Our very own Gulag...

[rmcrobertson]

Yes, "Sharp Phil," cartoons and toilet jokes are really a good way to deal with your country's possibly carrying out illegal detention and torture on a world-wide scale.

From tgrace's chosen website:

"While the Vietnam case has the closest analogy (and several policy suggestions were made on the basis of the precedent from that conflict), all of the examples demonstrate that the United States has, even in cases where it was not required by the customs of war or international statute to do so, accorded prisoner of war status and treatment to enemy combatants captured in the course of hostilities. In formulating present and future policies regarding these detainees, the Bush Administration needs to take account, not just of what the letter of the international conventions and statutes say, but also what precedent indicates."

 

[Tgace]

Dont believe I ever stated I was entirely comfortable with the whole "detainee" thing. As a matter of fact I believe I pointed out the issue regarding POW's and release at the end of hostilities once before...when do we reach that point? This "war on terror" is more like counter terrorism on a huge scale. Before, snatching a terrorist here and there and getting intell out of him was a small scale proposition and easier to "deal with". This is a whole new animal....New laws and acceptable techniques are going to have to be figured out.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Huh. Here I thought we already had all sorts of laws and guidelines to cover precisely such situations. We did during the first Gulf War, anyway.

 

[Tgace]

This isnt "conventional warfare". It's the same trouble we had with Vietnam (insurgents/intelligence/assasinations/POW's etc.) and never really dealt with. Now its coming home to roost.

 

[rmcrobertson]

...and would it be, coming home to roost," because of our history of supporting dictators like Hussein and Somoza, training maniacs like bin Laden, and distributing weapons around the globe for the last fifty years?

And, oh yes I forgot, because of ignoring little things like our laws, our treaties and our democratic principles whenever we find it convenient?

 

[ginshun]

According to that article 10 out of 540 prisoners have allegedly been abused, and it doesn't even say how. Doesn't exactly sound like the Spanish Inquesition.

Where were all the story's about the big AI report when the Taliban was cutting off American civilian's heads? Funny, but I don't remember hearing about that report all over the newspapers, radio's and TV.

 

[Tgace]

...and would it be, coming home to roost," because of our history of supporting dictators like Hussein and Somoza, training maniacs like bin Laden, and distributing weapons around the globe for the last fifty years?

And, oh yes I forgot, because of ignoring little things like our laws, our treaties and our democratic principles whenever we find it convenient?

Do you want to discuss or argue? Always seems to be more vitrol to add....that always leads to discussion and open mindedness eh? Actually have some common ground on this one but you seem to want to goad....

 

[Ray]

What are all those secrets about anyhow?

If we knew, they wouldn't be secrets would they?

 

[ginshun]

"While the Vietnam case has the closest analogy (and several policy suggestions were made on the basis of the precedent from that conflict), all of the examples demonstrate that the United States has, even in cases where it was not required by the customs of war or international statute to do so, accorded prisoner of war status and treatment to enemy combatants captured in the course of hostilities. In formulating present and future policies regarding these detainees, the Bush Administration needs to take account, not just of what the letter of the international conventions and statutes say, but also what precedent indicates."

So in other words the US has always been held to and lived up to a higher standard than the rest of the world, and now the rest of the world is getting mad because it is possible that we are no longer trying to hold ourselves to that higher standard?

Oh the horror, imagine...the US having to only be as good as the rest of the world.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Uh....you might want to read the relevant posts. This quote--which is from a paper published by that hotbed of anti-Americanism the United States Air Force Academy, has to do with the difference between what our government is currently doing, and our extended history of respecting rights, even in wartime.

And you also might want to go look at the AI website. They are extensive, and explicit, about abuses committed by Islamic countries and organizations--as I already noted.

