The Amnesty Travesty
By Charles Bird Posted in War — Comments (76) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
In writing about the Amnesty International Report 2005, Edward at Obsidian Wings wrote the following:
It seems to me that Amnesty's point was that as the world's remaining superpower, the US bears a bigger responsibility than North Korea or Iran to set an example.
Unless it has changed its vision, Amnesty International has no business making such a point:
AI’s vision is of a world in which every person enjoys all of the human rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international human rights standards.
Emphases mine. There's no cherry-picking here, and there's no singling out a particular nation because that nation happens to be really, really powerful. The vision of Amnesty International is one standard applied to every person. To the extent that the leadership of Amnesty International has focused its ire on a country that has done more than any other on earth to advance freedom and human rights, it is an organization that has lost its bearings. To put it more forthrightly, the perspective of the leadership of Amnesty International is so whacked and so skewed that it's credibility as a human rights organization is in mortal peril. Consider the statement made by the Secretary General, Irene Khan:
The detention facility at Guantánamo Bay has become the gulag of our times, entrenching the practice of arbitrary and indefinite detention in violation of international law.
The Washington Post put it best:
Read on.
IT'S ALWAYS SAD when a solid, trustworthy institution loses its bearings and joins in the partisan fracas that nowadays passes for political discourse. It's particularly sad when the institution is Amnesty International, which for more than 40 years has been a tough, single-minded defender of political prisoners around the world and a scourge of left- and right-wing dictators alike. True, Amnesty continues to keep track of the world's political prisoners, as it has always done, and its reports remain a vital source of human rights information. But lately the organization has tended to save its most vitriolic condemnations not for the world's dictators but for the United States.
That vitriol reached a new level this week when, at a news conference held to mark the publication of Amnesty's annual report, the organization's secretary general, Irene Khan, called the U.S. detention facilities at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, the "gulag of our times." In her written introduction to the report, Ms. Khan also mentioned only two countries at length: Sudan and the United States, the "unrivalled political, military and economic hyper-power," which "thumbs its nose at the rule of law and human rights."
Like Amnesty, we, too, have written extensively about U.S. prisoner abuse at Guantanamo Bay, in Afghanistan and in Iraq. We have done so not only because the phenomenon is disturbing in its own right but also because it gives undemocratic regimes around the world an excuse to justify their own use of torture and indefinite detention and because it damages the U.S. government's ability to promote human rights.
But we draw the line at the use of the word "gulag" or at the implication that the United States has somehow become the modern equivalent of Stalin's Soviet Union. Guantanamo Bay is an ad hoc creation, designed to contain captured enemy combatants in wartime. Abuses there -- including new evidence of desecrating the Koran -- have been investigated and discussed by the FBI, the press and, to a still limited extent, the military. The Soviet gulag, by contrast, was a massive forced labor complex consisting of thousands of concentration camps and hundreds of exile villages through which more than 20 million people passed during Stalin's lifetime and whose existence was not acknowledged until after his death. Its modern equivalent is not Guantanamo Bay, but the prisons of Cuba, where Amnesty itself says a new generation of prisoners of conscience reside; or the labor camps of North Korea, which were set up on Stalinist lines; or China's laogai , the true size of which isn't even known; or, until recently, the prisons of Saddam Hussein's Iraq.
Worrying about the use of a word may seem like mere semantics, but it is not. Turning a report on prisoner detention into another excuse for Bush-bashing or America-bashing undermines Amnesty's legitimate criticisms of U.S. policies and weakens the force of its investigations of prison systems in closed societies. It also gives the administration another excuse to dismiss valid objections to its policies as "hysterical."
I don't usually cut and paste entire articles, but this one deserved it. After all, one of the Washington Post's columnists knows a thing or two about gulags. Morally equating a few hundred unlawful enemy combatants with the millions who died under the reign of Stalin is so irresponsible and so out of touch that Ms. Khan's judgment and leadership is too suspect for any reliance. John Podhoretz also offers a comparison between gulag and Gitmo. Consider also the words of William F. Schulz, the executive director of Amnesty International USA:
If the US government continues to shirk its responsibility, Amnesty International calls on foreign governments to uphold their obligations under international law by investigating all senior US officials involved in the torture scandal. And if those investigations support prosecution, the governments should arrest any official who enters their territory and begin legal proceedings against them. The apparent high-level architects of torture should think twice before planning their next vacation to places like Acapulco or the French Riviera because they may find themselves under arrest as Augusto Pinochet famously did in London in 1998.
It is important to point out that, while Mr. Schulz is encouraging other countries to pinochet a dozen or so American officials, he is silent on the much worse transgressions by...
North Korea, where access by AI was "severely restricted". Out of sight, out of mind, I suppose. Freedom House chimes in:
North Korea is one of the most tightly controlled countries in the world. The regime denies North Koreans even the most basic rights; holds tens of thousands of political prisoners under brutal conditions; and controls nearly every facet of social, political, and economic life.
In effect, the entire country is imprisoned by the North Korean government, but not a peep from Mr. Schulz about pinocheting Kim Jong Il. Or...
Cuba, where AI has not been allowed into for seven years. Curiously, even when the subject is Cuba, Amnesty International still blames America for Cuba's wrongs:
The US embargo and related measures continued to have a negative effect on the enjoyment of the full range of human rights in Cuba.
Yeah, right. If only the U.S. dropped the restrictions, then Castro would lighten up on his people. And when did Cubans under Castro ever have a "full range" of anything? To be clear, I do not fully support our Cuba policy, and would prefer that the restrictions on travel and cash transfers be lifted, but to blame America for the actions of Fidel Castro is beyond absurd, approaching plain stupid. For the countries that Fidel Castro visits, Mr. Schulz does not encourage them to put the bearded dictator under lock and key.
China. In AI's own words:
Tens of thousands of people continued to be detained or imprisoned in violation of their fundamental human rights and were at high risk of torture or ill-treatment. Thousands of people were sentenced to death or executed, many after unfair trials. Public protests increased against forcible evictions and land requisition without adequate compensation. China continued to use the global “war on terrorism” to justify its crackdown on the Uighur community in Xinjiang. Freedom of expression and religion continued to be severely restricted in Tibet and other Tibetan areas of China.
