View Full Version : Would Torturing Zubeida be Justified
04-04-02, 08:19 AM
According to The Independent (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/asia_china/story.jsp?story=281067), it is possible that the CIA would use methods amounting to torture in extracting information from this Al Qaeda suspect. Whether the story is based in fact or not, it raises some interesting questions.
Would torture be justified, and why? Suppose you knew that the information you could get by torturing Zubeida would save an innocent life? Suppose it would save 10,000 innocent lives? Is there any point at which you would say that torture becomes morally justified?
In my opinion, the United States should never resort to torture. No matter how useful it might seem in the short term, it will hurt us in the long term. The scary truth is that it is not possible to make ourselves completely safe from people who are willing to die to hurt us. Increasing our willingness to commit brutal and cruel acts will not deter them. It will validate their hatred of us, at least in the minds of future generations, and keep a fresh supply of terrorists coming.
I also think it's a very slippery slope. If we'll torture a potential terrorist, why not a suspected child molester? What happens when we torture someone and learn nothing? Or an innocent person? I don't want to live in a country that tortures people.
04-04-02, 11:04 AM
What if Zubeida had the blueprints of plans for another 9/11? You dont think that would be reason enough for torture? I dont want to live in a country that tortures people. But I dont want to live in a country where terrorists are blowing up all of our people and buildings either :bugeye:
04-04-02, 11:49 AM
After all, we all have to die sometime. So the question is:
Would you wan't to die a man(or women), or live like an animal???
04-05-02, 07:13 AM
Originally posted by *stRgrl*
What if Zubeida had the blueprints of plans for another 9/11? You dont think that would be reason enough for torture?Not. Ever.
In my opinion, it would simply be better for the U.S. to be destroyed rather than for that to happen. If we don't honor human life and human rights, then what's the point? Why even bother of being proud of America if we're not the land of freedom and inalienable rights?
One thing the "bring-out-the-rubber-hoses" crowd seems to be overlooking is that torture involving physical pain is probably the least effective methods of obtaining information. Its effectiveness is certainly doubtful when the subject is someone willing to impale himself or herself in a fiery crash into a building.
I despise what these guys have done, and the blind stupid cruel mind-set that allows them to blithely and self-righteously murder the innocent. But you're kidding yourself if you think they're physical cowards. Beatings and physical pain are just likely to seal their lips and cement their beliefs that they're on the side of God and that much closer to glorious Paradise.
One of the unfortunate aspects of torture derives from the extreme motivational factor on the part of the victim (or subject if you prefer). The victim wants it to stop; he will lie to the interrogator. Of course - who wouldn't? The interrogators problem comes with verifying the answer. Boiled down, unless the interrogator already knows for certain that the victim knows the answer and the interrogator can confirm that answer, the answer is useless.
Thus, torture is worse than cruel and morally depraved. It is ineffective cruelty.
04-05-02, 08:53 AM
If you <i>knew</i> it would save 10,000 innocent lives, surely torturing one person would be a small price to pay. The problem is, you can never know that kind of thing for sure in this kind of situation.
04-06-02, 09:11 PM
it would never, COULD never be justifided
it IS better to perish than to compamise you ethics because once they are comprimised you no longer exist
Times like this I'm glad I have few ethics and morals.
In the end my ethics are erased if it's going to benefit such a large crowd.
I look at you and say that's the stupidest question I've ever heard. "Hey, what situation would you rather have; (a) you hurt a terrorist; (b) 10,000 innocent people die??"
04-06-02, 11:42 PM
and so it ends
the end of indevidual freedom, and human rights. That parth is so black i don't even want to TRY to see where it would lead
Machiavelli said that he loved his country more than he loved his soul.
I'd sacrifice my ethics. But, my god, torture is a horrible thing.
Die like a man or live with an animal? Oh yes, I would rather die than torture somone. But, I do not have the right to make that choice for 10,000 people.
Goofy, you perhaps do not understand the full dynamics of torture. It is not merely the infliction of pain, but has the aim and effect of degrading the victim, of twisting thier mind. More modern torturers, such as in the USSR, used tactics such as sleep deprivation, psychological manipulation as well as pain.
Thus, it could be possible to extract accurate information.
Asguard, if one person is tortured, that will not necessarily lead to the end of freedom and morality. If it were a government, perhaps, but an individual's morality is fluid.
If worst came to worst, I could kill myself out of shame and prevent any 'contamination' from spreading.
The bad aspect comes from that if we start, where do we stop? If we started torturing one person it could get worse and worse until torture was routine.
Here's my oath to you. If it comes to the point where we have a guy that holds in his hands the knowledge to save thousands of innocent human beings, I will torture him for you. As an individual I will take him from your government and torture him.
I will get the info and save thousands of lives.
Will you thank me or kill me?
It's up to you. But this way it saves the government from being condemned and saves the lives.
I'd kill myself to save thousands, without a doubt. Hell, I'd likely kill myself to save a couple hundred.
04-07-02, 12:03 AM
Terrioist is a convent lable so no-one has to think of them as members of the human race. We are ALWAYS trying to distingush ourselves from the enermy.
As to 10000 lives i like to take pacards words out of the latest startrek movie (can't rember the name)
how many people dose it take BEFORE it becomes wrong?
04-07-02, 12:05 AM
Your message came as i was writing mine.
I would sacrifice MYSELF to save 1 life but i wouldn't kill to save 1000000000 lives
I'll take up Tyler's oath.
If I can be reasonably sure that we have the 'right' man:
I will commit torture to save others
I will destroy my honor to protect my government's
I will commit this atrocity to spare my government from doing so
If it comes to that
Terrorists are human, but so are murderers and rapists. We protect ourselves from such, whether or not they are human.
The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
I don't like torture. I don't like the idea of torturing someone to save lives. I would feel bad doing so. It would be totally against everything I see as good about humanity. However, I could not let my own personal philosophy and feelings kill thousands of other people. Duty before desire.
04-07-02, 12:30 AM
why is it that we don't torturing rapests and murders. Come to think of it we don't even kill them because its wrong. It makes us as bad as them. I would die for my country with out a thought, i could never kill for it.
Well Asguard, you're lucky there are people around who will kill for the safety of people like you. Without killers, you would be speaking German right now. You might even be in a labour camp. Get used to it. Killers keep you safe. I'm so very glad to know that you would not sacrifice your precious principles to keep me and my family safe.
04-07-02, 12:38 AM
as i said i would sacrifice MYSELF for anyone in a heartbeet but i wouldn't, COULDN'T kill
04-07-02, 12:45 AM
i have NO sympathy for rapests (a little maybe for a murder depending on why they did it) my problem is that once you sacrifice your ethics where dose it end. Please concider this thread and answer:
04-07-02, 05:16 AM
Dunno who this independant mob is, but the whole thing smacks of being a fabrication... why the hell would anyone in this day and age use torture, when there are drugs available which would do the job twice as effectively and without the risk of the victom merely saying anything to stop the pain?
If it WERE true though.. I'm with Asguard and Goofy on this one. If we do it once, there's nothing to stop us doing it again... and again... and again. Dont break down this wall, or we all will pay the price in losing individual rights in the long term.
I just remembered what my instructor in recruit school told us about beng captured and interrogated.
"I'm not going to tell you to be tough and try your hardest to keep your mouth shut. You probably couldn't anyway. But the fact is people don't have to torture you any more, and they couldn't be bothered. They'll just shoot you full of drugs and you'll be singing like a canary."
04-07-02, 08:43 AM
Then why not do that?
Still, the ethical question remains. Would you torture someone to save the lives of many.
Unquestionably yes. I'm glad I have the ability to look at things more logically.
Like I said, it's a choice:
(a) you torture one man who is a terrorist
(b) you let hundreds/thousands of innocent civilians die
Which would you rather have? That's all it should come down to.
Which is the better option?
How about this (to asgaurd, goofy, barney) - We'll not torture the person, won't get the info and then your loved one will die. If you're spouse, loved-one, family memeber... died, would you still say; we did the right thing? Would you still feel glad in your choice?
04-07-02, 09:41 PM
Originally posted by Tyler
How about this (to asgaurd, goofy, barney) - We'll not torture the person, won't get the info and then your loved one will die. If you're spouse, loved-one, family memeber... died, would you still say; we did the right thing? Would you still feel glad in your choice?A suspected terrorist is walking down the street and asks a stranger for directions. It is a somewhat complicated destination, and several minutes pass. Law enforcement officials monitoring the suspect's movements take note. Later in the week the suspect, and all of those he spoke with are swept into custody because of some "credible threat" to our nation's security.
How about this (to Tyler) - We'll torture the person. If it were your spouse, loved-one, family member, would you still say we did the right thing? Would you still feel comfortable with your choice?
04-08-02, 02:53 AM
Tyler its a hard question but i would have to say that if we sacrifice our ethics then we are no better than them.
Also where dose it end?
