Interesting Article

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

UN ####### that has no force of law. ok....

THE HUMAN RIGHTS LAWS OF ALMOST EVERY WESTERN COUNTRY YOU CARE TO NAME HAVE A BASIS IN THE UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS.

Are you unfamiliar with laws based on written constitutions?

In any case, I've argued the point without resorting to insults.

Its always fun to debate with an extremist. You can twist their reasoning until it breaks and looks utterly ridiculous to everyone else but they cling to their twisted reasoning anyway...

That clearly wasn't the point of the post. The example simply illustrates why we have human rights legislation. I didn't read into it any suggestion that the civil rights movement bears any similarity to the current treatment of terrorist suspects.

[Ban Hammer 13,332]

UN ####### that has no force of law. ok....

THE HUMAN RIGHTS LAWS OF ALMOST EVERY WESTERN COUNTRY YOU CARE TO NAME HAVE A BASIS IN THE UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS.

Are you unfamiliar with laws based on written constitutions?

In any case, I've argued the point without resorting to insults.

Its always fun to debate with an extremist. You can twist their reasoning until it breaks and looks utterly ridiculous to everyone else but they cling to their twisted reasoning anyway...

who signed it? what force of law does it have? this law you speak of is something out of the un. it don't mean squat. now that you got caught you change directions. you should take up politics

Edited May 3, 2006 by charlesandnessa

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

who signed it? what force of law does it have? this law you speak of is something out of the un. it don't mean squat.

It means everything if the powers of europe and the US based their human rights laws upon it. Do you not understand the distinction here.....?

Edited May 3, 2006 by Fishdude

[Ban Hammer 13,332]

he or she tried to make the inference that terrorists are being denied their rights just as blacks once were. sorry you didn't understand such.

That clearly wasn't the point of the post. The example simply illustrates why we have human rights legislation. I didn't read into it any suggestion that the civil rights movement bears any similarity to the current treatment of terrorist suspects.

who signed it? what force of law does it have? this law you speak of is something out of the un. it don't mean squat.

It means everything if the powers of europe and the US based their human rights laws upon it.

again. who signed this Universal Declaration of Human Rights

again, what force of law does it have?

from what i've found, it's not worth the paper it's printed on.

it's unenforceable!

another liberal feel good action!

[Jaylen Brit 0]

I also enjoyed the debate Gary and Fish

I thought we all spoke quite well, lol!

Tho I think I shall bow out now, except to say that terrorists don't terrorise ME. I'm not scared of them. They can do what they want but it won't change the way I view the world or the way I move within it, and gosh darn don't they just hate that

I don't need to torture terrorists to 'beat' them - I already win because I don't fear them.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Sigh... the human rights laws of the united states are based, to some degree on this document.

Who signed it is irrelevant. Its a separate issue to what is legal or illegal in this and other countries that base their laws upon it. How is the distinction unclear?

Torture is illegal within the borders of the united states under US law (which is based in part on the UDHR). There's a reason they have to use Guantanamo for their 'interrogations' as opposed to a facility within the continental US.

Edited May 3, 2006 by Fishdude

[Ban Hammer 13,332]

Sigh... the human rights laws of the united states are based, to some degree on this document.

Who signed it is irrelevant. Its a separate issue to what is legal or illegal in this and other countries that base their laws upon it. How is the distinction unclear?

Torture is illegal within the borders of the united states under US law (which is based in part on the UDHR). There's a reason they have to use Guantanamo for their 'interrogations' as opposed to a facility within the continental US.

wrong - the human rights laws of the usa go back further than 1948

said resolution was signed in 1948 and was due to the extermination of the jews by the nazis.

who signed it is relevant. why? because the fact that no one did, that it is not enforceable as a law, makes your chest beating about it moot.

so now you wish to move the topic to the interior of the usa. how special. here's a news flash for you - i don't give a hoot where terrorists are tortured for intelligence value. this isn't a game of tiddlywinks we are playing with them. it's for keeps. you play by your rules, i'll play by mine. and guess who has a better chance of survival.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

wrong - the human rights laws of the usa go back further than 1948

Of course they do. Human rights weren't invented in 1948.

so now you wish to move the topic to the interior of the usa. how special. here's a news flash for you - i don't give a hoot where terrorists are tortured for intelligence value. this isn't a game of tiddlywinks we are playing with them. it's for keeps. you play by your rules, i'll play by mine. and guess who has a better chance of survival.

Not only are you scaremongering, but you're allowing your judgment to be ruled by irrational fear. Greater chance of survival eh? Well, prove it.

Let me ask you again - why is the US obligated to use a facility in Cuba for the interrogation of foreign detainees? Its to sidestep human rights laws - because such a facility on US soil would be extremely illegal.

Now... there's your opinion, and there's the law...

[tom&tata 2]

yes, such was wrong - as they were not out shooting and roadside bombing people. but apparently such is ok with you

Now noone has actually said or implied that...

he or she tried to make the inference that terrorists are being denied their rights just as blacks once were. sorry you didn't understand such.

Basic human rights is given - without conditions and not based on my or your opinion.

