http://psychoanalystsopposewar.org/blog/2006/09/13/what-the-us-reservations-to-un-convention-on-torture-really-means/ Thoughts by Stephen Soldz on war, peace, politics, psychoanalysis, and research methods Thu, 21 Aug 2008 20:54:09 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6 http://psychoanalystsopposewar.org/blog/2006/09/13/what-the-us-reservations-to-un-convention-on-torture-really-means/#comment-166741 Dissident Voice : Yet Another Justice Department Rationale for Torture Tue, 29 Apr 2008 13:04:13 +0000 http://psychoanalystsopposewar.org/blog/2006/09/13/what-the-us-reservations-to-un-convention-on-torture-really-means/#comment-166741 [...] David Luban explained, the “shocks the concsience” is extremely problematic and can be bent to justify almost [...] [...] David Luban explained, the “shocks the concsience” is extremely problematic and can be bent to justify almost [...]

]]> http://psychoanalystsopposewar.org/blog/2006/09/13/what-the-us-reservations-to-un-convention-on-torture-really-means/#comment-166411 Psyche, Science, and Society » Yet another Justice Department rationale for torture Sun, 27 Apr 2008 21:50:35 +0000 http://psychoanalystsopposewar.org/blog/2006/09/13/what-the-us-reservations-to-un-convention-on-torture-really-means/#comment-166411 [...] David Luban explained here, the “shocks the concsience” is extremely problematic and can be bent to justify almost [...] [...] David Luban explained here, the “shocks the concsience” is extremely problematic and can be bent to justify almost [...]

]]> http://psychoanalystsopposewar.org/blog/2006/09/13/what-the-us-reservations-to-un-convention-on-torture-really-means/#comment-130597 Psyche, Science, and Society » Otterman: UN claified “cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment” Mon, 26 Nov 2007 16:03:07 +0000 http://psychoanalystsopposewar.org/blog/2006/09/13/what-the-us-reservations-to-un-convention-on-torture-really-means/#comment-130597 [...] with torture, are unethical and banned for psychologist participation. As we’ve discussed here, the APA, in 2006, based its definition of CIDTP on the United States Reservations to the UN [...] [...] with torture, are unethical and banned for psychologist participation. As we’ve discussed here, the APA, in 2006, based its definition of CIDTP on the United States Reservations to the UN [...]

]]> http://psychoanalystsopposewar.org/blog/2006/09/13/what-the-us-reservations-to-un-convention-on-torture-really-means/#comment-116459 Psyche, Science, and Society » Nothing is ever “cruel, inhuman, or degrading,” Congress told ages ago Fri, 05 Oct 2007 22:02:26 +0000 http://psychoanalystsopposewar.org/blog/2006/09/13/what-the-us-reservations-to-un-convention-on-torture-really-means/#comment-116459 [...] Luban, who had analyzed here the limitations of the 2006 American Psychological Association resolution against torture and its [...] [...] Luban, who had analyzed here the limitations of the 2006 American Psychological Association resolution against torture and its [...]

]]> http://psychoanalystsopposewar.org/blog/2006/09/13/what-the-us-reservations-to-un-convention-on-torture-really-means/#comment-58253 Psyche, Science, and Society » Is prolonged solitary confinement unconstitutional in America and in the Guantanamo gulag? Tue, 17 Apr 2007 13:44:55 +0000 http://psychoanalystsopposewar.org/blog/2006/09/13/what-the-us-reservations-to-un-convention-on-torture-really-means/#comment-58253 [...] of CIDTP on constantly-shifting American jurisprudence rather than upon international law [see here and here],  if Woodfox and Wallace are successful in their suit, the APA may be forced to accept [...] [...] of CIDTP on constantly-shifting American jurisprudence rather than upon international law [see here and here],  if Woodfox and Wallace are successful in their suit, the APA may be forced to accept [...]

]]> http://psychoanalystsopposewar.org/blog/2006/09/13/what-the-us-reservations-to-un-convention-on-torture-really-means/#comment-6534 Psyche, Science, and Society » What the torturers agreed to Sat, 23 Sep 2006 01:34:16 +0000 http://psychoanalystsopposewar.org/blog/2006/09/13/what-the-us-reservations-to-un-convention-on-torture-really-means/#comment-6534 [...] A close reading indicates a total capitulation to Bush. The President is free to define his interpretation of the Geneva Convention as he sees fit. “Cruel, unusual, and inhumane treatment or punishment” continues to be defined in terms of the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the US Constitution, which as has been explained by several postings here [see this and this], is a way of introducing relativism and situational morality via the “shocks the conscience” criterion. [...] [...] A close reading indicates a total capitulation to Bush. The President is free to define his interpretation of the Geneva Convention as he sees fit. “Cruel, unusual, and inhumane treatment or punishment” continues to be defined in terms of the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the US Constitution, which as has been explained by several postings here [see this and this], is a way of introducing relativism and situational morality via the “shocks the conscience” criterion. [...]

]]> http://psychoanalystsopposewar.org/blog/2006/09/13/what-the-us-reservations-to-un-convention-on-torture-really-means/#comment-6158 Psyche, Science, and Society » New analysis suggests McCain et al are fighting to retain torture-as-usual Fri, 15 Sep 2006 14:20:29 +0000 http://psychoanalystsopposewar.org/blog/2006/09/13/what-the-us-reservations-to-un-convention-on-torture-really-means/#comment-6158 [...] By the way, it is interesting that this Legal Brief is actually incorrect. Unstated in the legal analysis in the Brief is that the US Reservations refers to three Constitutional Amendments, not just the Eighth. Most commentators believe that the Fourteenth Amendment is essentially irrelevant and some believe that the Eighth Amendment (forbidding cruel and unusual punishment) may not even apply if the behavior is not “punishement,” but part of an interrogation. Thus, as I’ve discussed in previous posts, many commentators believe that the central issue involves the Fifth Amendment and its guarantee for respect for due process of law, which, according to the Supreme Court, depends upon a “shocks the conscience” standard that is subject to situational ethics of the worst sort. [...] [...] By the way, it is interesting that this Legal Brief is actually incorrect. Unstated in the legal analysis in the Brief is that the US Reservations refers to three Constitutional Amendments, not just the Eighth. Most commentators believe that the Fourteenth Amendment is essentially irrelevant and some believe that the Eighth Amendment (forbidding cruel and unusual punishment) may not even apply if the behavior is not “punishement,” but part of an interrogation. Thus, as I’ve discussed in previous posts, many commentators believe that the central issue involves the Fifth Amendment and its guarantee for respect for due process of law, which, according to the Supreme Court, depends upon a “shocks the conscience” standard that is subject to situational ethics of the worst sort. [...]

]]>