At what point DOSE it become wrong?
See now goofy, that's changing my view on the situation. We never got into this but torture is something that should only be done under incredibly justifiable situations. Such as a KNOWN terrorist. Soemone who we can prove, under law, has played a part in a terrorist act.
My spouse, friend.... whatever, would not be a convicted criminal, now would they?
And Asgaurd - It's wrong off the bat. Torture is wrong, period. But like I said, I would rather sacrifice my ethics to save the thousands of lives than kill the thousands of innocent people.
04-08-02, 08:28 AM
Originally posted by Tyler
We never got into this but torture is something that should only be done under incredibly justifiable situations. Such as a KNOWN terrorist. Soemone who we can prove, under law, has played a part in a terrorist act.I understand. So has Zubeida been convicted? This is not a challenge, I truly do not know.
To phrase the question thus: Under what circumstances should the United States torture a suspect, or actively endorse or promote the torture of a suspect by a non-American party?
The answer is simply: Absolutely never.
First, to address Barney TRubble's point:
Dunno who this independant mob is, but the whole thing smacks of being a fabrication... why the hell would anyone in this day and age use torture, when there are drugs available which would do the job twice as effectively and without the risk of the victom merely saying anything to stop the pain?
Ridiculous story. In the early phases of the military action in Afghanistan, as we enthusiastically believed we could get Osama bin Laden (e.g. before Rumsfeld admitted that we might not and then tried to retract his words), discussion of whether or not to torture suspects first focused on letting "others" do the dirty work. In other words, let another country's forces capture and torture the suspects. This notion was quickly shot down: torture is illegal by international convention. None of the United States' partners in this action have license to torture. By the same convention, the United States has previously agreed to forsake torture.
It's hardly an answer, but it does lend some interesting light to Goofyfish's POW or Unlawful Combatants (http://www.sciforums.com/t5337/sd291d94bc2e792549bcd2306df2929c3/thread.html) topic. My own contribution to that topic (2.4.2002) includes a citation of an article discussing the nature of POW's. The Independent's article in the topic post notes:
Willliam Webster, who also led the FBI, said interrogation efforts would "go beyond name, rank and serial number" because Mr Zubeida was considered an unlawful combatant. Like the other Taliban and al-Qa'ida fighters in American custody, he would not be considered a prisoner of war.And this is the whole point. Note that John Walker is being tried as a criminal in a proper civilian trial, yet is not being accorded the full rights of an accused criminal. This is because of the "unlawful combatant" label applied by the Bush administration.
As a criminal defendant in the United States, Walker is entitled to certain rights which are not being respected. Bush's UC label is his apparent justification for circumvention of the United States Constitution. This is unacceptable. We'll get to that, though, in the broader context. In the case of Zubeida, the UC label does not excuse the United States from its human rights conventions. As the article I citedº in the POW/UC topic notes:
• The Washington Post quotes an unnamed administration official making the same point: “We already know the end point, which is they’re not POWs.... Now the question is, why are they not POWs.”
•*Both the US and Afghanistan are signatories to the 1949 treaty. The Bush administration declared a “war on terrorism,” and went to war against Afghanistan, publicly stating that the ousting of the Taliban regime was its objective. The US initiated bombing raids and dispatched ground troops. But when enemy fighters are captured, including Taliban, the government claims they are not prisoners of war and their treatment is not governed by international law.
• Even if the US wants to claim that they are not POWs because the US never formally declared war, this doesn’t pass muster, as the Geneva Convention does not require that both parties recognize a state of war.
• Article 5 of the Geneva Convention states: “Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.”
• In other words, it is not up to the US to dictate who is a POW and who is not. Furthermore, until their status is determined, they must be provided with all the protections of a prisoner of war. All those detained have the right to refuse to provide any information aside from name, rank and serial number. Whether or not they are determined by a tribunal at a later time to be terrorists, or defendants to be tried for war crimes, can have no bearing on their treatment upon capture.
I, too, read carefully when an article is citing the opinion of any former status. But the United States government has gone to some effort to create a situation in which they are excused both from the Constitutional law that Bush has sworn to uphold and defend, and also the international law to which the United States is already obligated. The simple fact is that the Bush administration, while it wants to be portrayed as being promoters and defenders of human rights, finds human rights too inconvenient for their schemes.
Barney makes a very good point about the credibility of the story, but I'll disagree with it because I see the administration lining the ducks up in a row.