Nobody said that bombing and shooting is okay

[Ban Hammer 13,332]

wrong - the human rights laws of the usa go back further than 1948

Of course they do. Human rights weren't invented in 1948.

so now you wish to move the topic to the interior of the usa. how special. here's a news flash for you - i don't give a hoot where terrorists are tortured for intelligence value. this isn't a game of tiddlywinks we are playing with them. it's for keeps. you play by your rules, i'll play by mine. and guess who has a better chance of survival.

Not only are you scaremongering, but you're allowing your judgment to be ruled by irrational fear. Greater chance of survival eh? Well, prove it.

Let me ask you again - why is the US obligated to use a facility in Cuba for the interrogation of foreign detainees? Its to sidestep human rights laws - because such a facility on US soil would be extremely illegal.

Now... there's your opinion, and there's the law...

greater chance of survival - you disprove it. lol and it's not scaremongering. it's common sense. as for why the usa is using the base in cuba, i'd imagine it's so the aclu can't show up en masse to picket. also for security purposes. if they escape, i'm sure fidel will deal with them much harsher than we will.

if you wish to consider human rights laws and being on us soil, then ponder why we have prisons and lethal injection......

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

greater chance of survival - you disprove it. lol and it's not scaremongering. it's common sense. as for why the usa is using the base in cuba, i'd imagine it's so the aclu can't show up en masse to picket. also for security purposes. if they escape, i'm sure fidel will deal with them much harsher than we will.

if you wish to consider human rights laws and being on us soil, then ponder why we have prisons and lethal injection......

You're playing semantics again and ducking the question. I have at no point claimed, as you seem to be that permitting torture will result in increased public safety.

FYI - Gitmo is in Cuba because it is a legal Black Hole, outside of the legal jurisdiction of the states. It's there because someone thinks the laws shouldn't apply to them, or what they want to do there. Guess who did that BTW

Edited May 3, 2006 by Fishdude

[Ban Hammer 13,332]

greater chance of survival - you disprove it. lol and it's not scaremongering. it's common sense. as for why the usa is using the base in cuba, i'd imagine it's so the aclu can't show up en masse to picket. also for security purposes. if they escape, i'm sure fidel will deal with them much harsher than we will.

if you wish to consider human rights laws and being on us soil, then ponder why we have prisons and lethal injection......

You're playing semantics again and ducking the question. I have at no point claimed, as you seem to be that permitting torture will result in increased public safety.

FYI - Gitmo is in Cuba because it is a legal Black Hole, outside of the legal jurisdiction of the states. It's there because someone thinks the laws shouldn't apply to them, or what they want to do there. Guess who did that BTW

me play semantics? this from someone who tried to shove a un proclamation from 1948 down our throat that was not signed and has no enforcement value whatsoever?

oh i know. blame bush! it was bush's idea to put it in cuba. or maybe it was some minor functionary who works in the government, and that still means it's bush's fault!

shoulda known it would have turned to a bush bashing session. jeesh.

yes, i advocate torturing terrorists for their intelligence value, if such is necessary. i'd prefer to win this war against terrorists, while you seem to be busy hamstringing yourself with feel good laws and such which don't mean a thing to the terrorist. i find your idealism far removed from reality.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

me play semantics? this from someone who tried to shove a un proclamation from 1948 down our throat that was not signed and has no enforcement value whatsoever?

oh i know. blame bush! it was bush's idea to put it in cuba. or maybe it was some minor functionary who works in the government, and that still means it's bush's fault!

shoulda known it would have turned to a bush bashing session. jeesh.

yes, i advocate torturing terrorists for their intelligence value, if such is necessary. i'd prefer to win this war against terrorists, while you seem to be busy hamstringing yourself with feel good laws and such which don't mean a thing to the terrorist. i find your idealism far removed from reality.

Sure and that's your right. Just as I find your desire to dispense with morality and the rule of law to feed your own sadistic personal desires to be shameful and entirely distasteful, as well as being morally and ethically bankrupt.

[Ban Hammer 13,332]

me play semantics? this from someone who tried to shove a un proclamation from 1948 down our throat that was not signed and has no enforcement value whatsoever?

oh i know. blame bush! it was bush's idea to put it in cuba. or maybe it was some minor functionary who works in the government, and that still means it's bush's fault!

shoulda known it would have turned to a bush bashing session. jeesh.

yes, i advocate torturing terrorists for their intelligence value, if such is necessary. i'd prefer to win this war against terrorists, while you seem to be busy hamstringing yourself with feel good laws and such which don't mean a thing to the terrorist. i find your idealism far removed from reality.

Sure and that's your right. Just as I find your desire to dispense with morality and the rule of law to feed your own sadistic personal desires to be shameful and entirely distasteful, as well as being morally and ethically bankrupt.

i'm not sadistic and you are making one large leap in logic by stating such. what i've been saying is this - we will not win against terrorists if we insist on giving them rights to this and that. such can only be won one way. and yours is not the way to do it. and btw, i've also taken the liberty of reporting you for calling me a "sadist" that is "shameful and entirely distasteful, as well as being morally and ethically bankrupt."

have a nice day.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

I grew up during the Northern Ireland troubles

I've always found it amusing that Brits use the euphemism "troubles" for what they did to Northern Ireland.