Waterboarding is, in fact, torture
Jan. 15th, 2009 06:36 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sobriquehttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7825902.stm
Ok, so the news tonight - apparantly, interrogating someone by partially drowning them whilst they're restrained _is_ actually torture, after all.
NO FUCKING SHIT SHERLOCK.
Ok, that's somewhat unfair - Mr. Obama hasn't been at the reins until now. But really. How can so many turn a blind eye to such a thing?
And as for the other part? Well, they're not quite sure what to do with the people still in Guantanamo bay.
"We're going to get it done, but part of the challenge that you have is that you have got a bunch of folks that have been detained, many of whom may be very dangerous, who have not been put on trial or have not gone through some adjudication."
I have a suggestion. It's not fucking rocket science. How about: Put them on trial, if you have the bits you need. Y'know, like er. Evidence. A charge. That kind of thing.
And if you don't? Let them go.
Both the US Constitution and the European convention on human rights agree - that a man is innocent until you've proven him guilty, and doing so in front of a proper jury is the way that's done.
Why do we consider these things optional?
I mean, don't get me wrong - I still don't think 'rights' are automatic. I don't think you have a right to anything at all implicitly granted just for existing. That makes it all the more important though. NO ONE is going to hand you 'human rights', you have to stand up and demand them. For you, for me, and for those poor sods who've been languishing in guantanamo for years with neither charge nor trial, and who have subject to ... well, clearly it cannot be _torture_ because they legal definition was checked and everything. But ... wait. No. FUCK OFF. Interrogating someone under duress is torture. I don't care how you want to weasel the words and the definition. IT. IS. WRONG.
How about we add a new thing to the definition of 'torture'. "If you have to ask a lawyer whether the thing you're doing is torture or not, THEN IT IS".
But anyway. Well done Mr. Obama. This is going in the right direction. You have government inertia to push forwards, but at least it seems you have the right idea.
Ok, so the news tonight - apparantly, interrogating someone by partially drowning them whilst they're restrained _is_ actually torture, after all.
NO FUCKING SHIT SHERLOCK.
Ok, that's somewhat unfair - Mr. Obama hasn't been at the reins until now. But really. How can so many turn a blind eye to such a thing?
And as for the other part? Well, they're not quite sure what to do with the people still in Guantanamo bay.
"We're going to get it done, but part of the challenge that you have is that you have got a bunch of folks that have been detained, many of whom may be very dangerous, who have not been put on trial or have not gone through some adjudication."
I have a suggestion. It's not fucking rocket science. How about: Put them on trial, if you have the bits you need. Y'know, like er. Evidence. A charge. That kind of thing.
And if you don't? Let them go.
Both the US Constitution and the European convention on human rights agree - that a man is innocent until you've proven him guilty, and doing so in front of a proper jury is the way that's done.
Why do we consider these things optional?
I mean, don't get me wrong - I still don't think 'rights' are automatic. I don't think you have a right to anything at all implicitly granted just for existing. That makes it all the more important though. NO ONE is going to hand you 'human rights', you have to stand up and demand them. For you, for me, and for those poor sods who've been languishing in guantanamo for years with neither charge nor trial, and who have subject to ... well, clearly it cannot be _torture_ because they legal definition was checked and everything. But ... wait. No. FUCK OFF. Interrogating someone under duress is torture. I don't care how you want to weasel the words and the definition. IT. IS. WRONG.
How about we add a new thing to the definition of 'torture'. "If you have to ask a lawyer whether the thing you're doing is torture or not, THEN IT IS".
But anyway. Well done Mr. Obama. This is going in the right direction. You have government inertia to push forwards, but at least it seems you have the right idea.
