| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
r.Evo
Germany14081 Posts
"The president instructed us that nothing we would do would be outside of our legal obligations under the convention against torture." was her answer to the question of "Is waterboarding torture?" "By definition, if it was authorized by the president it did not violate our obligations against torture.." Original article from a german newspaper where I found out about the video (in german): http://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/811/467385/text/ Might be interesting if someone missed it :p | ||
|
Jathin
United States3505 Posts
| ||
|
pandabearguy
United States252 Posts
On May 14 2009 04:20 r.Evo wrote: "By definition, if it was authorized by the president it did not violate our obligations against torture.." arghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh This is not a very good argument | ||
|
MeriaDoKk
Chile1726 Posts
| ||
|
iheartgna
United States184 Posts
On May 14 2009 04:34 MeriaDoKk wrote: :O in that movie Frost/Nixon one line is really similar to this one, don't know if that really happened (that phrase) but it came to my mind while reading this. Yea, I think the line is something like "When the president does it, it's not illegal." (Nixon concerning wire taps.) And yes, he really did say that in the original interview. Condi is basically saying the same thing. | ||
JWD
United States12607 Posts
Something to understand about this video is that it was filmed at a faculty dinner here at Stanford - freshman dorms hold these events once a quarter, and students are asked to invite professors to dinner. Condi accepted one of this student's dorm-mates's invitation to this event (or maybe even this student's invitation), so it kind of sucks that he decided to take it as an opportunity to grill her about torture. Condi has to accept the burden/responsibility for the decisions she made while Secretary of State, but it just occurs to me that it's sort of sad to be invited to a friendly dinner as someone's professor, attend, and then have to deal with attacks on your policy record and, implicitly I think, your character. | ||
|
Railxp
Hong Kong1313 Posts
| ||
|
Alizee-
United States845 Posts
On May 14 2009 04:58 JWD wrote: I watched this video a while ago and, though the questioner probably has a good point, I actually thought Condi handled the situation pretty well (in terms of her demeanor and composure). I get the sense that the student was hoping to film some outrageous reaction, or at least catch her in a gaffe - but Condi has probably fielded these kinds of questions from people much more intimidating than a college freshman. Something to understand about this video is that it was filmed at a faculty dinner here at Stanford - freshman dorms hold these events once a quarter, and students are asked to invite professors to dinner. Condi accepted one of this student's dorm-mates's invitation to this event (or maybe even this student's invitation), so it kind of sucks that he decided to take it as an opportunity to grill her about torture. Condi has to accept the burden/responsibility for the decisions she made while Secretary of State, but it just occurs to me that it's sort of sad to be invited to a friendly dinner as someone's professor, attend, and then have to deal with attacks on your policy record and, implicitly I think, your character. Your line of thinking scares me, you seem to justify that even if people do things wrong if they're a smooth talking politician and can bullshit their way through questions that its ok. I think the fact of the matter is is that if you helped to perpetrate policy and criminal activity that very few Americans find to be ok then yes you're boned, you shouldn't be let off the hook. Bush and Cheney are gone, so now we just go back to our invisible bubble of security and pretend like everything is ok? You seem to be disillusioned to the fact of what politicians have done in the past 5+ years. Its like inviting Cheney to an event and not asking him the hard hitting questions and instead saying hey that guy was the vice president let's just ask scripted bullshit questions because we don't really give a shit. | ||
|
Aegraen
United States1225 Posts
On May 14 2009 05:07 Railxp wrote: it sucks to be her, but i think she deserves to be grilled over a, or even every meal regarding policy issues because college freshmen are going to be the people who will continue to suffer from the backlash and reputation that USA is evil because it tortures detainees. If she had the balls (lawl) to run for public office, to think that you can make the right decisions for tens of thousands of people, she should know that this stuff is part of the job description. Dumb people are dumb. Do you know those held at those facilities were ENEMY COMBATANTS. Now, my misinformed Hong Kongan (however, you wish to describe yourself), go read the Geneva Conventions on 1A) Enemy Combatants 2A) Torture/POW Treatment. Every country, is legally allowed to 'execute' Enemy Combatants. They have zero rights, and zero rights under our Constitution, which is explicitly only for US Citizens. The Constitution is not a world Constitution, it is a US Constitution. So, I say to you, fine sir; shove it up where the sun doesn't shine. | ||
|
BalliSLife
1339 Posts
| ||
|
roadrunner_sc
United States1220 Posts
