Agreed, wish he'd have used one of the others though, because that definition has holes the size Scandinavia which you can get stuff through, more specifically "inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions", so if the laws of a country, say Saudi Arabia said an acceptable punishment was to whip somebody in public then that's not torture because it's "inherent or incidental to lawful sanctions", another hole would be if I was an organisation, say Al Qaeda and connected a car battery to somebody's testicles etc without the permission of government officials of the state I was operating in that's also, not torture under that convention.
I much prefer either:
orOriginally Posted by the 1975 Declaration of Tokyo, the World Medical Association.
Both scores bonus points for brevity. Of course there will be no meaningful international Conventions against torture as long as nations including but not limited to China, Iran, Saudi Arabia etc are still around, because their definition of "lawful sanctions" include things which any sensible human being(which apparently excludes Donald Trump & handofthrawn amongst others) would recognize as torture.Originally Posted by Amnesty Incernational
Last edited by Elldallan; 08-12-2015 at 13:16.
Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day, Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)