Waterboarding and Labour
Posted March 13th, 2006 by ringverse
Is Waterboarding Torture?
Not according to our Labour government - if the circumstances are right?
Nicholas Clegg (Sheffield, Hallam, LDem)
"To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the infliction of simulated drowning falls within the definition of torture or cruel and inhumane treatment used by the Government for the purposes of international law."
"To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the infliction of simulated drowning falls within the definition of torture or cruel and inhumane treatment used by the Government for the purposes of international law."
Ian Pearson (Minister of State (Trade), Foreign & Commonwealth Office)
"Whether the conduct described constitutes torture or cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment for the purposes of the UN Convention Against Torture would depend on all the circumstances of the case."
Under what circumstances, exactly, is waterboarding appropriate?
Under what circumstances,
Under what circumstances, exactly, is waterboarding appropriate?
I guess when the Americans tell us it is.
I'm sure it used to be torture, and I'm sure anyone subjected to such barbaric treatment would think it was torture. If I understand this right, then the goverment is saying that the same action (i.e. drowning someone half to death) is not torture if done by the Americans or their friends, and is torture if done by anyone else. Very interesting!
waterboarding can be traced
waterboarding can be traced back to the spanish inquisition - as to whether or not it contitutes torture, depends entirely who defines torture - left to the UN or the judiciary, it is torture