posted
I'll tell you where this kind of thing comes from. I was listening to Sean Hannity on the radio this afternoon (don't ask) and, speaking specifically about Osama Bin Laden, he made the statement that "He isn't even human".
Well, Osama is not my favorite person, either, but he is demonstrably human, as are all the people who follow him. Misguided, probably even dispicable in Osama's case, but human. But our government does not see them as human beings. So, in their eyes, it doesn't matter what is done to them. So we get situations like this, in which basic human rights are not extended to them.
I mean, if it can be proven that some of these people have committed acts against the American people, go ahead and lock them up. But not to even try to determine if they have or not is just not the American way. Which, if I'm not mistaken, is what we are being told we are fighting for.
posted
So...just exactly how much freedom do you think we'll have when people are terrified to go outside because someone might blow themselves up and terrified to stay inside because a plane might fall on them?
Much as I hate to say it, the Patriot Act remains the lesser of two evils.
Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, but the second evil is one we've been living with for years, it just never was done on such a scale as it was on 9/11. Think Unibomber, Timothy McVeigh...terrorism is nothing NEW here, it's just never been as terrible or destructive as the Two Towers bombing. The threat will always be there, always. But we have to decide how much of what makes us 'America, the land of the Free' that we will sacrifice to keep America the land of the Safe.
I think it was Benjamin Franklin who said: "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
[ September 11, 2003, 11:06 PM: Message edited by: Human ]
Posts: 3658 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Let's see, which number was false dichotomy . . .
Your statement is absurd. Before the patriot act we did not have people being afraid to go outside for fear of being blown up. After September 11th, the likelihood of it ever happening has been greatly lessened due to increased vigilance of the citizenry and increased counterterrorism efforts abroad. To suggest that without the patriot act terrorists would walk around with bombs strapped to them any more than they already cannot be taken seriously.
What the patriot act does do is increase government control over citizens' lives and ability to invade them. These added powers should not be tolerated unless there is an extreme necessity for the act, and there has been no demonstration of even a small necessity -- the prisoners at guantanamo have been held just fine (and injustly) without the patriot act, for instance. The patriot act would have done nothing to stop september eleventh. It gives the government control, but does not give the citizens protection.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kayla, if you really, truly believe that I am a terrorist, then it's your duty to try and get me sent to Guantanmo Bay. I won't like it there, of course; that's half the point of a prison. But it's for the greater good.
Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
This link from Human Rights Watch sums up how we have violated the Geneva Convention, the foundation of modern rules of war. And we've ignored or cynically rationalized our way around our own laws.
For the first time in my lifetime, habeus corpus rights have been suspended by presidential fiat. I never thought I would see that happen in America.
The tragic thing is, our own servicemen and women are sure to pay the price for this in future armed conflicts, and will be treated unfairly and cavalierly like we have treated the Afghani POWs (some at least should be considered POWs, as the link argues persuasively.) And what exactly would our response be, after flouting international and our own laws in our treatment of the Guantanamo detainees and the people rounded up for immigration violations, then held without trial, bail or legal counsel (the DoJ's Inspector General was highly critical of this)? Beats me. We have lost most of the moral high ground America once held, to our shame.
Not only that, we have also squandered almost all of the good will towards America that existed after 9/11, by our unilateralist doctrines.
posted
Yeah, I think I've mentioned the whole China incident a couple times to people who have poo-pooed international law.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Morbo, our unilateralist actions were taken because the international goodwill didn't amount to a hill of beans when it came to actually doing anything on our behalf. It should be pretty plain these days that no one is going to come to our aid when we need it, no matter how friendly they say they are. The only way to defend ourselves is to be prepared to go it alone.
Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Morbo don't fool yourself. You make it sound like American POWs are treated well now. Ever hear of the Hanoi Hilton? Do you really think our POWs aren't beaten or just outright killed? The only thing that prevented POWs from the first Gulf War from being murdered was the threat of our nukes.