Of drugs "instead of torture": if you want to give the guys as much beer or psilocybin or hashish as you can and get them to casually cough up the information, I'm not going to stop you. But the most common "truth serum" is, in fact, merely a barbiturate; if a subject does not wish to tell the truth, the subject will not tell the truth. I was actually surprised to learn this, as I was seeking verification that such compounds cause brain damage and thus constitute torture. Apparently, this is not a widely credible fact. But I did learn that one who wishes to lie under the effects of "truth serum" can still do so. And that presents to me the question of, What drugs? The common truth serum is a high-quality barbiturate, and is not by any means foolproof. What other drugs can be used? And do those cause brain damage? But drugs instead of torture does not seem to be as viable an option as it might first appear.
You know, we tried to impeach Bill Clinton for fellatio. The argument was that he had violated the dignity of the presidency, and thus violated his oath. This, of course, a desperate argument when it became evident that the appearance of petty perjury irrelevant to the trial in which it was given would not do. But what of Bush? The courts do not have the authority to selectively set aside the Constitution. Perhaps in the case of a Hannibal Lecter, the notion of a clear and present danger would incite such restraints as, well, it's fiction, but you get what I mean. I think an ugly orange jumpsuit and heavy shackles will pretty much keep suspects under control. It will be difficult for Bush, especially in the Walker case, to justify in the long run violations of the United States Constitution. It can, in fact, lead to his impeachment.
We are going forth in this pseudo-war at least in part in the name of the "American Way", which includes due process and equal protection under the law, two notions which the Bush administration find inconvenient. Hence, the unlawful combatant label somehow overrides the Constitution? Torture would constitute a definite violation of the Constitution.
What, then of the international agreements? Let's just put it this way--imagine, for a moment, that we go forth with the torture of Zubieda. And, to mark this event, certain persons including President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and the military/intelligence officers who conduct the torture are called to answer charges before the World Court. Just imagine that for a moment.
What to do? Certainly the United States will not submit to the world court, but what of its authority, prestige, credibility, and leadership? We will have set the standard that a free society has no need for human rights, has no need for due process, and has no need for equal protection under the law. Certainly, there are worse in the world, but I'm not happy about the notion of my country becoming another evil force in history. Will we defy the world? Will we challenge the tenuous threads that hold the nations in what fragile balance they hang?
It all starts here, with these suspects and this action. We sent many to die in Vietnam, Korea, the Pacific Theatre, and Europe. I despise warfare, and demand a world in which such things do not happen; this, however, we all realize is an unrealistic demand. Would I torture to save how many? Absolutely not. As long as liberty, due process, and equal protection still shine, I can appreciate the sacrifice of pst conflicts to ensure these principles. But once we are through with them, and discard them on a sentimental whim, doesn't that really make the last, oh ... century of warfare just a little ridiculous? Why dismantle all that progress? Why tell the world that we're too good for what we impose elsewhere? Why resort to open hypocrisy? George Bush already stooped to bin Laden's level by making this about God. When all is said and done, though, we can laugh at the twit about that. I refuse to accept that it is good for anyone if the United States stoops to the Taliban's level and throws human rights out the window. If we are to lead the world, we must do so benevolently. We cannot sacrifice the principles of that benevolence and pretend it doesn't matter. The day we do, we snuff the beacon of hope, the American dream, the land of the free, the home of the brave, and I could go on like that for a while.
To torture suspects in the name of the United States is to forsake everything we hold dear. Ten thousand lives saved? One million lives saved? The whole of New York or Los Angeles? It's still temporal greed. How many billions will suffer when the benevolence is revoked?
Yes, it's a fair trade.
I will openly oppose my country if I truly believe that opposition will preserve it. Why, though, is Bush rushing toward that abyss? It's ridiculous and shortsighted to say the least, and threatens to undermine all that is good about the United States of America.
Right now the world is with us and not against us not only because of our might but because we have the credibility of being right in this situation. If we resort to torture, I would not be surprised to find some lining up against us.
Is it really about God, George? Then God help us all if the United States resorts so openly to torture.º
And one last note on torture: what do you really think the terrorists will do if we up the stakes that much? Will they get scared and go away? Homeland Security, my eye! They'll hit us real hard again, and it won't be that far in the future. It might take five years, but anyone who pretends the United States will be secure from terrorism after we're finished in Afghanistan, or if we torture Zubieda, needs to get their head checked.
º Article cited: The original citation for that article may be found in my 2.4.2002 post. While the editorial content of that article does, indeed, reflect its socialist-website publication, it does not lessen the truth of its observations regarding the United States' position as regards human rights conventions.
º*Resorts so openly to torture: You know, we all know the US tortures people. Come on, we've got way too much going on not to. But the public pretends it doesn't happen and the government employs plausible denial. We generally don't bother to even think about it. But should we torture such a high-profile subeject as Zubieda, and should that torture have openly-acknowledge public approval, the stakes will increase incalculably.
Often these international treaties apply only to signatory nations. However, in the case of the CAT, it does say in Article Two that no signatory nation will allow torture anywhere within their jurisdiction. So, unless the USA wants to ignore the CAT, they wouldn't and couldn't do it.
Would the USA ignore international treaty? :)
04-10-02, 09:54 AM
Im still waiting for BUSHES arest for war crims in violation of the geniva convention.
Origonaly i thought that Al'qieda might be criminals rather than POW but it said something about ANYONE who spontainously picks up arms to risist an invasion is a POW so they are too.
SO when do the trials start for Bush, Blair and little johnny
I'm not sure if the POWs situation breaches the Geneva Convention regarding that issue. After all, the captives are not from a signatory nation.
04-10-02, 10:23 AM
I wish goofyfish would post here because he had the thing but from what i rember of what he wrote it dosn't matter. We were required to adhere to it while fighting the japinise and the arn't signatrys either
04-10-02, 10:41 AM
Originally posted by Asguard
We were required to adhere to it [the Geneva Conventions] while fighting the japinise and the arn't signatrys eitherWell, technically, they were.
The Geneva Convention of 1929 was signed by Japan but not ratified because of Japanese military objections. It was signed by 47 countries and ratified by 40 by 1941 and became part of the Hague Convention manifested as International Customary Law and is part of the restraint placed on the Japanese Government. However, Japan withheld its ratification. Despite the lack of an official ratification, the Japanese Government, after the attack of Pearl Harbor, responded through letters to the Swiss Embassy in Tokyo, that it would behave "in accordance with" the Geneva Convention. It is clear from the actions of the Japanese Government that they intended to bind themselves to the full force and effect of the Geneva Convention.
04-10-02, 10:48 AM
Now I KNOW thats not true. Ask any Australian POW if they were treated in acordance with the convention. That is one of the reasons our older people STILL don't like the Japanise.
I will endever to find some stuff on the berma railway if you are interested goofyfish
By the way
while you are here would you mind posting that link to the geniva convention here if you still have it
04-10-02, 11:11 AM
A signatory to the Geneva convention is not a guarantee of adherence to it Asguard.
Just because they may have VIOLATED what they signed doesn't mean they didnt sign it.
04-10-02, 11:16 AM
Thats true but then i wasn't questioning wether they signed it but the other thing that goofyfish said about them intending to follow it (sorry i didn't make that clear)
I point to my own posts in this and other topics. What will happen if we torture Zubieda or otherwise violate international law? Well, the Bush administration has helped to make that clear in this Reuters article (http://my.aol.com/news/news_story.psp?type=1&cat=0700&id=0204111647080080):
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States restated its opposition to the International Criminal Court on Thursday and said it was reviewing policy on the tribunal, which took a major step toward reality at a U.N. ceremony.
At the U.N. headquarters in New York on Thursday 10 countries brought the total number of nations to ratify the Rome treaty establishing the court to 66 -- six more than needed to bring the treaty into force on July 1.
The court, set up to try the world's most heinous crimes, has been hailed by many as a human rights landmark.
But State Department spokesman Philip Reeker said the Bush administration continued to have objections to the treaty and would not submit it to the Senate for ratification.
"It has a number of fundamental problems. It purports to assert jurisdiction over nationals of states not party to the treaty, contrary to the most basic principles of customary international law governing treaties," he said.
"The United States is concerned that its military and civilian personnel will be exposed to politically motivated investigations and prosecutions.
"Accountability is a serious problem. Relatively unrestricted powers of the prosecutor and the court may lead to politicized second-guessing of a state's ability or willingness
to investigate its own personnel," he added.
The Clinton administration signed the treaty right at the end of its term in office, arguing that this would enable the United States to take part in subsequent deliberations on the procedures the court will follow.
But the Bush administration, which took office in January 2001, is even less sympathetic to the idea of ceding jurisdiction to an international court.
Reeker declined to speculate on whether the United States might withdraw its signature from the treaty.
"The administration continues to review its policy toward the International Criminal Court. A full range of policy options is under discussion but no final decisions have been made," he added.
The rapid pace of the ratification has taken the Bush administration by surprise, said a U.S. official.
