tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4825561914558191959.post221686306469020370..comments2009-06-09T23:03:57.359-05:00Comments on Free Radical: Jon Stewart and the Geneva ConventionsFree Radicalhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07228473076207826346noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4825561914558191959.post-54857003764997030162009-04-30T11:54:00.000-05:002009-04-30T11:54:00.000-05:00I think that's quite accurate, and the Conventions...I think that's quite accurate, and the Conventions, incidentally, forbid the transportation of prisoners to any non-signatory state (presumably to avoid, say, dropping prisoners into a legal limbo).<br /><br />I don't actually think May got much of a chance, however, to "rant" about the torture itself in a particularly constructive way. He was hammering at the point - which, again, I'm not sure is in error - that both he and Stewart had personal moral lines when it came to what was "discomfort" and what was "torture." That was pretty much all he talked about, and it didn't really go anywhere.<br /><br />I'm not convinced, as most other anti-torture advocates seem to be, that those debates are worthless semantics. Defining torture might be easy, but I think it's still necessary for any position to define its terms in order to strengthen them.<br /><br />Some people seem to think "torture" can be defined as "whatever interrogation or imprisonment techniques are self-evidently immoral," and I have no confidence in the sustainability of that argument.Free Radicalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07228473076207826346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4825561914558191959.post-1364894507027040392009-04-30T04:05:00.000-05:002009-04-30T04:05:00.000-05:00While it is faulty to say the Geneva Conventions m...While it is faulty to say the Geneva Conventions may have applied to these people, the Bush Administration purposely kept the detainees out of this country to keep them in a legal limbo. The significance of the Hamda decision was in finding that these people were, at the least, entitled to Habeus Corpus hearings.<br /><br />No matter how it's sliced and diced, we did the wrong thing by using torture and May's rantings were as unconvincing, and as faulty as Stewart's understanding of the GC.<br /><br />Stewart, like May, also said he doesn't believe the lawyers who came up with the "legal" rationales for the torture should be prosecuted or disbarred. Any lawyer who would write any opinion attempting to give legal sanction to torture isn't fit, ethically or morally, to practice law. <br /><br />As far as Messrs. Cheney and Bush, they deserve to held in disrepute by anyone in this world who believes in the rule of law and the greatness of democracy. What's truly sad is leaders from both parties are not willing to comdemn what they've done. Not indict them, or even subpeona or question them, but just say this was torture and it was wrong. I can't believe partisanship could make so many so blind.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com