/usint19041.htm
"The Committee on the Rights of the Child is the UN body of experts responsible for monitoring countries’ compliance with the Convention on the Rights of the Child and its two optional protocols, including the protocol on the involvement of children in armed conflict. The United States ratified the optional protocols in 2002, but is one of only two countries in the world that has not ratified the main Convention on the Rights of the Child (Somalia is the other)."
They have over 500 Iraqi children imprisoned.
http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2008/06/06/usint19041.htm
Rather that the usual, smug, knee-jerk criticism, I would ask, what do Somalia and the USA know (or fear) that the other 190 member states do not?gryfin said:
Here is one answer, doesn't sound like a new issue.... can't speak to the quality of the source.....The Crunge said:
OTB
Even Alone, We Can Still Be Right
By David Horowitz
FrontPageMagazine.com | Wednesday, December 15, 1999
Los Angeles Times | November 26, 1999
THIS YEAR MARKS the 10th anniversary of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and of the failure of the United States Senate to ratify the convention, although 191 other nations have already done so. The same fate has befallen similar agreements like the 1979 Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women and last month's Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Many Americans who think of their country as socially progressive are embarrassed by its failure to endorse these noble-sounding agreements. Yet there is good logic and sound principle behind the decisions to reject them.
The near unanimity of support should itself be a cause for suspicion. Among the champions of children's rights are the tender dictators of Cuba, Iran, Libya and Iraq. Among the opponents of discrimination against women is Saddam Hussein, a respecter of no rights. Among the endorsers of a test ban is communist China, the most notorious proliferator of nuclear weapons.
There is a simple reason for this: The treaties are all unenforceable.
In the absence of a world government, universal agreements have no teeth. Tyrants who are able to control information and deny their subjects due process to redress their grievances can afford to sign any agreement and then ignore it at will. It was this logic that allowed the communist police states to call themselves "people's democracies" and to sign arms control agreements during the Cold War that they did not keep.
Universal treaties have a different significance for democracies like ours. Senate ratification of the test ban, for example, would have meant that the United States--an open, democratic (and litigious) society--would have been bound by the terms of the treaty, but that its despotic and treacherous antagonists would not. Opponents did not see benefit in sacrificing America's ability to defend itself for an abstract goal, arms control, that historically has not worked. (The Antiballistic Missile Treaty, for example, has prevented the United States from developing a shield against missile attack for 15 years, but hasn't prevented Russia from repeated violations, including the building of an underground shelter the size of Washington.)
A skeptic may interject that military defense is one thing, while the rights of women and children quite another. So what if the test ban treaty is unenforceable in China? Or anywhere else in the world for that matter? Why is this an argument against a convention on children's rights? Why not embrace the conventions on human rights for their own sakes and spread their benefits at home?
The answer to these questions marks a dividing line between Americans who appreciate and want to conserve the uniqueness of the U.S. Constitution and Americans who want to rewrite it. The Constitution is a contract that has guaranteed the American people more rights over a longer period of time than the written constitution of any other nation. The U.N. conventions are based on a radically different and opposed understanding of the nature of government and civil rights. To sign them would open a Pandora's box of challenges to our existing, constitutionally based system of laws. Why risk this conflict for an agreement that is at best an empty piety where true oppression is concerned and at worst a fig leaf for that oppression?
In other countries, the U.N. conventions may be toothless, but here they would threaten a system developed over 200 years based on the philosophy of liberal individualism and the ideas of limited government and self-rule.
By contrast, the universal treaties have their origins in the U.N.'s 1947 Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Unlike our own Bill of Rights, this document regards rights not as strict limits to what government may do but as limitless entitlements to what government must provide. The U.N. conventions are based on a philosophy of collectivism and a vision of the guardian state that has been developed in opposition to the framework created by the American founders. Not surprisingly, the U.N. declaration was supported and ratified by Josef Stalin, the most ruthless tyrant in human history.
Why would we want to step into a quicksand like that?
© 1999 Times-Mirror Company
All the more reason for a 'fair trial'.onthebottom said:
What does Team 'w' have to fear then!....
Interesting. But that being the case, why is the U.S. even a member of the United Nations? They laughed in its face in the buildup to Iraq and clearly have fundamental differences in philosophy. I guess it's just for show.onthebottom said:
Many Americans ask themselves the same thing, what is the value of a democratic organization made up of dictators....... The UNSC is of some value, because it reflects the real power in the world.The Crunge said:
OTB
That is a fair request.mmmburritos said:
First, when the americans (or was it Nato) found a 15 year old boy in a war zone in Afghanistan, I think he should have been returned to Canada where children's Aid Society could have taken him as a ward, and the canadian courts could have dealt with his crimes. It has been stated that the americans kept him, because his father has high connections in Al Quada.
That, to me, is punishing him for his fathers sins. Take costody away from his parents.
Now, I am not sure the US is to blame for keeping him in Guantanamo for 6 years. I believe that he is the only "foreign" national still kept in Guantanamo. All others have been returned to their respective countries, at the request of their countries. I blame Canada for not requesting his return to Canadian justice, like every other allied country has done. Here Canada charters a private jet to get a women back from Mexico convicted of money laundering, but leaves a boy to years of "advanced interrogation" in Guantanamo.
I reject the idea that there are more than one single class of canadian citizens. I know some members here think that native indians or recent immigrants, or muslims, or sikhs are less canadian than themselves. I believe we are all equal for the law in Canada.
I suspect that Khadr when this is over, will sue the canadian government, and receive a large settlement, just like the guy who was sent to Syria for "advanced interrogation". Then we will all pay.
looks around
What, it's not all the American's fault.....
circles date in calendar
I bet Chomsky would disagree.
OTB
What, it's not all the American's fault.....
circles date in calendar
I bet Chomsky would disagree.
OTB
If the US had an atoms weight of evidence against him he would have been charged years ago. why are they holding him without charge for several years. even the most complex of cases come to court in a few years!
You don't treat 16 year olds like that, heck we don't treat 16 year olds who murder and knife people on the streets like that, 16 year old rapists get better treatment
As the guy from reprieve was saying, if you've got evidence, charge him
You don't treat 16 year olds like that, heck we don't treat 16 year olds who murder and knife people on the streets like that, 16 year old rapists get better treatment
As the guy from reprieve was saying, if you've got evidence, charge him
But but but but, that thinking doesn't square with the way Team 'w' fascists think!....Lustology said:
I guess you don't realize that Afghanistan is a different country with different rules. Does this mean you side with Bush's idea of imposing Western values on other peoples?danmand said:
So when other groups use children to fight against the US, the US should just chastise them and send them home to the parents who wanted them killing in the first place?gryfin said:
I think this is a big example of the hypocrisy of the "anti-war" types. They figure we should go around imposing some values all the while complaining about the imposition of others.
You have an interesting interpretation of hard evidence. It is hard evidence that he was there. There is hard evidence that he was shot in the back. Everything else, including being unarmed, can only be based on witness accounts, not forensic evidence.gryfin said:
Although I am not sure that I agree with it, there is enough reason to consider the Taliban captives as prisoners of war and it would therefore be justified to hold them (without the need for trial) until the war is over; as far as I know, the Taliban have never signed an armistice.WoodPeckr said:All the more reason for a 'fair trial'.
What does Team 'w' have to fear then!....
***************danmand said:
Since when have you become judge and jury based on personal opinions.
You seem to have enough of them yourself but no one has suggested you go back to anywhere.
Canada belongs to all Canadians period. Now if you don't like that idea well.......
Which, to danmand's point, is why most countries have taken their citizens....basketcase said:
OTB