On May 14 2009 05:32 Alizee- wrote: Your line of thinking scares me, you seem to justify that even if people do things wrong if they're a smooth talking politician and can bullshit their way through questions that its ok. I think the fact of the matter is is that if you helped to perpetrate policy and criminal activity that very few Americans find to be ok then yes you're boned, you shouldn't be let off the hook. Bush and Cheney are gone, so now we just go back to our invisible bubble of security and pretend like everything is ok? You seem to be disillusioned to the fact of what politicians have done in the past 5+ years. Its like inviting Cheney to an event and not asking him the hard hitting questions and instead saying hey that guy was the vice president let's just ask scripted bullshit questions because we don't really give a shit. He wasn't condoning or even defending what Rice had done at all, but rather complimenting her on handling a difficult situation well. Whatever her involvement & responsibility in the Bush admin's sanctioning of torture, he completely avoided and jumped ahead to her composure at this event, this particular dinner. Not every opinion of someone has to reflect some fundamental political stance. I can compliment Bush for his athleticism dodging that shoe, for example, but I'm not condoning his spending all that time working out instead of working in the office. If you want to argue about Rice being responsible for so-and-so go ahead, just don't set up someone else for something they didn't say. | ||
|
seppolevne
Canada1681 Posts
On May 14 2009 05:38 Aegraen wrote: Dumb people are dumb. Do you know those held at those facilities were ENEMY COMBATANTS. Now, my misinformed Hong Kongan (however, you wish to describe yourself), go read the Geneva Conventions on 1A) Enemy Combatants 2A) Torture/POW Treatment. Every country, is legally allowed to 'execute' Enemy Combatants. They have zero rights, and zero rights under our Constitution, which is explicitly only for US Citizens. The Constitution is not a world Constitution, it is a US Constitution. So, I say to you, fine sir; shove it up where the sun doesn't shine. "No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion" - Third Geneva Convention, Part 3, Section 1, Article 17-20. No rights? I think that's what the Geneva convention is. | ||
|
VIB
Brazil3567 Posts
On May 14 2009 05:38 Aegraen wrote: I've got to admit. As much as the intellectual value of the TL general forums are as low as it can be. The irony it causes if often entertaining.Dumb people are dumb. | ||
|
BloodyC0bbler
Canada7876 Posts
On May 14 2009 06:04 seppolevne wrote: "No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion" - Third Geneva Convention, Part 3, Section 1, Article 17-20. No rights? I think that's what the Geneva convention is. To my knowledge, the geneva convention refers to prisoners of war, not enemy combatants. So as they weren't US citizens they had no rights and as they were combatants and not pow's they had no rights. Edit: I believe this was how the government justified it. | ||
|
Zato-1
Chile4253 Posts
On May 14 2009 06:04 seppolevne wrote: "No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion" - Third Geneva Convention, Part 3, Section 1, Article 17-20. No rights? I think that's what the Geneva convention is. This man speaks the truth. There's also the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: "Article 5. * No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." | ||
|
seppolevne
Canada1681 Posts
On May 14 2009 06:08 BloodyC0bbler wrote: To my knowledge, the geneva convention refers to prisoners of war, not enemy combatants. So as they weren't US citizens they had no rights and as they were combatants and not pow's they had no rights. Edit: I believe this was how the government justified it. I think the US government justified it by labeling them "unlawful combatants", a grey area not explicitly covered by section 3 or 4. | ||
|
Zato-1
Chile4253 Posts
On May 14 2009 06:08 BloodyC0bbler wrote: To my knowledge, the geneva convention refers to prisoners of war, not enemy combatants. So as they weren't US citizens they had no rights and as they were combatants and not pow's they had no rights. So what is a PoW? "A prisoner of war (POW, PoW, PW, P/W, WP, or PsW) or enemy prisoner of war (EPW) is a combatant who is held in continuing custody by an enemy power during or immediately after an armed conflict. The earliest recorded usage of the phrase is dated 1660." | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
Xenixx
United States530 Posts
| ||
|
KlaCkoN
Sweden1661 Posts
"Bush told us to turture them so of course it wasn't illegal" versus "Hitler ordered the death camps, so standing guard there was not illegal and should not be punishable". *sighs* sometimes humans make me sick to my stomach. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Britney Dota 2  41634Shuttle 2761Mini 1351EffOrt  662Light  638Soulkey 583firebathero 481Soma 449Rush 321Larva 290[ Show more ] Counter-Strike Other Games gofns9550 hiko599 FrodaN562 mouzStarbuck238 elazer196 Liquid`VortiX195 Hui .175 TKL  144SteadfastSC98 Mew2King98 Trikslyr42 KnowMe33 ZerO(Twitch)11 |
|
Replay Cast
The PondCast
PiG Sty Festival
Serral vs Lambo
SHIN vs Rogue
OSC
Replay Cast
Escore
PiG Sty Festival
ByuN vs HeRoMaRinE
ShoWTimE vs Zoun
CranKy Ducklings
PiG Sty Festival
herO vs Krystianer
Solar vs Cure
Sparkling Tuna Cup
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