As for two other things--a) the claim that I'm refusing to discuss or argue--could you, tgrace, please show me the previous places you'd discussed the issues and I'd ignored or belittled it? I seem to recall a few of these: "I just spent yesterday wrestling a power sewer auger through my sewer system because my kids clogged it with non-flushible baby wipes (I wouldnt wish that even on you Robert )...cant imagine the mess a Koran or 2 would make." and b) oh--so the idea is that having served as what Lincoln called, "the last best hope of mankind," we should now just give all that up because, well, George Bush says that's stuff's all just inconvenient?

I kinda like the idea that my country is held to higher moral standards than others, because we have a history of behaving better. But then, I'm pretty traditional and unbending about moral values....guess I'll need to get with the new program of expediency.

 

[Phil Elmore]

Why should the United States be arbitrarily held to a "higher standard" when we're talking about human rights? Either a nation respects human rights or it does not; either it violates human rights or it does not. To say, "Well, gosh, the Third World nation of Kerblogerstan is a despotic regime in which political dissenters are beheaded and in which those committed of spitting on the sidewalk have their hands chopped off, but they just don't know any better; I'm much more concerned that the US doesn't provide taxpayer-funded lawyers to terrorist suspects found on foreign battlefields," is both racist and biased against the United States by definition.

If the standard is to have any meaning, it cannot be a subjective sliding scale on which our expectations for human rights differ from country to country.

 

[michaeledward]

If we knew, they wouldn't be secrets would they?

Okay Ray ...

Why has the need to classify something as 'secret' increased by a factor of 5?

Could it be something embarrassing about the President's "Daddy" .... the term he used to describe the assassination attempt by the former leader of Iraq against the former President ...

well, actually, we do know that by Executive Order, this current President has prevented the release of documents from the Reagan adminstration (The Presidents father was vice-President during that time).

Gee ... maybe there is a dead fish on the coffee table.

 

[Ray]

Okay Ray ...

Why has the need to classify something as 'secret' increased by a factor of 5?

Could it be something embarrassing about the President's "Daddy" ....

Well, I was only joking. Besides, I'm all for Bush. And I'm hoping that C. Rice and H. Clinton are the candidates during the next go around.

 

[michaeledward]

Why should the United States be arbitrarily held to a "higher standard" when we're talking about human rights? Either a nation respects human rights or it does not; either it violates human rights or it does not. To say, "Well, gosh, the Third World nation of Kerblogerstan is a despotic regime in which political dissenters are beheaded and in which those committed of spitting on the sidewalk have their hands chopped off, but they just don't know any better; I'm much more concerned that the US doesn't provide taxpayer-funded lawyers to terrorist suspects found on foreign battlefields," is both racist and biased against the United States by definition.

If the standard is to have any meaning, it cannot be a subjective sliding scale on which our expectations for human rights differ from country to country.

Wow .. Sharp Phil asks a serious question. Who'lda Thunk.

Sharp Phil ... if Kerblogistan choose to execute its citizens randomly, what business is it of ours?

There is a point where such executions become 'genocide', at which point, said executions become our business, but until that point, I think most conservatives would tell us it is none of our business.

If, however, a nation is attempting to be a 'Beacon of Liberty'; spreading 'Freedom' and 'Democracy' across the globe, it really should demonstrate that those ephemeral ideas actually mean something different than the leadership that is 'despotic' or 'tyrannical'. After all, one would expect Abu Ghraib to be a nasty place under a Hussein government. But even the worst prison under the Stars and Stripes is expected to be a bit more humane.

The President likes to say "Freedom is on the march."

Think about this simile, if you will. Freedom - the ability to do, or not do, according to an individual whim. March - all in order, under command and direction. Odd, I think. Although, certainly it is not his worst assault on the English language.

And ... the point is, we are not living to our 'standard'. There are many tools we have to use on a circle of influence in the international community. In our circle of control, we have our own behavior. We can respect human life, human rights, and human belief systems ... even for those different than us. Or we can use those items as a weapon, abandoning our standard of behavior.

