 |
| Courtesy of the White House website |
The UN Convention Against Torture defines torture as, "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."
 |
Protesters demonstrate water boarding to volunteer Maboud Ebrahim Zadeh, Nov. 5, 2007, in front of the Justice Department. The demonstration was protesting the nomination of Michael Mukasey for Attorney General. AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta |
Now how do you justify torture? Is water-boarding okay as long as it protects a large amount of people? Or by giving up our morals and duty to protect all human life damage us as a nation more?
A part of me wonders if Bush is just being targeted more for personal reasons. How many leaders in other nations have given the thumbs up on torture and gotten away with it? I doubt it is a small number.
Some popular vacation spots that Mr. Bush probably won't ever visit include:
Australia
Costa Rica
Germany
Italy
Mexico
New Zealand
Sweden (not sure how popular this is but I desperately want to visit)...
and the list goes on...for 141 more states.
On the bright side he can still go to the Bahamas, Comoros (wtf?), Dominican Republic, Gambia, India, Palau, Sudan(!!!!) and a couple of others. Hard to choose which list I'd rather pick my vacation from...
My question is this: Which country would actually arrest him and bring him to the international courts? I think it's smart for Bush to stay home and enjoy the splendors of Tejas.
Wow! This is fascinating, I honestly had no idea. I mean I knew Bush had released a lot of compromising information in his books and I knew about his questionable decisions in regards to torture standards. I did not however, realize that he couldn't leave the country for the most parts, much less about the jurisdiction. To be honest the jurisdiction is a frightening and yet admirable power. My fear comes from its potential to be abused...as with all power...and yet at the same time I LOVE that it holds leaders accountable to the WORLD. I think we often get too isolationist and this is a rude awakening that our actions have consequences outside the realm of our own country.
ReplyDeleteI think that is the American societal idea that we should be fearful or wary of an international presence in our law system. I think since it is a "universal jurisdiction" and the potential for it to be abuse is a reminder to be careful is a reason why it works so well. I think it is fair to say that those a party to the treaty want to defend its existence and will go to lengths to protect it's intent. Not to mention it is up to the courts and the appeal system to protect the intent of the document. Honestly though I am unsure whether any nation would actually try to arrest Bush should he visit a country like Switzerland.
ReplyDeleteHahaha good old Dubya is doing just fine in Texas. But on a serious note, I think that the September 11 attacks skewed a lot of opinion on the subject of torture. Because revenge was so high on a list of priorities (and I will admit I wanted revenge, we forgot about human rights and what should be acceptable. We call ourselves a God-fearing nation, but our actions prove that we have no intentions to ever stop using torture as a way to get what we want. Americans cringe at the thought of one of their own being tortured in a middle eastern prison, but they don't stop to think that Americans could possibly be doing the thing that they most fear against someone else. Ugh.
ReplyDelete