White House Oversight of China's Detainees?

[RandomPhantom700]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23754052

I was reading up on the current crackdown situation in China, and I found the following bit rather...ironic.

The White House said Thursday the crackdown is not cause for President Bush to cancel his attendance at the Olympics. But it requested access to the region to see how Chinese police were dealing with detained protesters.

Given the Administration's own treatment of detainees in Guantanamo, I have to ask: what business does the White House have overseeing China's treatment of prisoners? What do they want, tips?

 

[tellner]

Probably, RP. We've squandered any moral authority to say diddly to anyone. Swingin' Dick Cheney and his hand puppet the Smirking Chimp have turned us into a nation of torturers which does not even bother mustering contempt for the rule of law. Those rights that we're supposed to champion - freedom of the press, freedom from arbitrary arrest and detention, freedom from torture, the right to a trial, the right to see the evidence and witnesses against you, the right to legal counsel, the presumption of innocence, freedom of association, the right to challenge detention - all gone.

Abu Ghraib was only the tip of the iceberg. And the pictures there aren't the half of what was done and continues to be done. That's not counting our network of secret prisons of which even the Intelligence Committees are not permitted to know the details.

If Obama wins the presidential election - Clinton would be too busy triangulating to actually do anyting - and if he is allowed to take office I predict the "black prisons" will disappear before he moves into 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. The records will go. The guards will leave. And the prisoners? If they're lucky they'll get a quick one to the back of the head.

It would take decades of hard work for the United States to regain the moral stature to be taken seriously in any discussion of human rights. G-d grant we start making the slow climb back to decency in November.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23754052

I was reading up on the current crackdown situation in China, and I found the following bit rather...ironic.



Given the Administration's own treatment of detainees in Guantanamo, I have to ask: what business does the White House have overseeing China's treatment of prisoners? What do they want, tips?

Well, the first question I have to ask is are you differentiating between the detainment of one's own citizens and foreigners who have possibly attacked our soldiers. If not then it begs a whole other question.

But, even if you are not, are you referring to the same Guantanamo prisoners who are gaining weight due to the fact that they are being fed better then they were when they were fighting U.S. soldiers (allegedly)? The same detainees who's religious freedoms are still being upheld while in our custody? The same detainees who's rights are being championed in the very country in which the detainer abides?

Quite frankly, we have treated the prisoners of this war better then any other nation has in history. One could argue that we could treat them better, but by no means mistake the fact the we treat them relatively well.

And let's not forget the fact that we could, even according to the Geneva Convention, don't have to consider them as soldiers ue to the fact that they do no wear the uniform of a nation-state.


Tellner, I have a question for you: what makes you think, in all the history of the U.S., that the type of behavior you are describing has not gone on before, even under "liberal" administrations? Do you think that the Viet Cong / NVA and North Koreans were treated any better when we turned them over to our allies, or interrogated them ourselves? Or the Nazis and Japanese for that matter (remember the Japanese internment camps of WWIi)? Why is this all of a sudden a Bush/Cheney thing to you?

By the way, from a legalistic perspective, those rights you speak of are for those that are on U.S. soil. We have always treated prisoners of war different than those within our own country, geographically speaking.

Quite frankly, the rights you speak of still exist. As a police officer, I see their existence every day. In what world are you living in which you say that they do not exist?

Another question, for anyone: Why do people insist that we treat those who kill / attack / torture / execute U.S. soldiers as "criminals". They are not. They are enemies of the state, and as such, subscribe to a diiferent set of codes then those citizens / visitors of the U.S.?

 

[Ray]

We've squandered any moral authority to say diddly to anyone.

The media have presented the idea and it has been repeated by liberals that the one and only reason the US and allies had for overthrowing Saddam was that he WMD's. It seems most are capable of holding only one thought and idea; and it seems to be whatever it is they are repeatedly told by someone else.

Even before the US made military moves I recall Iraq blatently subverting the UN sanctions; and violating the no-fly zone with little consequence. It was later found that Iraqi oil flowed into the hands of dishonest UN officials, where it was turned into money for their unethical enrichment.

What is "moral authority?" From whence does it arise and where does it go? How is it enforced? If I abused dangerous drugs in my teens does that prohibit me from preventing my own teens from abusing dangerous drugs because I have forfitted my "moral authority?" What about keeping my 5-year old from running into a busy street, do I have no "moral authority" because I might have "jay walked" this week?

 

[RandomPhantom700]

What is "moral authority?" From whence does it arise and where does it go? How is it enforced? If I abused dangerous drugs in my teens does that prohibit me from preventing my own teens from abusing dangerous drugs because I have forfitted my "moral authority?" What about keeping my 5-year old from running into a busy street, do I have no "moral authority" because I might have "jay walked" this week?

