What Fresh Hell Is This?

October 26, 2016

ANNOUNCEMENT: Torture Debate TODAY At RMU

Longtime readers of this blog will know that one of the topics I return to regularly is the torture known as waterboarding.  It's bubbled up again in this election season what with Donald Trump promising to bring it back if he's elected.

Too bad he doesn't have the authority (no one does, actually) but whatever.

A week or so ago, I had the good fortune to spend some time with Professor Annette Förster, a Rooney International Visiting Scholar at RMU and international scholar on torture.  Over eggs and homefries, we talked mostly about torture and at one point, why the coffee globes in restaurants are different colors.

But that's completely besides the point.

This is the point.

Professor Förster will be giving a lecture at 2:30 today at RMU titled "Debating Torture in Democracies" in the RISE Center Theater in Scaife Hall.

From The Minuteman:
Terrorist attacks in diverse Western democracies raised scientific discussions on the legitimacy of torture with a focus on “ticking bomb” scenarios. The lecture systematizes the normative discussion on torture in democracies with a focus on the question of its legitimacy and legality. Can torture ever be a legitimate means of state policy? And if so, should it be legal? Or do those scenarios belong to a state of emergency framework that transcends the normal limits of state power drawn by constitutional democracies?
She's an intensely interesting scholar.  For example, as part of our discussion, she went into why the Bush era concept of "unlawful combatant" was such a dangerous one.  If my memory serves, she said that the treatment of enemy combatants (soldiers in uniform, and so on) is clearly spelled out in international treaties, as is the treatment of non-combatants (non-combat civilians and so on).  However with a new definition of a new type of combatant, the so-called unlawful combatant, various regimes could impose a new set of rules over these combatants that aren't covered under either set of treaties.

Hence the Bush era torture memos.

If you can get over to RMU today, catch the discussion, you'll be thinking about it for a long time afterwards.

9 comments:

Deplorable Omega Supreme Cuck said...

"the so-called unlawful combatant"
So there are no combatants that do not follow the Geneva Conventions?

I remember Davyoe and the Antiwar left arguing that "the so-called unlawful combatant" should have the Geneva Conventions protections despite what the Conventions say.

https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/ART/365-570005?OpenDocument
"The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance."
"Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof."

Ol' Froth said...

Aaaaanndd...Heir misses the entire point. No surprise there!

Deplorable Omega Supreme Cuck said...

Davyoe is against torture.
He is willing to Geneva Conventions protections to "unlawful combatants" (Those who do not follow the Geneva Conventions and do not get the protection) to prevent them being subject to what he calls torture.
I am pointing that "unlawful combatants" do not get Geneva Conventions protections because the Geneva Conventions are reciprocal. You have to follow the Geneva Conventions to get the protections guaranteed by it.

Ol' Froth said...

The point, which you clearly missed, is that the Geneva Conventions do not mention "unlawful combatants." That's a Bush-era argument used to justify torture. Just because a group is not a signatory to the Conventions doesn't absolve nations who ARE signatories from violating the conventions.

Dayvoe said...

In my haste, I failed to point out my opinion on the Bush Admin's use of "unlawful combatant."

They were wrong when they did that. It was a way for them to get away with and to justify doing something very illegal.

We solid now?

Deplorable Omega Supreme Cuck said...

NO "unlawful combatants" before the Bush Administration.

German saboteurs executed in Washington
http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/german-saboteurs-executed-in-washington

"Conventions doesn't absolve nations who ARE signatories from violating the conventions."
But it does if the other side violates the conventions.
"They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.""

Ol' Froth said...

I didn't say the term didn't exist prior to the Bush administration, you dunderhead. I said the administration used the term to justify torture. As for the German sabatouers, they were captured, tried, sentenced, and executed. After their capture, they weren't tortured, they were held as any other civilian prisoner accused of a capital offense were held, given trials where they were represented by legal council, and when founded guilty, had sentences carried out. That's a far cry from extrajudicial torture, which you seem to advocate.

Also. because you're a dimwitted dullard, you are misapplying the Conventions articles, the one you cite applies to the armed forces of nation states. Every nation-state on the globe is party to the COnventions to one degree or another. Under the Conventions, what you call "unlawful combatants" are actually criminals.

Deplorable Omega Supreme Cuck said...

"they were held as any other civilian prisoner accused of a capital offense were held, given trials where they were represented by legal council, and when founded guilty, had sentences carried out."

From the History link.
"To preserve wartime secrecy, President Franklin D. Roosevelt ordered a special military tribunal consisting of seven generals to try the saboteurs."

But "Secret" military tribunals are Bad according to the Anti-war left.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Commissions_Act_of_2009
"The Military Commissions Act of 2009, which amended the Military Commissions Act of 2006, was passed to address concerns by the United States Supreme Court.[1] In Boumediene v. Bush (2008) the court had ruled that the Military Commissions Act of 2006 was unconstitutional in suspending the right of detainees to habeas corpus. The court ruled that detainees had the right to access US federal courts to challenge their detentions.[2][3]"

Ol' Froth said...

I didn't say they were tried in a civilian court, did I you ludicrous dolt? You're about as dense as a black hole.