[lit-ideas] Re: Waterboarding Bodies Mattered
- From: Omar Kusturica <omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 16:46:55 -0700 (PDT)
--- On Fri, 4/24/09, Phil Enns <phil.enns@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
From: Phil Enns <phil.enns@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Waterboarding Bodies Mattered
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Friday, April 24, 2009, 12:10 AM
Omar Kusturica wrote:
"It is far from clear how necessity dictates torturing non-US citizens
to extract information, but the same necessity does not apply in the
cases involving citizens."
This may be the gist of the legal argument. However, since the
argument being made was a legal one, it had to be framed in terms of the U.S.
legal system, the U.S. constitution and the rights of U.S.
citizens. I am unclear as to why this would be objectionable.
I am not sure where to begin. We are providing legal stipulations for torture
(no less) of persons who are *not* US citizens, and some of whom (e.g. Khalid
Mohammad) were not even detained on US soil, yet we presume to do this "in
terms of the U.S. legal system, the U.S. constitution and the rights of U.S.
citizens." On the next turn, we yet do not wish to apply the same legal
framework to these persons that we would to US citizens, but apply different
stipulations to them. This seems like a globalization of the US legal system,
but with one set of laws for US citizens and another for those who are not. I
find it objectionable to think that I might legally be detained in Pakistan,
and legally taken to the US to be legally tortured by waterboarding, all this
provided for by the legal system of a country that is not my own, and which
would not apply the same provisions to its own citizens. You have no problem
with this ?
O.K.
Other related posts:
