"U.S.’s critics ignore real torturers"

[bbernardini]

From the local paper this morning...a sample:

"Maybe I missed it, but I have been reading this and other local newspapers for over 10 years now and cannot recall reading a single word of protest from Amnesty International against Hussein, Ghadafi, Arafat, Castro or any other bad boy that tramples human rights, including the wanton taking of innocent lives. Now along comes their local "coordinator" wringing her hands over the goings on at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. One would think that blood is running in the streets or that beheading someone is the moral equivalent of making them wear underwear on their still intact one."

That's because the local papers are CRAP, dumbass. If they had an article about every Amnesty press release, there wouldn't be enough room for the pictures of the Girl Scout who raised $5 for skin failure research. This person doesn't seem to realize how the media works at all.

Anyway, here's a link to the full article. Make liberal (HAW!) use of the "voice your opinion" option at the bottom of the page. Thanks!

http://www.dailylocal.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=11955406&BRD=1671&PAG=461&dept_id=17785&rfi=6

[DoYouEverWonder]

1. If I didn't see it in my local mullet wrapper

the it didn't happen.

Maybe a link to http://www.amnesty.org will help, but then again the Bu$hbots who want to believe their delusions, don't want to face reality.

[ET Awful]

2. The guy is a complete loon.

Nathan Hale wasn't accorded such treatment. . . . what a dimwit. Perhaps that's because the Geneva Conventions hadn't exactly been thought of. Traditions of war allow summary execution? Maybe a couple of centuries ago. As spies? Sorry, but they aren't spies if they're in their own country.

The guy is a dolt, and my response said as much.

[Realityhack]

3. What a Nutjob

I must agree that this is abysmal reporting. In some contries this guy would probobly be criminaly liable for his statements.

BTW. How come we havent heard more about the convention against torture? It would apear we have signed and ratified it. Unlike the Geneva Convention it has no loopholes intended to allow the strong to overun the week. Part 1, Artical 2, paragraph 2 is pritty clear.

A sample

Part I
Article 1

1. 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.
...

Article 2

1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.
2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.
3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.

http://www.ohchr.org/english/law/cat.htm

[newyawker99]

4. Hi Realityhack!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast: