Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: one_less who wrote (476287)	4/29/2009 2:18:55 PM
From: Steve Dietrich	1 Recommendation Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1574350

BS, read the law: 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. 2. This article is without prejudice to any international instrument or national legislation which does or may contain provisions of wider application. 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. SD

To: one_less who wrote (476287)	4/29/2009 10:22:12 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574350

That law was considered by representative stake holders in the decision about what should be allowed in those interrogations. The procedure was legal, appropriate, thorough and according to due process. Not everyone agrees they made the right decision but the decision was made and it was made legally. What are you trying to say? Who are the rep. stake holders? What was the procedure? Who made what decision? It would not, however, negate the legal entitlement of the Bush Administration to have engaged in operations that had been fully approved by the justice department and by congress. I don't care if God came down and said it was legal. If it violates the rule of law; the treaties and conventions to which the US is a signatory, then its not legal.