Does Schulz suggest some time in the slammer for Hu Jintao? Nope. How about...
Sudan, where there is an ongoing genocide? The harshest thing Schulz can muster is to encourage Secretary of State Rice to go there and to support the International Criminal Court in its investigation of crimes committed. This is brain farting nonsense, tantamount to closing the barn door after all the horses have run out. What Darfur needs right now is action, not visits, not tribunals after the crimes have been committed. Does Schulz envision a jail cell with al-Bashir's name on it? Apparently not.
The point is this. To the extent that Amnesty International overemphasizes transgressions made by the United States, they are underemphasizing the many more serious violations in the rest of the world, and that is a fundamental disservice. In their work, the one factor they should be spotlighting more is denial of access. If AI isn't allowed in or is hampered by excessive restrictions, the operating assumption should be that the government is hiding something and to expect the worst. By documenting only snippets of what is available in places like China, North Korea and other places of repression and oppression, the picture they're painting is out of kilter.
What are AI's apparent priorities? From its individual country reports, the snapshots it gives are of the countries' positions on the death penalty, the International Criminal Court and UN Women's Convention and its Optional Protocol. Does it provide a snapshot glimpse of a country's own system of checks and balances or its own rule of law relating to human rights? No, and that's a problem. When William Schulz states that the "US government is a leading purveyor and practitioner of this odious human rights violation [torture and ill treatment]," by what measure does he have to make such a conclusion? None. Amnesty International has no rating system, and they provide no reportage which quantifies or objectively measures alleged transgressions of the governments in the world. In effect, there is no mechanism for country-by-country comparisons. That is a fundamental disservice because, in doing so, AI fails to prioritize the worst abusers of human rights.
Also, if openness is a policy that Amnesty International is in favor of, they could start with themselves. While their website states that "no funds are sought or accepted from governments for AI’s work investigating and campaigning against human rights violations," their financial disclosures are opaque when it comes to knowing who the big benefactors are. If a large chunk of the funding is coming from Bush-hating liberals, it would explain quite a bit.
Because of the odd and distorted emphases by its leadership, also called into question is the culture of Amnesty International. If this person does indeed work for Amnesty International, and if the leadership agrees with any semblance of that distorted worldview, then the organization is in serious trouble.
Just to clarify my views on prisoners and detainees, I'm seldom in complete agreement with anyone, but I am with Dale Franks and Jon Henke in their superb post on how we've treated them and what need to do. I give you the final paragraph, but if there's any post worth a full read, this is it:
But the current state of affairs, with undeniable widespread abuse, torture and murder—either ordered, tacitly condoned, or at least not stopped, by the chain of command—is simply unacceptable. It deserves bipartisan outrage, especially from those of us who support the Bush administration's execution of the War on Terror. For if we cannot stand against torture and murder, then what do we stand for at all?
McQ has says his piece, too, opposing situational ethics and the argument for torture. I also find myself agreeing with Dale Franks when he wrote this:
My preferred method of dealing with these terror prisoners would be to get two captains and a major together as a tribunal, declare them to be unlawful combatants, and put them in front of a firing squad. Now, maybe, because we're nice guys, we could let them know that if any of them give us verifiable, useful information, then we'll commute their sentences, and won't shoot them. Otherwise, however, it's a blindfold and a last cigarette for the lot of 'em.
The difference of course, is that doing so would be legal.
I don't think this was what Tom Friedman had in mind, but it would effectively end the detainee operation at Gitmo. Such a course may put the collective panties of AI in a twist, but at least there would be no violation of the Geneva Conventions.
« We need more COIN in the Afghan realm — Comments (0) | The First Casualty — Comments (63) »
The Amnesty Travesty 76 Comments (0 topical, 76 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
It strikes me that one of the things that Gramsci missed is that the people coming behind him who would actually execute the 'march through the institutions' would inevitably be a lot dumber than he was.
He does not seem to have foreseen that the institutions, once occupied, would no longer wield their customary clout, but would instead become objects of ridicule.
has drawn a line and that it's somewhere between reality and "gulag". That's...something...right?
Abuses there -- including new evidence of desecrating the Koran
What kind of game is being played by people so intent that everything GOP is "evil" that mere touching of the Koran by an infidel is now "desecration" and is categorized as "abuse"?????
PS. thanks for the large profinity warning above the comment box...cuz, lord knows, stuff like this makes me want to turn the air blue.
while touching or being disrespectful to the Koran is offensive, and soldiers/non muslims should do what they can to avoid it, it hardly amounts to prisoner abuse.
Even if the Koran flushing turned out to be 100% true, I think a person would stil be skating on thin ice trying to describe it as abuse. Offensive, wrong, and avoidable yes, but it isn't abuse or torture.
I can't help but think if I had to be imprisoned, and was given the choice between Gitmo or a prison in say Syria, China, North Korea, Cuba etc, I think I would take Gitmo anyday-even if they flushed the Bible down the toilet on a daily basis.
While I think any abuse should be revealed and punished, and I think standing up for, and condmening human right abuses I am just don't see the comparison between the Gitmo situation and a Soviet or other communist Gulag.
...search RedState for outrage or concern about prisoner abuse, torture or "extraordinary [read, more and more ordindary] rendtion". There is nothing here. Not one single post I can find where someone expresses concern about prisoner abuse, torture or extraordinary rendition.
But, oh, AI used the word "gulag" about us. Now we'll show them what we're made of, now we'll show them our adherence to principles. Give me a break.
AI's failed its principles, failed its mission? What's our mission? PR or justice or naval gazing.
Don't make me laugh, hypocrites.
one of the pet issues WaPo uses in the effort to discredit the administration, and Amnesty threatens to render the GITMO argument as illegitimate.
WaPo had no choice. They can not allow Amnesty to define GITMO in moonbat terms.
I don't think that most any of us approve of "torture" of prisoners, either as an accepted practice or as an abberation. That's right out, to most all of us.
Since we are mostly civilized folks here, the fact that we disapprove should not be a question. How much support of that kind of practice can you cite?