Also we didn't go into Iraq unilaterally. There was Britian, Austrailia, Poland, Spain, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and others as well as the neutrality regarding the issue from others. I'm also sure we would have had the support of Israel but their outright support would have meant the end of bases in most of the Arab countries.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, the administration was already stunningly, contempuously unilateralist before 9/11.
And plenty of countries have helped in the war on terror. Even though many of them used it as an excuse for their own domestic repression, as we did in America.
And Dan makes a point I agree with in the "what to do after 9/11" thread:
quote:We are losing the war for the hearts and minds of the Islamic world
Except it's not only the Islamic world, it's much of the world in general.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maccabeus: There was an immense amount of goodwill towards the United States. Goodwill is not the same as being able to get people to go make revenge for you. You don't ask the guy who's tending your gunshot wound to go kill the guy who shot you. It doesn't work that way.
posted
edit:what Morbo said. Right on! Why can't everyone be that sensible?
Good point, newfound. True, our soldiers have been screwed over many times. But do you think our ignoring the Geneva Conventions will make that better or worse in the future?
Also, enemy countries can copy our legal tactics, and what could we say then?
As well as our doctrine of preventive or preemptive war. China is likely to do so, I'll wager.
posted
Wheatpuppet> Okay, granted--so what use [I]is [\I] this goodwill? Why is it so terribly important to maintain it?
Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also I don't think that those being held in Guantanamo are POWs because they really don't fit the description by the Geneva Convention. They don't where uniforms, they don't belong to a regular army, and there's a bunch of other stuff they don't meet. It would be one thing if they were really justified in what they were doing but just didn't have uniforms or whatever, but they are terrorists, so I see no reason to bend the rules out of pity for them. It would be one thing if you wanted to treat them as POWs so that they would in turn treat Americans fairly but I just don't think doing so will make a difference. If it were a real country we were fighting we wouldn't put the prisoners in Guantanamo, notice Iraqi prisoners for example.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: If it were a real country we were fighting we wouldn't put the prisoners in Guantanamo, notice Iraqi prisoners for example.
What the hell does this mean? Note that we do not have to recognize a government as legitimate to treat their forces as POW's, according to the Geneva Conventions which we and Afghanistan are signatory to. The link above from Human Rights Watch sums up the case well. The al-Queada members in Git-mo probably don't deserve the rights of a POW. However, even then they are entitled to a hearing to determine their combatant status, which has not been done.
Don't get me wrong: the Taliban are crazy scum, and al-Queada as well. I have no pity for them. But if we claim to be civilized we must follow the laws and treaties we have agreed to. That's what civilization means.
Sean Hannity used the term "animals" to describe our enemies today. If we do not adhere to the rule of law, at the very least we are manipulative bullies, making our own rules as we see fit, and hardly deserve the term "civilized human beings."
The rules of war must be followed as closely as possible, or we become little better than terrorists ourselves. And wars can quickly get out of hand when the rules of war are maginalized or ignored.
posted
Bend the rules out of pity for them? You're already bending rules and it ain't outta pity.
You're saying you'd only treat them fairly if you could get something out of it? They're human beings if you get a cookie, if you don't, they're less than animals.
Pardon me while I puke.
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also we didn't go into Iraq unilaterally--newfound. Granted, grudgingly. However, we had no where near as much in'tl support as we enjoyed in Iraq I, and we went in without the UN support which we also had then.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Goodwill isn't a tool to be used to your own ends.
I don't see why we couldn't have spent a few more months talking about going to war instead of doing it without the world community agreeing with--or even understanding--us.
Posts: 903 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The goodwill is usefull in, say, a situation like Afghanistan, which, if you recall, was supported by our allies like France and Germany, since it supposedly had a narrow and reasonable goal of going after the leader of the organization that perpetrated the 9/11 attacks, as well as disrupting the organization and its recruiting schools itself.