Well first off, parents talking to their teens and nations overseeing each other's conduct are kinda apples and oranges. However, to use your example, if you had abused drugs in your teens and kicked the habit, learned your lesson, etc., then sure, lecture your kids. However, I think you'd have to agree that you'd lose your right to talk if you're telling your kids not to use drugs while in the middle of tapping up and tying off, so to speak. Similarly, the Administration is still holding political prisoners in Gitmo without charge; I'd say yes, that denies any authority on the White House to criticize China regarding human rights.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

Well, the first question I have to ask is are you differentiating between the detainment of one's own citizens and foreigners who have possibly attacked our soldiers. If not then it begs a whole other question.

I can see your point, but in regards to what I think is hypocrisy on the White House's part, I'd say no, the distinction's not relevant. Arguing that the U.S. can still speak about citizen prisoners' rights despite how it's treated foreign prisoners in the course of the last 5 years sounds a bit hollow. And I doubt the Administration's taking the distinction into account when it asks to oversee China's treatment.

But, even if you are not, are you referring to the same Guantanamo prisoners who are gaining weight due to the fact that they are being fed better then they were when they were fighting U.S. soldiers (allegedly)? The same detainees who's religious freedoms are still being upheld while in our custody? The same detainees who's rights are being championed in the very country in which the detainer abides?

Quite frankly, we have treated the prisoners of this war better then any other nation has in history. One could argue that we could treat them better, but by no means mistake the fact the we treat them relatively well.

Be that as it may, they've still been held in Guantanamo for over 5 years without any trial, or charge, or serious press coverage. They've been there for so long, and even now we don't know if the prisoners have terrorists ties or were just on the wrong street corner at the wrong time because, guess what, there's been no trial. They may be getting the star treatment, but they're still behind bars indefinitely. Doesn't speak well to our Administration's respect for human rights.

 

[Ray]

However, I think you'd have to agree that you'd lose your right to talk if you're telling your kids not to use drugs while in the middle of tapping up and tying off, so to speak.

I have to disagree. Even if I were a pathetic herion addict (instead of just pathetic), I'd tell my kids not to use drugs...as a "bad example" I'd still be an example.

Similarly, the Administration is still holding political prisoners in Gitmo without charge; I'd say yes, that denies any authority on the White House to criticize China regarding human rights.

What the heck is a "political" prisoner? These guys are P.O.W.s and illegal combatants.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

I can see your point, but in regards to what I think is hypocrisy on the White House's part, I'd say no, the distinction's not relevant. Arguing that the U.S. can still speak about citizen prisoners' rights despite how it's treated foreign prisoners in the course of the last 5 years sounds a bit hollow. And I doubt the Administration's taking the distinction into account when it asks to oversee China's treatment.



Be that as it may, they've still been held in Guantanamo for over 5 years without any trial, or charge, or serious press coverage. They've been there for so long, and even now we don't know if the prisoners have terrorists ties or were just on the wrong street corner at the wrong time because, guess what, there's been no trial. They may be getting the star treatment, but they're still behind bars indefinitely. Doesn't speak well to our Administration's respect for human rights.

It seems to me, and correct me if I'm wrong, that your main contention is not that we are harming them physically, but that we are imprisoning them indefinately without trial. That is the point I will base my argument.

Firstly, these people are not criminals. They are enemy combatants. Therefore the rights to which they would fall under would be, if applicable, the Geneva convention. But definately not the U.S. Code. As such, they are more synonymos to Prisoners of War. You let them go once the war is over, not while you are still at war. You may be able to find examples where this was done, but I am sure that they are few and far between.

And, even if you ascribe them to the Geneva Convention, they are illegal combatants. They wear no uniform of a nation-state. Therefore, I'm not even sure they get Geneva Convention protection. Perhaps the Convention itself needs to be updated to include such "insurgent" types, so they will be no vagery.

Again, I don't understand why we are ascribing U.S. criminal procedures to enemy combatants. It baffles me.

Secondly, there are not political prisoners. They have not been detained based on their political disagreements with the U.S. (to an extent, in that if they are fighting us, there usually is a political disagreement). There are many Iraqi's who have spoken out against the "U.S. occupation." I haven't really heard of them being detained at Guantanamo. They are in a detainment camp (not prison) because they either conspired to, or actually caused, the death of U.S. military service personnel (allegedly). This is a distinct difference between that, and the Chinese arresting people for political protest, especially that which is not violent.

 

[Sukerkin]

Oh how I so do not want to get embroiled in this one.

I have to ask, just what information and from what sources are the contributors to this thread drawing on? That's not meant conteniously, it's a genuine question.

From what we hear over on the other side of the Atlantic, the majority of the 'prisoners' in a certain infamous Bay area have proveable ties to terrorism that amount to approximately zero. We also hear that the treatment of them is a serious breach of human rights at best and crosses the border into torture in some cases (with video and pictoral evidence which has been shown on the BBC).