Extraordinary rendition? Oh my. We send a prisoner back to his home country? Or to somewhere that has a warrant for him? How barbaric of us!
Abuse? Define "Abuse". And tell me if it's their claim, or a fact.
Any documented "abuse" has been prosecuted. And the appropriate authorities had found it out and were prosecuting it before the media (or any pious NGO) ever started whining.
Be it noted that according to the precious "Geneva Conventions", we have the right to take any of these "nonmilitary combatants" out and shoot them whenever we want to. I think the fact that we haven't exercised that (quite legitimate) option shows how much restraint we are actually imposing on ourselves.
The .Gov is nicer than I would be that way. Al-Qaida? To the wall, when we are through wringing you out.
And videotape it and show the executions on TV over there, just to encourage the Martyrs to come on down. No vacations in Cuba for you, boys. It's the firing squad.
Bawahahaha!
But I'm not running things. So we are being nice. Get your head out, and quit whining.
Where in the Geneva Convention does it say a country is allowed to execute non-miltary POWs at whim? I'm not saying you're neccesarily wrong, but that seems like the kind of claim that deserves a link or some kind of supporting citation.
buy it or you don't.
A lot of people in this country like to talk about how America is the best, the free-est, the greatest, etc, etc but when someone tries to point out our mistakes and failings, we get all huffy and say, "Hey! but so-and-so is doing it too..." Like we're freaking 4-year-olds.
If we want to put ourselves on a pedastil (sp?) and act like we're The Beacon (TM) for the entire-freaking-planet, we need to act like it. We will be judged against higher standards.
Is it fair? Is it our role? I guess it's up to you to decide for yourself.
Since I referred directly to QandO in the body of this post. As for my opinion on extraordinary rendition, I'm on record here.
The ICRC are being disengenuous by holding us to a standard we don't abide by. And so are you.
It's not up to AI to judge us by higher standards, it's up to us.
with you. I think it is the duty of citizens to make sure our govt acting in accordance with the Constitution and our ideals. Of course no country is or can ever be perfect, but I KNOW we can do better as far as GITMO/Abu Ghraib/torture is concerned.
However, if we continue to set ourselves up as Leaders of the Free World, and we want people to follow our lead, then we have to be able to take some criticism. If you can't stand the heat... I remember a while back British citizens were writing letters to Americans telling them how to vote in the 04 election. A lot of people (I forget what state this happened) were upset "How dare foreign citizens meddle in our domestic political affairs!"
Oh, what delicious irony!
Sometimes when people write about the rise of India and China, I look forward to that day, when the US can just be "one of the bunch".
Let someone else lead, I'm tired.
First, the Uniform Code of Military Justice does not allow for any enemy combatants, illegal or otherwise to be "taken out and shot." The laws of the United States also do not allow this.
While the Geneva Conventions do not protect "illegal combatants" (that is the term you were looking for), the laws of the United States of America do. The fact that many at Gitmo are not "combatants" (and the US does not claim them to be) and how many of them are actually "illegal combatants" (as opposed to POWs) is another issue.
"have the right to take any of these "nonmilitary combatants" out and shoot them whenever we want to."
We have the right to try them in military courts for crimes up to and including murder and not afford them POW status, but we can't just take them out and summararily shoot them. And since we handed sovreignty back to the Iraqis, it is doubtful we even have the right to do that anymore in Iraq.
As for extraordinary rendition. We are sending people to third countries, not the country of their origin, for interrogation. Countries that are on our list of countries that torture and abuse prisoners. Yet we claim that the rendered prisoners are not being tortured.
As for documented "abuse". Until there is an independent, full and top to bottom review I will not accept that all the abuse has been documented or aggresively pursued. The administration and the Pentagon have stymied every effort to independently investigate reports of abuse and absolutely refused to accept that policies and procedures developed at the highest levels may have led to the abuses that have been revealed eventhough the wide geographical range (from Afghanistan to Cuba) of the abuse seems to indicate that these are not isolated events.
And that is EXACTLY what about your world-view is objectionable to the likes of us RedStaters. Lead, follow, or get out of the way. It's a cliched expression, but as we lead the free world, no one in particular is asked to lift a damned finger...one of the many things that makes this country great. In my younger days, I wanted to be a liberal and/or a Democrat because I believed they were willing to withstand withering criticism in the interest of fighting for human rights all over the world. Well, they've withered, and I've taken my love of freedom elsewhere.
You believe that the United States chooses to "lead the free world," when in fact, we believe the U.S. is the lone superpower by default. Large militaries, nuclear weapons, high-tech industry, and hundreds of millions of people do not alone make a superpower. As long as overcrowding and sectarianism exist (read: India), or as long as a brutally repressive police state hides behind the veneer of modernity and economic vitality (read: China), a true superpower cannot emerge. Because underneath all the material elements of that status, there must be a free and open popular will (to be sure, India is far closer to that ideal than China).
The likes fo you act as if no one here objects to mistreatment of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, and as if 99.9% of our armed forces are either ignorant of or willfully ignore the Uniform Code of Military Justice (in fact, it gets pounded into the head of every E-1 through O-10 from day one). Of course, you also assume, contrary to facts flying in your face, that the armed forces don't take very seriously the policing of their own. The only reason no one is providing you examples of RedStater objections to treatment of prisoners is that they are so ubiquitous we wouldn't know whose posts to direct you to first.
But we KNOW the track record of AI and ICRC, and we know ultimately they will have nothing to do with bringing freedom and openness to China or Cuba or ending the genocide in Sudan. We know exactly whom they are out to get, and we rarely stand in their way, because we know they will soon hang themselves on the rope of irrelevance. And how the f*** do you FLUSH A BOOK DOWN A TOILET? Even if you ripped the pages out, it would still clog (I can't believe I have to teach liberals about plumbing, too!).
Oh, we can take criticism, and contrary to your assumptions, we often join vociferously in dishing it out amongst our own. But we know a socialist moonbat from a human rights activist, and sadly, these days, the former tries to disguise itself as the latter. When an organization like Amnesty International even comes close to performing its stated mission, perhaps I would give them something more than the derision they currently deserve. Otherwise, they're not worth the time of day.