Iraq was not nearly such a limited endeavor, with hazy justifications, and hazy goals, and yet not only did we ignore our allies, we actively pissed them off. Some day we may well need help, the way we are stretching our forces, but we'll need to mend fences if we expect much beyond token support from even our _allies_, much less neutrals.
-Bok
PS- For the record, aside from England, the other members of the "Coalition of the Willing" absolutely supported the president to curry favor in relations like trade and investment. I mean, Poland has provided only 2000 troops! Of course, in Gulf I, we were able to get countries like Turkey and Egypt to provide a combined 75k to 100k of troops.
posted
What is the use of International Goodwill, I can think of 87 Billion reasons that come to mind recently. With some more international goodwill other countries would be throwing their two cent into Iraq instead of with holding it out of spite for the US's egotistical attitude.
Why didn't we wait a few months before attacking? Assuming that we knew there was no fear of Sadaam devoping the non-existant nuclear weapons? Two reasons. 1)It was costing us a fortune, Millions per Day, to keep our troops ready to strike, and Billions to deploy them in the first place. 2)The Summer was approaching. Our troops are being hurt now by the 120 degree summer weather. Imagine the casualties if we would have tried to fight the main war in that heat.
So the US had the choice of sitting on our hands for six months (until things cooled down) or moving in may. It was way to expensive to sit around for that long.
Why were our troops over there? Everytime the US made a threatening move, Hussein capitulated. Everytime we made a peaceful move, Hussein backed off of any promises he made. This resulted in the slow build up of troops and threats until the call came to show our cards--invade-- or have all of our foreign policy shown for a bluff.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fugu, I'm working on it, but the task is essentially to prove a negative--how do I know what terrorist actions have been prevented?
So, basically the international goodwill evaporated the moment we did something our allies weren't sure of. How interesting. It doesn't sound very substantial--not much trust involved, I presume?
Dan has explained why we needed to move when we did if we were going to, rather than months later. We kept pleading with our friends and the UN to facilitate matters, and they wouldn't listen to a word we said. In retrospect, okay, we certainly seem to have been wrong about the weapons of mass destruction, but how were they to know that? We asked and we pleaded and they begged and they kept delaying and delaying. Then they started insulting us. Some international goodwill.
Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
We pleaded with them, only after we said that we'd do it ourselves without you.
That's hardly the right foot to get off on.
-Bok
EDIT: I would add that WE were the ones who cut short the weapons inspectors after 4 months. We didn't respect anything about our allies. When they said we didn't have enough proof, our govt. said, "Well, uh, we're going to do it anyway!"
posted
Well, we also "deployed them [the troops] in the first place" because we wanted to go to war. We didn't have to send them there. We decided to go to war, and sent them. Then we realized that the UN wasn't going to fall for the bs we were telling them. So, we wasted all that money getting the troops there. As long as we already have them there, well. . . we have to attack, because it costs millions to keep them there and billions to deploy them in the first place.
Wait a minute. Maybe next time, we should go counting out chickens before they are hatched. Maybe we shouldn't spend billions deploying them, and then millions keeping the "ready" until we get the go ahead from whomever we need the go ahead from! Just a thought.
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
To get back to the thread topic, Christopher Hutchins pointed out last week that trials for the Bali bombers have already begun, abd in some cases concluded:AP report on first vedict (death), Guardian report I added the Guardian because they have a lot on Indonesia, and to mess with newfoundlogic.
How does it help the US internationally if a country with huge human rights violations can hold public trials of terrorists with civilian judges (no comment on the fairness of said judges) and the US refuses to do the same for the detainees in Guantanamo? Link on Indonesian human rights violations: Amnesty International on Indonesia.
The war in Afghanistan has been over for a considerable time, and trials are not even scheduled, that I've heard. Not to mention the hearings on combatant status that apparently will never happen.
I don't like my country's justice system being compared with an abusive and corrupt third world country's, and America's looking the worst of the two.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Surprise, surprise. Canada looks better every day.