The new tribunal has jurisdiction only when countries are unwilling or unable to prosecute individuals for the world's most serious atrocities: genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and other gross human-rights abuses.
Cases can be referred by a country that has ratified the treaty, the U.N. Security Council or the tribunal's prosecutor after approval from three judges. But the court is not retroactive and cannot probe crimes committed before July 1.
Suspects from nations, like the United States, who have not ratified the treaty are still subject to prosecution -- providing the country where the crimes occurred has ratified the treaty and the nation whose citizens are accused fails to investigate.
04/11/02 16:43 ETSo, essentially, when we fail to prosecute those who violate the constitution by performing acts of torture, for instance, we will refuse international jurisdiction?
I think Bush knows well what is about to happen. The United States is about to go from "leader of the free world" to "rogue state" and very possibly "evil empire". Of course, that might be his decision, and not ours.
Of course, who is really surprised that the United States will balk at recognizing international authority? After all, it's a violation of the Constitution. Of course, so is WTO, UN, IMF, World Bank, and a number of other international bodies we recognize. No international body is supposed to have jurisdiction over what takes place inside our borders. Of course, we've signed away a bunch of that in treaties, but all we have to do is decide we don't want to play along, and who's going to stop us?
People get ready. I have to admit, it's a fascinating time to be an American.
04-11-02, 09:48 PM
I gess that answers my question on how the US will avoid war crims charges
do you know if Australia and the UK ratifide it?
According to this Earth Times article (http://www.earthtimes.org/oct/globalizationunitedkingdomoct5_01.htm), the UK has signed and ratified the treaty. A short quip that's amusing
The ratification of the United Kingdom, Pace said, comes at an important time. As President Bush attempts to build an international coalition to fight terrorism, US Senator Jesse Helms had reportedly threatened to cut off military aid to any countries that ratify the ICC, which could isolate the US and negate the coalition against terrorism the US is trying to build.
Senator Helms reintroduced an amended version of the American Servicemaker's Protection Act (ASPA), a bill that makes American soldiers immune from prosecution. The bill, the CICC said, is expected to be reintroduced as an amendment to other bills. The Foreign Operations Appropriations Bill will likely be next. And, in fact, a December, 1999 press release from Ministers Downer (Foreign Affairs) and Moore (Defence), as well as Attorney General Williams, notes that Australia has committed to the International crimes court. The Joint Media Release (http://www.dfat.gov.au/media/releases/foreign/1999/fa135_99.html), and its status at the time:
The Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Attorney-General and the Minister for Defence have today announced that the Government has decided to ratify the Statute of the International Criminal Court, which was adopted at the Rome Diplomatic Conference in 1998.
"The establishment of an effective international criminal court is a prime foreign policy goal of this government, and one in which I have taken a strong personal interest. Given Australia's leading role in promoting the Court, it is fitting for Australia to be making an early commitment to ratifying the Statute," said the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Alexander Downer.
This milestone decision reflects Australia's strong commitment to the Court. Australia demonstrated this commitment by playing a significant and influential role in the negotiations leading up to the adoption of the Court's Statute. The group of like-minded delegations at the Rome Conference played a critical role in the successful outcome of that Conference.Amnesty International/Australia has a fact sheet (http://www.amnesty.org.au/whatshappening/icc/index-6.html) available, but I have not begun to delve into that or other AI documents regarding the ICC.
That's as near as I can figure in a short search. Much to read these days, much to read ... :eek:
04-27-02, 11:28 AM
I would kill an infinity of evil people, and if nessary I would torture all of them first if I knew that it would save the life of just one inocent person.
As I dash out the door, this update: US Renounces Obligations to International Court (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=578&e=2&cid=578&u=/nm/20020506/ts_nm/rights_court_usa_dc_8):
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Bush administration, flouting the advice of major allies and outraging human rights organizations, renounced on Monday any obligation to cooperate with the new International Criminal Court.
The decision, formalized in a letter to the United Nations, means the United States reserves the right to ignore the orders of the court, the first permanent world tribunal to prosecute people for war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity.
Canada and the European Union expressed disappointment and regret over the decision by the Bush administration, which had already angered some allies by walking out on the Kyoto climate accord and the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.
The administration of former President Bill Clinton signed the treaty setting up the court in 2000 so the United States could take part in talks on arrangements for the new body ....Just an update. It appears we're getting ready to set new precedents in world domination, but that's to be expected. Apologies around to all or international neighbors.
Every other nation on earth should just gang up and launch a war. That would be funny.