But that's probably alright in legal terms because America never signed the Geneva Convention. Morally however?

As an outsider I don't really mind if you tell me to 'keep my nose out' but I have to urge those of you who are concerned about what is happening to excercise what rights you have left to bring these issues out into the open.

Because I know some of you quite well (in Net terms) I know you are not stupid and so I can only conclude that what you are being told does not really mesh with what is going on. After all, if something is reported with a certain slant often enough the sheer weight of repetition alters peoples perceptions. In a way I think things are worse in our current Media Age because that message mutation can occur so rapidly.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Oh how I so do not want to get embroiled in this one.

Same here.

But here is something to take into consideration, good or bad, right or wrong.

For the most part China does not care what the hell we think about China nor does it have a whole lot of use for "W" and China has a rather low opinion of him as well based mostly on Iraq and some things already mentioned.

Some of the Chinese newspapers appear to take the stance that the very things the US accuses them of appear to be all right for the US to do. But then also you have to take into consideration they have just as much propaganda about us as we do about them.

So he can go, he could even see, but would it make any difference? Maybe, maybe not. The US is not as all-powerful as it would like to think it is.

 

[grydth]

I believe that comparing Gitmo to the Chinese Penal system and China's actions in Tibet is the ultimate mixing of grape and watermelon.

That said, though, the main point of the thread originator is well worth attention. Just how meaningful and effective is it for us - or any outside nations - to be lecturing a sovereign state on what it is doing internally? What if the US were routinely swamped by foreign inquiries into some of the things done here? I know I resent it every time some foreign counsel tries to interfere in the trial or sentencing of some filthy rapist or murderer... why wouldn't a Chinese guy feel the same about us?

There was a lot of second guessing as to whether nations could have done more to prevent or limit the Holocaust. Have we saved lives in raising human rights around the world?

On another side, many are more concerned at our government's monitoring of citizens right here.

What real use or solace is it to Tibetans that their executions and imprisonments are being monitored from here?

 

[Sukerkin]

The insight into the Chinese viewpoint is most useful, Xue, as is the truism of your last sentence there.

I am often struck by the lack of common-sense in the American governments approach to flexing it' muscles on the global stage.

I'd been waiting for the US to realise it's pre-eminence for nearly twenty years by the time when Gulf War Part I was initiated to fulfil the plans drawn up in the '70's. Even back then it was obvious that 'Imperialism' was not going to be acceptible in the 'modern' age but it was followed through anyhow .

Riding rough-shod over anyone and anything that gets in your way is not a strategy for long-term success and that is exactly what is typified by Guantanamo. With that thorn sticking out so prominently, it is hardly surprising that China, despite it's own atrocious record, does not deign to treat American criticism very seriously. I don't know if they have an equivalent phrase regarding stone throwing excercises whilst within glass houses but it surely would be applicable.

EDIT: The Rep Gnomes prevent me from giving grydth a little private commendation for his points raised whilst I was typing mine; so it's the embarassment of public recognition for you, sir .

 

[Xue Sheng]

Just as a note

There is an AWFUL lot of history between China and Tibet, not just Communist China vs Tibet in the 1950s

If interested, look here

 

[RandomPhantom700]

Firstly, these people are not criminals. They are enemy combatants. Therefore the rights to which they would fall under would be, if applicable, the Geneva convention. But definately not the U.S. Code. As such, they are more synonymos to Prisoners of War. You let them go once the war is over, not while you are still at war. You may be able to find examples where this was done, but I am sure that they are few and far between.

And, even if you ascribe them to the Geneva Convention, they are illegal combatants. They wear no uniform of a nation-state. Therefore, I'm not even sure they get Geneva Convention protection. Perhaps the Convention itself needs to be updated to include such "insurgent" types, so they will be no vagery.

Again, I don't understand why we are ascribing U.S. criminal procedures to enemy combatants. It baffles me.

First off, my apologies about using the term political prisoners. I didn't consider its specific meaning when using it to address the detainees at Gitmo.

However, no, I'm not saying that, as illegal combatants or P.O.W.s, the detainees there deserve all the rights of a US prisoner; however, as it stands they are receiving no treatment at all other than just being held there. If they are indeed P.O.W.s to be released at the end of the war, as you say, which war are we talking about? Afghanistan? Iraq? The "war on terror"? I know that, since they're not U.S. citizens, they don't have access to all the rights to trial thereof, but as it stands, the Guantanamo prisoners are being held indefinitely for whatever reasons the Department of Defense deem necessary.

