US grilled on torture by UN

**Hurin_Rules** · 05-05-2006, 19:22

At the UN today, and continuing into next week, the US is required (as part of the terms of signing the UN Convention Against Torture) to answer the questions of a UN panel regarding its adherence to the Convention. Many of these questions are ones that the Bush administration has never effectively answered, and hence the proceedings hold considerable interest.

Here is an overview of the proceedings thus far:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4974852.stm

(You can also find the full list of questions if you click on the link named 'Committee key questions' on the same page.)

Some of the more interesting questions include:

1. How does Washington interpret the absolute ban on torture?

2. Interrogation practices: What rules and methods does the US employ?

3. Secret prisons: Why has the US established secret prisons?

4. Responsibility: Does the US take responsibility for torture committed by agents overseas?

5. Abu Ghraib: What measures have been taken to identify and remedy problems?

6. Investigation: Has there been an independent investigation into whether defence officials authorised torture?

More to come, to be sure.

**Crazed Rabbit** · 05-05-2006, 19:33

Too bad they don't ask these questions of all their members, and demand hard answers from them.

And if the UN 'grills' us on torture, can we grill them on child rape, war crimes committed by UN soldiers, oil-for-food, dictatorships on the human rights council, and other scandals?

Crazed Rabbit

**Hurin_Rules** · 05-05-2006, 19:42

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Too bad they don't ask these questions of all their members, and demand hard answers from them.

Indeed. It is lamentable that not all nations have signed the Conventions against Torture.

And if the UN 'grills' us on torture, can we grill them on child rape, war crimes committed by UN soldiers, oil-for-food, dictatorships on the human rights council, and other scandals?

How do these relate to torture?

**Ice** · 05-05-2006, 19:50

Originally Posted by Hurin_Rules

Indeed. It is lamentable that not all nations have signed the Conventions against Torture.

How do these relate to torture?

They don't. That wasn't the idea of that section of the post.

**Sjakihata** · 05-05-2006, 19:51

Interesting thread Hurin, please keep us updated with details and articles.

Instead of a US vs UN thread, let's turn this into some constructive debate on the real issue; ban on turture

**rory_20_uk** · 05-05-2006, 19:58

Yeah, the USA signed agreements on uses of torture. And since the USA attacked another country partly as te dictator was torturing people it'd be nice to know that they're not doing the same.

Oh, of course the whole UN episode is a complete fiasco. But still the results are worthy of viewing as a comedy sketch.

**Tribesman** · 05-05-2006, 20:31

And if the UN 'grills' us on torture, can we grill them on child rape, war crimes committed by UN soldiers, oil-for-food, dictatorships on the human rights council, and other scandals?

Yep , feel free , but then they might grill the US on child rape by its servicemen , war crimes by the US , Americas role in the Oil for Food scandal , support for human rights abusing dictatorships , as well as its own human rights abuses ...and other scandals .
Ever heard the expression about stones and glass houses Rabbit , it cuts both ways ?

**KrooK** · 05-05-2006, 20:35

Don't worry Americans
USA pays 25% of UN budget. So UN will do nothing.

Of course if your soldier will be captured by other soldiers - they will be right to torture him.

But who cares - you got 2.000.000 soldiers

**Redleg** · 05-05-2006, 20:33

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Oh, of course the whole UN episode is a complete fiasco. But still the results are worthy of viewing as a comedy sketch.

Yes it should make for a rather interesting discussion.

**Soulforged** · 05-06-2006, 01:01

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Oh, of course the whole UN episode is a complete fiasco. But still the results are worthy of viewing as a comedy sketch.

Not sure if it's a complete fiasco. International organisms can impose penalties to the signataries who violate the principles and objectives of the treaty, nothing makes USA immune to that. Let's remember that the US also signed the Pact of Costa Rica, and though it never ratified the latter, by the principle of good faith (not sure about the translation) the state cannot contradict this treaty or others (Convention of Viena about the Right of Treaties). But of course this should be treated by the Interamerican Court.
We're however on the stage of friendly inquiry, let's hope that this is enough to terminate with any acts of torture.

**Lemur** · 05-06-2006, 01:04

The torture issue is important enough that it shouldn't be sidetracked into U.N. bashing thread #4,671. With any luck, Americans will speak their mind on the issue this November.