Oh, and by the way, it was in Ohio that British media tried to interfere with our elections. It didn't work.
Sorry about the thinly-veiled cussing. Hope I don't get sent to RedState Gitmo (where they beat you and throw your National Review in the toilet).
IT'S ALWAYS SAD when a solid, trustworthy institution...
This piece is about Amnesty International?
Get real. That very first snippet of a sentence tells you exactly where WaPo is coming from.
There is absolutely nothing in that piece which is not a bemoaning of the fact that AI overplayed their America-bashing hand to an insane extreme which even WaPo recognizes is not going to be believed even by their left leaning cocktail party elite snob friends.
WaPo is merely smart enough to realize when the emperor has no clothes. If AI had done their Amerika-bashing in a more credible manner, then the WaPo would have been exhuberant, and they would have given this AI "report" coverage beyond their wildest Abu Ghraib-coverage-sized dreams.
Yeah, Amerika is the source of all evil and we should all feel guilty-- just don't claim that 2 plus 2 equals 5, or we at WaPo might have to distance ourselves. Maybe.
about how my mind works, and doing the Us/Them thing. "the likes of you...." like I'm Gollum or something! I'm a human person, my body is 75%-80% water, I breathe oxygen, and I have opinions which are the result of my own research, thought, and reason. (We could be twins!)
I haven't accused anyone on this board, or in the military, of downplaying or ignoring torture.
My comment was about the Original Poster's "but Kim Jong Il does it too" argument. I find it tired and sort of insulting to compare our govt's actions to the actions of the Lunatic Dictator in Platform Shoes (TM).
As for the discussion about choosing to lead v. de facto leadership, I'm open to debate. It seems clear to me, anyway, that over the past 5 years our govt has decided to take a very proactive role in nation-building and democracy-spreading throughout the Middle East, using the Military as our primary tool. If you don't believe me read Pres. Bush's 2nd Inaugural.
Leading with a Big Stick might lead to results quicker, but there's a lot of collateral damage along the way. Collaborative/soft leadership may be more pallatable around the world, but it's slow and people suffer in the meantime.
Love it or not (NOT), the US govt has made it's choice about how it want to be positioned in the world. If we howl in pain or hurl insults everytime a misquito bites our big elephant (no pun intended, hippopatamus, if you must) ass, we look like dolts.
The folks at AI and ICRC are not perfect but are not "moonbats" either. They are not "out to get" us. In fact they are us (Americans fund and participate in their campaigns).
Lastly, I know the results of the election, there's no need to be snippy. Rejoice and delight in your victory!
The US embargo and related measures continued to have a negative effect on the enjoyment of the full range of human rights in Cuba.
Since the Soviet fall, the US embargo has crippled the Cuban economy and their educational and health care systems (which once ranked above ours).
The decay of these public services has resulted in a decline in the enjoyment of socio-economic rights.
"full range" = civil-political + socio-economic + cultural rights
Therefor, the US embargo has negatively effected the enjoyment of human rights.
The one caveat here is that if the embargo somehow mitigates Castro's civil and political violations to an extent greater than they negatively impact social and economic rights, then we would be improving human rights in Cuba. Personally I doubt it (with no evidence whatsoever to back it up, my instinct is that the embargo makes Castro more repressive), but if someone wants to make this argument I'm all ears.
repeat after me:
"Michael Moore is a genius"
"Chris Matthews is the premier broadcaster of our time"
"CNN is our friend"
"Any day now, we'll come up with a liberal answer to Rush"
"The Democrats only want what's best for me"
"we want every vote to count, except military absentee ballots"
"Bush stole Florida, with the help of multinational corporate pirates"
"We mean Jeb Bush, in 2002"
"It's all Bush's fault"
"It's all Cheney's fault"
"It's all Laura Bush's fault"
"It's all Jenna Bush's fault"
"But MAN, she's hot"
"The Swifties lied"
"John Kerry's Form SF-180 is not important"
"Hillary Rodham is a moderate"
There, now don't you feel better?
isn't "but Kim Jong Il does it too" but "Kim Jong Il does it worse, so why aren't you focused on North Korea."
The fact that others do bad things doesn't excuse what the US does.
But the argument here isn't that AI shouldn't say anything at all about any abuse going on, but that the Gulag comparison is over the top (which it is-tell me right now, if given the choice between going to Gitmo or a Soviet style Gulag, which would you choose?).
And then AI proceeds to focus on two countries the US and the Sudan, and apparantly the Sudan abuses its citizens because the US isn't doing enough (even though the US was one of the few voices at the UN trying to get something done while France and others were once again pussy footing around).
Now while I don't care if the US and Gitmo is listed, I do admit I find it insulting that a group that is focused on human rights abuses, seems to think the US is the worst human rights offender-requiring special mention, and that they should compare it to a Soviet style Gulag-which is hyperbolic at best, given the reality of both prisons.
"offensive", "wrong", "avoidable", those are all good descriptives, but you've missed the most important one: "stupid as all get out". The profanity ban prevents me from using the proper words in front of "stupid" to add enough emphisis.
You cannot win a war on terror by turning it into a war on Islam. There are 1.6 billion Muslims in the world. When US interogators defile the Koran every single one of those 1.6 billion Muslims becomes increasingly convinced that the US isn't trying to bring Osama to justice, but trying to eradicate their religion.
Abusing the Koran is the sureist way I can think of to prolong the war on terror, increase the number of people sympathetic to Osama's cause, and create even bigger problems than we have today. The sheer stupidity cannot be overstated.
Under Bush's "extraordinary rendition" plan now the detanees can get both the benefits of being in GITMO and being sent to Syria to be tortured. Kinda the worst of both worlds, no?
GITMO is a stain on the honor and reputation of my country. We are the United States of America, we aren't supposed to hold people indefinately with no charges. We aren't supposed to torture people to death. Saying "Syria's worse" is hardly a defense, and the simple fact that you have to choose a country as vile as Syria simply shows how low Bush has brought us.