Surprise, surprise. Australia looks worse every day.
quote:It would be one thing if they were really justified in what they were doing but just didn't have uniforms or whatever, but they are terrorists, so I see no reason to bend the rules out of pity for them. It would be one thing if you wanted to treat them as POWs so that they would in turn treat Americans fairly but I just don't think doing so will make a difference. If it were a real country we were fighting we wouldn't put the prisoners in Guantanamo, notice Iraqi prisoners for example.
I'm going to Bob the Lawyer in puking all over this one.
See, America wants to invade Iraq. The UN says "No, you can't." America says "Yeee-hawwwwwwww! We're a gonna go an' free them Iraqis / find them weapons / take them oils / kill them Husseins". America says "this ain't gonna be no Vietnam". Three months later, America is saying "Ya'll UN folks have a responsibility to help in Iraq."
Arrogant, hypocritical and contemptuous. International law is only something to be followed when convenient, the Geneva Convenient is for wiping your ass and some human beings are afforded less compassion and treated worse than a stray dog. Wow, home of the free. Land of the brave.
And no, I don't hate America. I just find it incredibly sad what it's doing to the world... And my country isn't much better.
Posts: 2945 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
Execept I'd say Australia is getting to be just about on par - we just don't have the resources to do anything big about it!
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm getting sick of people saying that the US ever said, "we don't need you, UN." We tried to get the UN on board they agreed and then individual members claim they didn't agree. The US decides that it won't follow the policy of appeasement that Europe enjoys so much and gets criticized for it. Now the US doesn't ask for the UN to do its "fair share" but to help because after all it is hard to imagine how Iraqis are worse off before with Hussein.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
By the way, you do realise that homelessness, rape, theft, starvation, etc. are all up under US occupation, right?
Posts: 2945 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
And all those things went up after the Soviet Union collapsed. However, in both cases state sponsored murder and slavery decreased.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
A bunch of people have piped up to disagree with the no-good liberals who've posted on this thread. With the exception of one solitary psycho, no one's actually directly defended what's going on in Guantanamo. I'm really curious: do you people actually think this is justified, or are you just combing posts for things to disagree with?
Posts: 2443 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't have a problem with what's happening in Guantanamo but I don't support it either. I feel about it the same way I feel about whether George Bush drinks coffee in the morning. I simly don't care whether or not prisoners are held in Guantanamo. My objections to the statements in this thread are based on what the prisoners are, what happened before the war, Iraq, etc.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dude, what assurance can you give me that the US government hasn't locked up afghan farmers, who only know of the US in abstract that simply answered the Mujahadeen to defend their homeland?
Oh, that's right none!
-that- is the problem with camp X-Ray. The world has no justification for these individuals being there. While i don't doubt there are probably al Qaeda sympathizers in the bunch, since there is no transparency in this administrations operations (seems to be their hallmark), i find this behavior at best arrogant and offensive, and at worst, reprehensable.
Posts: 4482 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't distrust my government based simply on the fact that its primarily composed of Republicans. After all how do we know Clinton didn't send hit squads into inner city neighborhoods to eliminate any conservative movements? Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here's a reason to distrust your government: why would they remove our means of knowing what they're doing to the Guantanemo prisoners, and why the prisoners are imprisoned, if they were only doing things that we would approve of?
posted
We never know 1% of what's going on during any administration. Its like, "Why didn't the government tell us they weren't intending on using the Marines waiting in the Persian Gulf in the first Gulf War?" Since I don't know exactly what the government is doing and I see no reason to be concerned just because of that I'm not going to distrust Bush. It really seems to me that most Democrats will oppose Bush just for the sake of opposing him.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, the whole opaqueness of government as followed by the current administration is not surprising since the same PNAC folks are also generally Leo Strauss devotees.
For more info, check out Ron Paul's (the Libertarian-in-Republican's clothing in the House) brilliant speech:
posted
Why people should be skeptical when the government says 'trust us, we know what we're doing' when it imprisons people without proof of criminal activity.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