And that seems to be what has gone on here.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Gee, Sharp Phil, maybe it's because of this:

"The founding documents of the United Nations and the founding documents of America...assert that human beings should never be reduced to objects of power or commerce, because their dignity is inherent. Both require -- both recognize a moral law that stands above men and nations, which must be defended and enforced by men and nations. And both point the way to peace, the peace that comes when all are free. We secure that peace with our courage, and we must show that courage together.

May God bless you all."

Geo. W. Bush, Address to the United Nations General Assembly, Sept. 23, 2003

 

[Phil Elmore]

Sharp Phil ... if Kerblogistan choose to execute its citizens randomly, what business is it of ours?

The same business it would be of anyone else running an international organization presuming to rank the worlds' nations' records of human rights, one supposes.

For a standard to have any meaning it must be a standard. Normally I don't bother with serious questions in threads like these because they're self-parody. Most of you who spend every free waking moment hating your own nation are caricatures -- so exaggerated as to be unaware of how ridiculous you have become.

Once in a great while, however, the spirit moves me to interject a little needed reality to the proceedings. But please, don't let that get in the way. Anyone who actually believes the United States ranks first among human rights offenders -- and who believes an organization who would claim this is objective in its evaluation -- is beyond rational thought anyway. I gave up teaching pigs to sing a long time ago.

 

[michaeledward]

The same business it would be of anyone else running an international organization presuming to rank the worlds' nations' records of human rights, one supposes.

For a standard to have any meaning it must be a standard. Normally I don't bother with serious questions in threads like these because they're self-parody. Most of you (1) who spend every free waking moment hating your own nation are caricatures -- so exaggerated as to be unaware of how ridiculous you have become.

Once in a great while, however, the spirit moves me to interject a little needed reality to the proceedings. But please, don't let that get in the way. (2) Anyone who actually believes the United States ranks first among human rights offenders -- and who believes an organization who would claim this is objective in its evaluation -- is beyond rational thought anyway. I gave up teaching pigs to sing a long time ago.

I do my best not to converse with you ... probably because we are too much alike.

1 - Statements like this are preposterous. Please demonstrate where anyone who has posted on this board has at any time expressed hatred for their own country.

You are a writer, are you not? Can you reign in the hyperbole, Mr. Limbaugh?

2 - Has anyone made the claim that the United States ranks 'first' among human rights offenders? If so, please document the claim, so that all can review the material.

Concerning this thread, Amnesty International does point out legitimate concerns about human rights abuses by the United States. Please explain why recognition of these abuses negates rational thought?


By the way ... did you all catch this quote.

"It seemed like to me they based some of their decisions on the word of, and the allegations by people who were held in detention, people who hate America, people that had been trained in some instances to disassemble - that means not tell the truth".

Suppose we should tell the President that 'disassemble' means to take part, and that the actual word he was looking for was 'dissemble'. I do hope the First Lady gives him a dope slap with Webster's tonight.

 

[Rich Parsons]

And, uh, Phil? The AI report actually covers the U.S.'s illegal detentions, beatings and physical abuses, aiding and abetting torture, and in a few cases murders, of prisoners around the world. But thanks for the attempt to trivialize a moral and legal issue.

And Like you have not yourself on other threads.

Will we be discussing the topic soon?

Hmmm, And when you get off topic and drag in your agendas, and others want to stay on topic you seem to not care. Why is it so important to you for this one thread of all the threads remains on topic that you are involved in?


Sorry Everyone, I just found those posts a little confusing to myself, from previous posting history of Mr. Robertson.

 

[Phil Elmore]

Has anyone made the claim that the United States ranks 'first' among human rights offenders?

Amnesty International. They rank the US "a top offender," according to every news account about the report that came out a few days ago when this topic was news.

 

[arnisador]

I'll just say that I'm not very happy about some of the things that have been done in my name.

Yet, I am forgiving of some actions done in the heat of war.