You're just confirming that you can't rise to the challenge. Keep trying. Hint: define the challenge.
You've never been a clever troll. You've been on thin ice for a looooong time. The solid solvent has become thinner with each comment. Just FYI.
As to your larger point, look up the word "Sebastian." I commend you to learning how to point and click, and to moderating your behavior.
The Gulag comment is over the top and I'm vehemently opposed to Gitmo.
But all these bakhanded slaps at WaPo seem pretty infantile.
I realize that a lot of the people here don't agree with WaPo on most everything but do you really need to take jabs at them even when you DO agree with them?
You're dumber than I thought. Nice try at double-trolling there, genius. Now both accounts are banned.
They are given a copy of the publication while in custody under the suspicion of terrorist acts that have claimed the lives of thousands of people?
I think the fact that they are given a copy of it at all is fairly respectful and generous as it is. Especially since it's a fundamentalist group of a religion that is attacking American's and since that practice is not Islam or the practice of it.
"We reserve the right to extend the same humane condition of war that the enemy intends to and practices upon us. If they extend a holy document to a prisoner, they will be given one as well. If they take care of and guard against harm any and all prinsoners, they will receive the same treatment. If the cut the heads off the innocent, they will receive the same treatment. What we do is a mirror of your own actions, if you feel shame upon us, you feel shame upon yourself as well."
This is what should be announced to the combatants. OhSure... I can always dream can't I?
Where did that deliberately happen?
It didn't.
And context shows that the US has gone out of its way to accomodate the moslems, handing out Korans in several languages, prayer rugs and allowing them to practice.
At this point... take 'em all away. Period.
And let me make this, too, perfectly clear. I don't give a flying fig what so-called 1.8 billion moslems think of me except they consider me a kaffir worthy of only being forced to submit, convert or die.
You had better wake up and smell the coffee that this clash of civilizations is taking place and I will NOT make any compromise with an anti-Western, anti-HUMAN ideology.
I'm all with you. In fact, maybe we can arrange that you can fly down to Cuba for us. We'll get all those poor souls together in a courtyard for you and you can go pass out copy's of the Koran to all of them and explain to them how your there to help them.
As a symbol of your dedication and trust of them, we will allow you to carry 5 combat knives with you to offer to them.
Don't worry, I'm sure we can get all the guard's to turn their head for a few minutes and not watch what's going on between you cute little guy's out there. Give you some alone time with them.
I'm sure they will show you all the respect in the world and welcome you with open arms and show you first hand, what gracious and kind people they are.
Yes Value, I'm all with you on this one.
should mirror that of terrorists?
If they kill women and children I guess that means we should kill women and children.
Addressing your first question, the FBI and several of the releasees from GITMO have stated that the Koran was defiled.
However, you have missed the large point, and fallen utterly into the foolishness of our time. Islam is not the enemy. Look, I'm an agnostic with faint deist tendancies. I'm also a liberal, I support women's rights, gay rights, religious rights, etc. It should be self evident that I'm not in the slightest in favor of any theocracy, especially an Islamic theocracy [1]. Unfortunately I've learned that if I don't make this point early on the discussion gets derailed into a coulteresque round of "oh, so you want an Islamofacist government!"
But that's not the point. The point is that a group of people attacked the US and these people are the enemy, the fact that they happened to be Muslim does not make Islam the enemy. Only an idiot goes looking for more enemies when he's already fighting one war.
The vast majority of Muslims are just like the vast majority of Christians, or Hindus, or Jews, or whatever. They're regular guys trying to make a living, not terrorists with bombs strapped to their chests; they aren't the enemy. BUT. And this is the point that you've been carefully missing. If you try to turn the "war on terror" into "the war on Islam" these people will become the enemy, and there are more of them than there are of us.
When Tim McVeigh blew up a building in Oklahoma we did not start a "war on Christianity" even though McVeigh was a Christian. If we had declared "war on Christianity" it would have been incredibly stupid and turned every Christian on Earth against us. We do not want to have 1.6 billion enemies, the enemies we have right now are more than enough.
That's the bloody point.
On a larger scale, Islam isn't really much of a threat, and its being neutralized. Any religion has the potential to be dangerous until and unless its, um, neutered. Or domesticated, or whatever adjective you want to use. Islam is the only wild religion left in the world and that makes it dangerous. But it is being neutered right now using the most devistating, unstoppable weapon the US has ever developed: Hollywood.
As time passes their religion will become just like Christianity, it will become harmless. Sure, Pat Robertson rants and raves, but when was the last time a group of Christians burned a witch? Let Hollywood [2] do its job and in 50 years or so Islam will be no more dangerous than Christianity.
But when people like you go ranting and raving about Islam being the enemy it slows down the process. It takes time to undermine a religion and render it harmless, and using military force builds a core of martyrs and support for that core. We need Joe Muslim watching Baywatch and Budweiser ads, not thinking "curse those infidel Americans and their bombs". Sex and booze will be the end of the treat from Islam, not bullets and bombs. Study ancient Chinese history, and how they won over the (several) Mongol invasions [3]; that's how you win a cultural war.
[1] Considering that any Islamic theocracy is vastly more hostile to all of my liberal view than even Pat Robertson and his Raving Minions.
[2] And by "Hollywood" I mean the entire planetary entertainment industry, not specifically Hollywood.
[3] Briefly, they corrupted the invaders with their civilized ways. Sleeping indoors, taking baths, wearing nice clothes, that beat the heck out of being a roving Mongol warlord. Within a generation you couldn't tell the difference between the invaders and the native Chinese. Obviously we won't let Islamic fanatics invade us, but we will corrupt them to our soft, decadant ways. Which would you rather do: strap a bomb to yourself, or watch semi-nude women dance on MTV or BET? Joe Muslim will come to feel the same way.
I apologize for using the term "the likes of you." It has negative connotations, kind of like "you and your ilk." Perhaps "people of your political persuasion" would have been better, if not more cumbersome.
Perhaps our main difference here is that my examination of history--which has been fairly extensive--tells me that the events of our time are not the creation of a single person or cabal for self-interest, but rather the inevitable result of decades of willful denial, delay, and cynical realpolitik. There is too large a segment of our society that truly misunderstands, fears, and even quietly loathes our military establishment and the rules that govern it, and when events transpire that require a military response, it becomes a travesty in which all the blame and ire is directed their way, and not at the real causes of suffering and destruction in this world. History has shown that, much as we like to (and as a peaceful society, we do), we cannot afford to sit on the sidelines indefinitely and manipulate criminals and dictators against one another.
We could endlessly debate the value of our nation-building exercises, or the extent to which we commit to them, but getting back to the topic at hand...
AI may not be an organization of "moonbats," but there are many in their midst, and when push comes to shove, they often have the microphone. They detract from an otherwise respectable mission (the gist of the WaPo editorial) and distract attention from real evil in the world. As long as they minimize the depravity of the world's Kims, Husseins, Assads, Castros, Mugabes, et al., relative to the minor transgressions of a few low-ranking Americans, it gives the responsible world cover to do nothing, to throw up its hands and say, "I know millions are starving and dying in prison camps, but what can we do?"
Maybe speaking out would be a start.
If anything, it's a shame that such an unserious organization evokes such a passionate response, but at least we can pat ourselves on the back for being passionate about it.
being moslem was NOT incidental to their attacking the US.
Why is that so hard to grasp?
Islamism was their IDEOLOGY ... all encompassing political/social/religious tenets/dogma that dissects the world into dar ul Harb and dal ul Islam.
WE ARE dar ul Harb and our Western/American values stand in the way of dar ul Islam.
Why don't you take THEM at their word?
BTW.. AGAIN, there has been no DELIBERATE "defilement" of the Koran by US. Nada. None. And I'd no more take the "word" of a detainee that is obligated to LIE about abuse then I would take the word of Gacy that someone else put bodies under his house.
How are we being any different today? Sure we went after Hussein but we also enlisted the support of Islam Karimov in our fight in Afghanistan. We actively support the Saudi and Pakistani regimes, which are pretty oppressive.
The problem as I see it is that too often we try to cloak our national interests in the shroud of moral righteousness. Perhaps we should either be honest or actually act based on our moral compass.
A subtly veiled defense of Castroite Cuba is still a defense of Castroite Cuba, and thus requires a response.
I'm not willing to argue the merits of the U.S. embargo on Cuba. Perhaps lifting it, along with travel restrictions, would in fact create an openness that would lead to a slightly freer Cuba...but probably not.
The decline of Cuba is the sole handiwork of one man, and even if we allowed more U.S. money into that country, our examination of other Stalinist kleptocrat prison states tells us that all that currency would end up in the hands of those who most definitely do not need it (think Oil-for-Food).
We do not need to apologize for keeping dollars out of the hands of Fidel Castro. If we implemented no embargo, he would find another way to keep his people in poverty. That his nation is impoverished is his responsibility and his alone, and the one hope his country has is his swift and precipitous demise (think Yasser Arafat).
wasn't suppose to be taken serious, more sarcastic comparative ridiculousness. In others words, in comparison, the claims are more than unfair. I think it's clear a great effort is made to treat all prisoners with dignity and for the most part, especially in comparison they generally are.
What must be made clear to all in the Middle-East, is we are no better than they are as human's, and they no better than us. They must as a society understand, to get equal and fair treatment of all their people from the world community, they too must respond in kind. This is how humanity avoids destroying each other, it's important they, us and all understand this. Currently, a large part of their society does not feel this way. In that circumstance, great restraint has been shown.
As a person who understand a thing or two about war, I would guess you would most likely protect yourself in virtually any way should you be under attack by Islamic forces in your own home, knowing they intend to cut your child's, mother's, father, aunt's, cousin's, and little baby sister's head off in a public square with everybody cheering it on. I'd bet when they came through the door you wouldn't hand them a Koran, but would shoot the first one right between the eyes and anything else you had to do to protect them. You think about that, then think about the restaint shown so far as the norm with a few and mostly isolated areas of question and abuse.
There is always a balance. As an American (if you are), you probably would do a better justice to mankind by beggining educational campaigns in the middle-east explaining the concept of "equality" in humankind.
I have a feeling when the vast majority understand we always saw them as equal as people they'll be very pleasantly surprised.
saying that WaPo's position is somewhere between reality and AI's? Or that WaPo ONLY wrote this because AI was going to take the issue to the extreme?
When you're done hyperventalating, take the time to read the words I actually wrote rather than what you think a typical liberal idiot would write. When you can respond to what I write, not what you think I wrote we can engage in what we call "communication". Thanks.
My agreement doesn't extend to all of Sotonohito's follow-up. But the essential point remains true:
Only an idiot goes looking for more enemies when he's already fighting one war.
This remains true even if you believe, as Darlene may, that Islam is indeed the enemy.
Incidentally, Sebastian Holsclaw also decried the use of torture:
http://www.redstate.org/story/2005/2/9/31049/84149
I think you need to up your game, friend.
In the long run I agree to a certain extent with Darleen. Islam in its current form is dangerous. We do need to neuter [1] it, and I am convinced that undermining their religion with Hollywood decadance is the best approach.
Out of curiosity, what don't you agree with from my followup?
[1] And yeah, I'm deliberately using the word "neuter" because I really don't like Islam much.
"We are the United States of America, we aren't supposed to hold people indefinately with no charges"
You'd rather we took no prisoners? Are you really sure about this?
especially considering the history of the last twenty years. There are two truly Communist countries left in the world--North Korea and Cuba. North Korea we can write off because it is run by true madmen.
But however bad Castro is, he is not insane, and he is far from the most evil communist dictator the twentieth century produced. In fact, compared to every leader of the USSR until Gorbachev, any number of East European leaders (Hoenecker and Ceausescu come to mind), and anyone that China has produced yet, he is a pussycat. Yet we managed to conduct trade, sign treaties, and do business with all those countries. And look at the end result of our engagement with those countries, their communist systems collapsed.
Yet Castro still stubbornly hangs on in spite of our trade embargo, maybe even because of it. Instead of blaming socialism for the failures of the economy, he can always blame "Yankee imperialism" and the embargo.
Sure, Amnesty International is exaggerating and holding the U.S. to a higher standard.
As another poster suggested, go back and read President Bush's second Inaugural Address. I think we should expect to be held to a higher standard.
The big question is, why are we still in Iraq? We have determined that the U.S. is not endangered by their weapons of mass destruction, and we neutralized Saddam Hussein, who would have used them against us and our allies? So why do we remain? Why are our soldiers being blown to bits and receiving mutilating injuries in Iraq? Why are they carrying out missions that inevitably kill innocents as well as terrorists? Why are they staying when their very presence provokes more violence?
According to President Bush, we are spreading democracy. We want the Iraqis (and other despotic and/or theocratic Arab nations) to adopt our form of government, where the rights of minorities, and even the rights of suspected criminals, are protected by the rule of law. President Bush has committed us to staying in Iraq until they have a stable democracy. In that case, the least we can do for our soldiers is to showcase the virtues of democracy. For their sakes, for their families' sakes, we should be demonstrating why the Iraqis themselves should be willing to abandon loyalty to their own friends and family members if they are disrupting Iraq's progress toward democracy.
I believe all of us are aware that prisoners of all sorts were brought to both Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. Some were innocent, some were going along with comrades because to object to fighting the Americans would have risked their own necks, some were the worst sort of terrorists. Their mere presence in the prison did not prove their guilt. When we locked all these people away with no right to dispute their imprisonment, no right to legal representation, no right even to know what they were accused of, we spit on our own constitution.
It's a pretty hard sell to convince an Iraqi to betray his friends, brothers and co-religionists in the insurgency for a foreign, occupying force that ignores its own laws when it's inconvenient. Add to this our failure in the practical areas of providing security, clean water, electricity and employment opportunities and we can expect to have troops in Iraq for the next fifty years.
Out of curiosity, what don't you agree with from my followup?
Among other things, it's a profound error to view "neutering" or "domesticating" [your terms] religion as a good thing. Although I'm far from an outwardly religious person, a society without a vibrant religious dialog is a society on the road to slow stagnation -- and worse things.
...to anyone else. The default, then, is that you were responding to the post itself.
But how was I responding to your post?
Yup, those are my terms. I used them because it seems to me that religions come in two forms: wild and domesticated. Wild religions are a bad thing, they kill people often in nasty ways. People have dogs, dogs aren't bad in and of themselves. But no one wants a wild dog in their house. Similarly, I don't want wild religions on my planet.
Modern Christianity is a fully domesticated religion, still vital but it isn't killing people in nasty ways any more. I maintain that we can tame, domesticate, neuter, whatever, Islam just as Christianity was tamed. There's a difference between no vibrant religious dialog and letting wild religions run around killing people.
I'm in favor of religion for those who want it0. It isn't my cup of tea, but so what? My tastes aren't everyone's, nor should they be. But I'm not in favor of wild religions like Islam going around killing people. Corrupt it with Hollywood and Islam is just like modern Christianity or Hinduism: tame and (relatively) harmless.
I will disagree with your idea that religion is necessary to a healthy society. Personally I doubt that there will ever be a society without religion, most people like religion, but if such a society existed I don't see how the mere lack of religion could make it stagnant. To my way of thinking wild religions encourage stagnation because they tend to kill (usually by torture) people who are vital, different, and otherwise necessary to keep a soceity running. Again, look to the nations where wild Islam holds sway: what scientific achievements have they made lately? Compare to the US, France, Japan, etc where only domesticated religions hold dominance, advances apleanty. Why? Because wild Islam a) prevents 50% of the population from reaching their maximum potential, and b) wild Islam discourages change and advancement.
That's why people like Pat Robertson worry me, they want to un-domesticate Christianity.
You should've replied to Zeppenwolf's comment when you wrote this. It reduces confusion as to whom you're responding to.
It was a general comment based on numerous posts made. Since you made no reference to WaPo I'm sure why you thought I was talking to you but whatever floats your boat.
a newbie.
- Snarks are "infantile". But they can also be accurate. The WaPo writer himself said they draw a line beyond which is the hyperbole of the AI. So I think it's safe to say that that's "somewhere between reality and 'gulag'". So infantile and accurate.
- You get more timely responses if you do as Charles suggests and actually put replies to posts as replies to the specific post.
- Adding disclaimers is helpful. Like "not directed at you, <insert name>" or "completely OT" or "sorry for hijacking", etc. Definitely not mandatory but helpful.
actually started under Clinton.
Although I would agree that a lot of this sound and fury over AI's report distracts from the main point, which is that these things shouldn't be happening under our watch. Attacking AI for their emphasis on our misdeeds sounds a little like a littler brother being caught stealing cookies and then protesting that his siblings stole more.
What has happened to many of our GWOT detainees makes my stomach turn. To turn this into a partisan issue is to minimize the horror that these people (many known to be innocent) have gone through. This is as much a tragedy for Americans as it is for the recipients of this abuse.
(Just for clarification, the abuses I refer to above go far beyond koran abuse and include killings, asphyxiations, rape, various forms of torture, including probing in detainee's open wounds and other forms of mental and sexual humiliation. These are documented in DOD and FBI reports--not just dreamt up by released detainees)
It was a general comment. I wasn't trying to get under anyone's skin. I was simply pointing out that some people seemed to looking to gore their favorite ox. Had I wanted to jump on a specific poster I would have done so. Instead I posted at the root of thread.
I'm a newbie to this site but not to forums in general. I was unsure about the threading conversations and I still fail to see how Charles could infer that I was talking to him.
I can't read Charles' mind but I took no note of this back and forth until I saw it branch out with a bunch of short posts. Only then did I see an oblique reference to me. And I only pointed out the disclaimers because this is the internet afterall. Lots of lines to read between and people can miss subtle distinctions.
I wasn't necessarily looking for a response although I would have certainly welcomed one.
That's probably because the people that generally criticize the US start off by saying "the United States isn't any better than who it criticizes, because of __, __ and ___."
Problem is, what they relate is either 1) totally unsubstantiated, or 2) like trying to compare jaywalking, speeding and littering to murder, rape, and armed robbery.
None of us will argue that the United States is perfect. But trying to compare the US's misdemeanors to savage nations' felonies and trying to equate them (or say the US is worse) only adds heat to the discussion, and no light.
Some of us are all too tired of these comparisons, and say so. If standing up for your country when malaccused is 4-year-old behavior, then nobody in the world is past 5, then.
I'm not a US citizen, but if I were, the easy counterargument would be:
true - we have no tradition of holding people indefinately with no charges
True - we shouldn't torture people
true - we aren't usually under attack
Of course, this only applies if you agree there is a war on terror going on.
If you don't believe that, talk to the people that lost relatives in 9/11 - talk to the spanish people that had their families blown up by a bomb. Hell, come to Denmark - the most peacefull place on the face on earth - and see the changes that has happend in two years, because a bomb went off more than a 1000 miles away i Spain.
you're the only one at OW who has that opinion, von. Sigh, and thanks.
"If civil society be made for the advantage of man, all the advantages for which it is made become his right. It is an institution of beneficence; and law itself is only beneficence acting by a rule. Men have a right to live by that rule; they have a right to do justice, as between their fellows, whether their fellows are in public function or in ordinary occupation. They have a right to the fruits of their industry ... Whatever each man can separately do, without trespassing upon others, he has a right to do for himself; and he has a right to a fair portion of all which society, with all its combinations of skill and force, can do in his favor. In this partnership all men have equal rights, but not to equal things."
Burke
The Cubans have no right to what is kept from them by Castro's tyranny or the US defense of the rest of hemisphere from him.
Nonetheless, by all of the "Laws of War" to which we are signatories, we can, in fact, give them a minimal amount of due process to determine their status, and then take them out and shoot them.
In complete conformance with the "Geneva Accords".
I didn't say that we would. My point was that we could legally do so, according to the "laws of war".
And given the amount of whining that the left wants to produce about "holding them in prison", maybe the perfectly legal and legitimate option of a drumhead court-martial followed by execution should be suggested.
They want to run civilian aircraft into civilian buildings. I want to see people who think that sort of thing is legitimate shot.
They get their way, but I don't. Sometimes I hate not being Dictator, you know?
(That, BTW, is a sarcastic aside. I can live with Gitmo. But if we're going to empty Gitmo, I'm down with killing them, FWIW.)
Based on your subject line I assume you reject the multi-generational model of human rights, right? One question, do you reject socio-economic rights or positive rights (or both or all human rights)? Philosophically, there are good arguments for all those positions, but unfortunately from a legalistic perspective the "full range" does exist (see the UDHR (1948) and Vienna Declaration (1993)).
My guess is that you picked the Burke quote especially for the line "in this partnership (society) all men have equal rights, but not to equal things" as a rejection of redistributive obligations. A subsequent line was "But he has not a right to an equal dividend in the product of the joint stock", which makes explicit that he is if fact writing a rejection of what would ultimately become known as Communism.
In fact, "he has a right to a fair portion of all which society, with all its combinations of skill and force, can do in his favor" would suggest that each one of us has a right to a "fair portion" of the surplus made possible by their acceptance of the social contract.
Also, question: Do we have the right not to be impeded by government when conducting economic transactions (which do not produce tangible externalities)?
(unfortunately this medium is particularly poor for dialoguing, so if I made any mistakes in interpretting you let me know and I'll update my analysis)
because a good friend of mine in college did Burke's Reflections on the Revolutions in France as a course one year. Some strange Burke quotes appear to have stuck in my mind during late night discussions.
I am afraid I don't believe in international legislation. It is a figment of the EU's imagination. I believe that bi-lateral treaties are binding but that any number of signatories can join in and that all states have the right of withdrawl because there is no higher power (moral or military) to bind them.
Human rights are the basic rights of individuals. Free speech, Free religion, Freedom to own real property, not too many basic human rights. Many are derivative-- rights granted to protect the basics-- guns, assembly, petetion for redress, advice in court, open court, confronting accusers, all serve the basics and are meaningless by themselves.
You are right vis the fair portion / equal portion distinction in part. You are right that is why I chose it. I don't believe that the 'fair portion' each of us is entitled to is in any way a 'like portion' I believe 'fair' is meant to say proportionate by whatever means society rations benefits. Essentially it would just mean free of arbitrary taking by individuals and combinations including governments.
I think government exists primarily to restrict ecomonic transactions. Such restrictions should be fair and equal, but forbidding the selling children or taxing autos at 5% is a legit function. So no right not to be impeded in commerce. Commerce is not a basic human right, but it can be a liberty won by free men with the use of their basic rights. So no matter how restricted enterprise becomes in the US, we are free and no matter how vibrant and unrestricted enterprise becomes in PRC, they are slaves.
I don't have time to post a full response, but -- though I'm a bit offended by your choice of terminology -- I'll grant the essential point that reglions are dangerous ("wild" in your terms) to the extent that they place higher societal value on a person's beliefs than the person him- or herself.
First, I noticed you phrase all the rights as freedoms. I assume that means you feel all the fundamental rights are negative. Do you think derivative rights are also inherently negative, or can they be positive (i.e. society required to facilitate rather than just not impede)?
Second, how exactly do you conceive of "Freedom to own real property"? I agree it exists but am not sure how you can have a right to private property (i.e. the right to dominion over capital, land, and goods acquired through barter or the sale of one's labor, and the right to dispose of that property as one sees fit, subject to not impairing the fundamental rights of others) and not a right to commerce (a derivative right necessary at the least to facilitate barter and at the most to include the sale of labor, our primary means of gaining private property).
Not having both seems to say you have no right to a fair (in the sense that the rules of the market should not be rigged against you) means of obtaining goods, but if you do somehow manage to do so those items are protected. For property to make sense you NEED commerce. I promise I'm no French Revolutionary, but such a right would seem to lead to a feudal system in which at time 0 those with might appropriate the factors of production for themselves and then may legitimately hold others in serfdom through the economic rules they promulgate.
It is time to take responsibility for our actions, no matter which political party happens to be in charge.
when he's in the process of destroying himself.