a very interesting piece of legislation!

[peacedove]

bans torture, specifically.

wow! really. That is great.

However, do not as yet jump with joy for human rights, for there is a catch.

No, the CIA is not exempted.

But there still is a catch.

"If the US does torture, the victims have no right to take that up in court."

Brilliant, simply brilliant!

The US says it will not torture; however, neither the US government nor any of its personnel who do so, can be challenged in court. And this is not from the President, but the Senate and the House of Representatives.

Brilliant, simply brilliant!

This is what the US is all about.

[leogaela]

A bit confused and ed

[leogaela]

Where did you read this?

[RudolphsAuntMabel]

WTF!!??! So this means they're not allowed to do it but if they do there is no punishment? Bloody Hell.

[blueshoes]

Can you provide a link?

[Nightynight]

Well we are just kidding ourselves if we think that they are going to give up a policy that they have been doing since Vietnam. Bush's only crime in their eyes, is to do it so openly.

[MrsBigD]

Hey and if they can't do it in their country they just fly the 'suspects' out to somewhere where torture is not an issue...

[clerkKent]

...and the US defines torture differently from Europe so they have another escape clause...

[peacedove]

The law being voted in was this:

the news on CNN

Quote:
... Before dawn Monday, the House passed the bill 374-41, and Senate passage was expected this week. The detainee provisions also are included in a separate $453 billion military spending bill that is making its way through Congress and provides $50 billion for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Bush is expected to sign both measures when they reach his desk. ... Under an agreement with the president, McCain added that civilian interrogators accused of violating the standards would get the same legal protections as those afforded to military interrogators. That addition was modeled after the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which says military personnel accused of violating interrogation rules can defend themselves if a reasonable person could have concluded they were following a lawful order. Those rights would be extended to CIA interrogators under the agreement. Other provisions are specific to terror-war prisoners at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. They would be permitted to appeal their detention status and punishments to a federal appeals court in Washington. That avenue would replace the one tool the Supreme Court gave detainees in 2004 to fight the legality of their detentions the right to file habeas corpus lawsuits in any federal court.Detainees declared enemy combatants those currently at Guantanamo Bay and those who have been released -- also would be barred from filing any other kind of legal action against the United States or its officials. Another provision would allow military panels determining whether to hold detainees indefinitely to consider information gained from coercive interrogation techniques.Human rights groups say that would undermine McCain's ban.


This was on 19th Dec.

Of course, this should be read in conjunction with the number of those abducted, rendered, tortured, and held incommunicado for long; then released without charge. Yet he supporters of the US policy keep referring to those thus treated as ?terrorists?>

[monkeynutsroastingonanopenfire]

Colin Powel was right. It isn't just the US, every state does it. It happens everywhere. It's immoral but it happens and always has. We just know about it now...

Peacedove (hi ) can I do a little hijack and ask you an unrelated question? Have you seen the film Three Kings? (2nd thoughts I'll start another thread in 'movie reviews'. Is that okay?)