I think this is a bit sidetracking from my original point: whatever the status is of those held at Guantanamo or those held at camps like Abhu Graib (I know I spelled that wrong), our Administration's treatment of them shows that they really have no business critiquing China's treatment of their own prisoners.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

I have to disagree. Even if I were a pathetic herion addict (instead of just pathetic), I'd tell my kids not to use drugs...as a "bad example" I'd still be an example.

So the Administration monitoring China's actions under a guise of "do as we say, not as we do" makes sense? I'm reminded of a line from the Beastie Boys..."Your pa caught you smokin' and he said no way! That hypocrit smokes two packs a day."

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

First off, my apologies about using the term political prisoners. I didn't consider its specific meaning when using it to address the detainees at Gitmo.

However, no, I'm not saying that, as illegal combatants or P.O.W.s, the detainees there deserve all the rights of a US prisoner; however, as it stands they are receiving no treatment at all other than just being held there. If they are indeed P.O.W.s to be released at the end of the war, as you say, which war are we talking about? Afghanistan? Iraq? The "war on terror"? I know that, since they're not U.S. citizens, they don't have access to all the rights to trial thereof, but as it stands, the Guantanamo prisoners are being held indefinitely for whatever reasons the Department of Defense deem necessary.

I think this is a bit sidetracking from my original point: whatever the status is of those held at Guantanamo or those held at camps like Abhu Graib (I know I spelled that wrong), our Administration's treatment of them shows that they really have no business critiquing China's treatment of their own prisoners.

Again, the question I have for you then is are you referring simply to the fact that they are being held indefinately? The reason I ask is because you keep saying the way that they are being treated, and then saying that we have no right critisizing China, but you have, at least tentatively in my mind, agreed that their physical treatment is in ways better than in their own country.

No system of detainment / imprisonment is perfect. So what are your specific charges against the treatment of the detainees at Guantanamo are you talking about? Without knowing that, it makes if difficult to have a discussion.

That said, though, the main point of the thread originator is well worth attention. Just how meaningful and effective is it for us - or any outside nations - to be lecturing a sovereign state on what it is doing internally? What if the US were routinely swamped by foreign inquiries into some of the things done here? I know I resent it every time some foreign counsel tries to interfere in the trial or sentencing of some filthy rapist or murderer... why wouldn't a Chinese guy feel the same about us?

I would agree with this statement. Let other countries do as they will with their own citizens. I know I resent it every time the "auspicious" body we call the United Nations tries to tell us how we should be acting.

From what we hear over on the other side of the Atlantic, the majority of the 'prisoners' in a certain infamous Bay area have proveable ties to terrorism that amount to approximately zero. We also hear that the treatment of them is a serious breach of human rights at best and crosses the border into torture in some cases (with video and pictoral evidence which has been shown on the BBC).

I would agree, there have been some terrible things done. But the U.S. government has prosecuted some of those same people who committed those acts have been prosecuted and convicted.

 

[Big Don]

I am saddened that the Bush administration hasn't followed the letter of the Geneva Conventions to the letter. We'd strike more fear into their hearts were we to summarily execute terrorists as illegal combatants as allowed by the Geneva Conventions.
Remember, when you've got them by the b***s their Hearts and Minds will follow.

 

[Empty Hands]

But that's probably alright in legal terms because America never signed the Geneva Convention. Morally however?

Oh no, we signed the Geneva Convention that applies here, in 1949, and it went into force in 1956. Hence all the Bush Administration verbal gymnastics on the subject.

 

[Empty Hands]

We'd strike more fear into their hearts were we to summarily execute terrorists as illegal combatants as allowed by the Geneva Conventions.

In a world of foment and change, it is comforting to know that as a Universal Constant you, Big Don, will always be around to advocate for the most egregious and brutal violations of human rights. :highfive:

 

[Sukerkin]

Oh no, we signed the Geneva Convention that applies here, in 1949, and it went into force in 1956. Hence all the Bush Administration verbal gymnastics on the subject.

Thanks for the 'catch', EH, I must've had a synapse short-out long ago when I read the history of the Geneva Convention and over-inflated the reservations and provisos insisted upon by the USA.

When I read it back then, it seemed as if the America-specific get-out clauses more or less amounted to the country not being signatory to the same treaty.

Re-reading it after your 'nudge', it doesn't seem as bad - perhaps because having studied contract law I can untangle the twisted phrasing more easily :lol:. It still reads a little like "We agree to abide by these conditions ... when it suits us" but it would seem that I was wrong when I said above that there were arguments that there was no breach of legality.

EDIT: For those interested in some of the nitty-gritty on the Geneva Convention issues tripping up the States attempt to occupy the high moral ground here is an article on the subject. It's a little hyperbolic in it's tone but it does itemise things well: http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/duggan2.html. I don't post it as a Yank Bashing excercise, I just came across it whilst re-researching the signatories of the Convention and whilst not directly pertinent it may be of interest to some.