4 ms·

Not being tortured is a human right. Full stop. This isn't about whether the punishment for losing your rifle is excessive, this is a black and white issue.

by jbooth 16y ago

Not being tortured is a human right. Full stop. This isn't about whether the punishment for losing your rifle is excessive, this is a black and white issue. Punishment before trial == wrong. Torture == wrong. Both are against the constitution. And I bet nobody even gets in trouble for this.

DanielBMarkham 16y ago
You're looking for an argument and a rant and that's not my intent. Nobody said anything about torture being okay.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
nas 16y ago
Yeah, and I'm really don't like the special treatment for "enemy combatants" as well. Does the right to life, liberty and happiness apply to all mankind or just to people the US government is not currently scared of?
- Natsu 16y ago
  > Does the right to life, liberty and happiness apply to all mankind or just to people the US government is not currently scared of? Scared people are scary. Really scary, when backed far enough into a corner.
- colinplamondon 16y ago
  Are you asking if the American Constitution and the American Bill of Rights only applies to Americans? Enemy combatants belong to non-state actors, and so no treaties or guidelines apply to them. Last I checked Al doesn't Al Qaeda and the rest of the cavers don't get representatives in the UN.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
  - JoachimSchipper 16y ago
    Actually, at least the Universal Declaration of Human Rights does apply to them.
    - marshray 16y ago
      Unless the United Nations finds it inconvenient: http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml Article 29(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
  - jbooth 16y ago
    How we choose to act in the absence of treaties or guidelines says a lot more about us than it does about inalienable human rights.
  - dailyrorschach 16y ago
    Actually, the US Constitution is much broader in terms of protecting individuals then I think you realize. The Constitution is specific when it intends to reserve rights only for citizens, otherwise it uses the word Persons. See perhaps most recently _Boumediene v. Bush_ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boumediene_v._Bush http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boumediene_v._Bush Namely that these enemy combatants do have rights under the Constitution in this case the right to a habeas petition. The other relevant historic case-law here is _Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886)_ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yick_Wo_v._Hopkins http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yick_Wo_v._Hopkins "these provisions [the Constitution] are universal in their application, to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction."
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
nhebb 16y ago
He is not being tortured. Here is what his lawyer wrote that his typical day is: http://www.armycourtmartialdefense.info/2010/12/typical-day-for-pfc-bradley-manning.html http://www.armycourtmartialdefense.info/2010/12/typical-day-... <snip> The guards at the confinement facility are professional. At no time have they tried to bully, harass, or embarrass PFC Manning. Given the nature of their job, however, they do not engage in conversation with PFC Manning. </snip> He gets to watch TV, write letters, and have visitors on the weekends. He is isolated, but his treatment and living conditions are a far cry from torture.
- robwgibbons 16y ago
  His conditions are withering him physically and psychologically. He's not allowed to exercise whatsoever, or to communicate with anyone except on weekends. These conditions may not be direct torture, but they are most definitely a form of indirect torture, a claim which is supported by several psychologists. It's a form of punishment before trial, which is absolutely unconstitutional.
- CaptainZapp 16y ago
  That may be a matter of definition. According to Mssrs Rumsfeld and Cheney people that where waterboarded for up to 200 times where not tortured. According to the definition of torture in the civilized world this sure as hell was and is torture. It's not a stretch to argue that solitary confinement equates torture.

by jbooth 16y ago

DanielBMarkham 16y ago

You're looking for an argument and a rant and that's not my intent. Nobody said anything about torture being okay.

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]

nas 16y ago

Yeah, and I'm really don't like the special treatment for "enemy combatants" as well. Does the right to life, liberty and happiness apply to all mankind or just to people the US government is not currently scared of?

Natsu 16y ago
> Does the right to life, liberty and happiness apply to all mankind or just to people the US government is not currently scared of? Scared people are scary. Really scary, when backed far enough into a corner.
colinplamondon 16y ago
Are you asking if the American Constitution and the American Bill of Rights only applies to Americans? Enemy combatants belong to non-state actors, and so no treaties or guidelines apply to them. Last I checked Al doesn't Al Qaeda and the rest of the cavers don't get representatives in the UN.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- JoachimSchipper 16y ago
  Actually, at least the Universal Declaration of Human Rights does apply to them.
  - marshray 16y ago
    Unless the United Nations finds it inconvenient: http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml Article 29(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
- jbooth 16y ago
  How we choose to act in the absence of treaties or guidelines says a lot more about us than it does about inalienable human rights.
- dailyrorschach 16y ago
  Actually, the US Constitution is much broader in terms of protecting individuals then I think you realize. The Constitution is specific when it intends to reserve rights only for citizens, otherwise it uses the word Persons. See perhaps most recently _Boumediene v. Bush_ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boumediene_v._Bush http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boumediene_v._Bush Namely that these enemy combatants do have rights under the Constitution in this case the right to a habeas petition. The other relevant historic case-law here is _Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886)_ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yick_Wo_v._Hopkins http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yick_Wo_v._Hopkins "these provisions [the Constitution] are universal in their application, to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction."
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

nhebb 16y ago

He is not being tortured. Here is what his lawyer wrote that his typical day is: http://www.armycourtmartialdefense.info/2010/12/typical-day-for-pfc-bradley-manning.html http://www.armycourtmartialdefense.info/2010/12/typical-day-... <snip> The guards at the confinement facility are professional. At no time have they tried to bully, harass, or embarrass PFC Manning. Given the nature of their job, however, they do not engage in conversation with PFC Manning. </snip> He gets to watch TV, write letters, and have visitors on the weekends. He is isolated, but his treatment and living conditions are a far cry from torture.

robwgibbons 16y ago
His conditions are withering him physically and psychologically. He's not allowed to exercise whatsoever, or to communicate with anyone except on weekends. These conditions may not be direct torture, but they are most definitely a form of indirect torture, a claim which is supported by several psychologists. It's a form of punishment before trial, which is absolutely unconstitutional.
CaptainZapp 16y ago
That may be a matter of definition. According to Mssrs Rumsfeld and Cheney people that where waterboarded for up to 200 times where not tortured. According to the definition of torture in the civilized world this sure as hell was and is torture. It's not a stretch to argue that solitary confinement equates torture.