Gosh in the middle of a war, we have 550 detainees in Guantanamo and we are the moral equivalent of the Soviet gulag system. Are they being starved? Do they lack care? Do they not have their precious Korans? Are they being tortured? Ditto for other facilities? Besides the crew in Abu Ghraib, anyone else involved? Any other victims come forward? How many total have we found to have been abused? How many were tortured? So millions die in a Soviet gulag system and perhaps two deaths at Bagram in Afghanistan, which are being investigated and prosecuted, and certainly not celebrated, and the US can be compared with the Soviet Union, which intentionally killed millions (7 million in Ukraine alone?) This is precisely why the left has no moral value any more. When this kind of hyperbole passes as “dialogue” by the head of institutions who should know that they must behave more responsibly, then the Left as a force has become completely discredited. But we already knew that.
Your headline for this is 100% wrong. Amnesty International is claiming torture at Guantanamo and that claim is based on information and belief. William Schultz, who I know personally and have very, very great respect for, is-for a variety of reasons-not in a postion to speak for AI on this issue.
I have neither the time nor the inclination to argue withyou about it but I will say that the Bush War on Terror and the US Supreme Courts “looking the other way” on all the abuses marks-at least as far as I can see given my 47 years-the end of America’s commitment to either domestic civil liberties and international human rights.
Bottom line; the terrorist won. They did exactly what they intended to do which was turn America against itself and against the world.
America’s utterly inept response to the whole thing is sad, but comes as no surprise. All nations, all cultures, have their “day in the sun” and then fade. America has, I am almost 100% sure of this, started to fade. And it is not due to the “left”, it is not due to the “rag head terrorist”, it is due to the brainless hardening of American responses. A nation that elects a zero like Bush, a nation that allows its Constitution to be tossed out, a nation that can not or will not grow out of the “kiddie cowboy” phase is a nation on the way down and out.
Terrorist win; America loses.
Shalom Allekm (peace be upon you)
(I am practicing my arabic, language of the future!)
[quote=“brianlkennedy”]William Schultz, who I know personally and have very, very great respect for, is-for a variety of reasons-not in a postion to speak for AI on this issue.
Uh, is he not the Executive Director of the organization? If he’s not in a position to speak for Amnesty International about this or any other issue, then who in the world could be?
Not my headline. Read the story?
But no proof. Amnesty International admitted that it had no proof. So is that the basis of a whole report that compares America with Soviet gulags?
Why does your personal relationship with him have any bearing on this? I met Bush once and he seems like a darn nice guy. Therefore, I now appoint myself expert on all matters related to Bush and any decisions that he might make.
Yet, it appears that you are.
What abuses? The ones that Amnesty International “alleges” but has no “proof” of. What kind of lawyer are you anyway?
Or your qualifications to serve as a lawyer in any capacity.
I don’t agree.
Here we agree but you may not appreciate the reasons for our doing so.
A zero who manages to get through almost all of his policy measures. Amazing what a dolt he is. Incredible how such an idiot can state what he intends to do and then get it done. Incredible. Must be some kind of mentally defective idiot, etc. etc. etc.
Did I miss out on something? Did the Constitution get tossed out? Oh, you mean we are not using OUR constitution to defend citizens of other countries? Well, something is clearly wrong with that. Also, according to the Geneva Convention, these men are fighting out of uniform (Guantanamo) so they are not entitled to protection. We are giving them that though. They are being treated humanely, and if you have any proof that they are not, cough it up. Also, given that the conflict has not ended, you know what that means? We get to detain them until such time as it does.
Rather anyone who graduates people with such heated, emotional and ultimately empty vacuous responses is in trouble. I agree. Let’s reform our education system so that we turn out a much better product.
Only if we play the game that terrorism is somehow a criminal matter rather than a military one.
[quote]Shalom Allekm (peace be upon you)
(I am practicing my Arabic, language of the future!)
Bully for you. It might be a language of the future if the economies and politics of the region are ever reformed. Have you been to the Middle East ever? even once? For someone who is so involved in human rights issues, I wonder exactly how long you would last in a country like Syria? Iran? Egypt? Saudi Arabia? Pakistan? How’s about going over there and telling them about their constitutions and their “alleged” violations of human rights, howz about that? haha I’ll be sure and visit you in whatever cramped and dank cell they throw you in. Would you like a Bible to keep you company? haha
I would like to see proof that they have no evidence.
I feel your pain. haha
Interesting Catch-22 situation: Gitmo is completely in control of the U.S. military, and the evidence of torture is almost entirely within their hands. Unless they want to rat themselves out, it would be pretty hard to get hard evidence. However, there are numerous reports of mistreatment of detainees at Gitmo. Depends on how “torture” is now defined. Under the fakey new U.S. “legal” opinions on this topic, torture is only called torture when it makes the recipient feel like he’s dying or going through organ failure. Nice rule. In theory, under that rule, you can ram glass rods up men’s dicks and break them or perhaps do the bamboo-slivers-under-the-nails tricks. After all, it’s “not the same”.
But what about the outsourcing of torture? When we send people in our custody over to Egypt, Syria (our new partner!?), Saudi Arabia, and other countries, we’re sending them over with the knowledge that these countries “get medieval” with their detainees. I don’t think that makes our hands any cleaner just because we’re outsourcing it.
I believe, however, that in past discussions, you have been a most ardent demander of truth. Remember the Carter thread. So… I am sorry but unless you have proof on this, we will all be forced to dismiss any arguments that you might make.
Almost all of which have been investigated, many of the reports of mistreatment appear to be as valid as the Koran “harm” whatever that means.
That does seem to be the difficulty. Sleep deprivation is now torture?
That is an exaggeration.
Doubtful even in theory but I see that you have no “practices” to report so irrelevant speculation.
Well, you cannot have it both ways. Either the US is barbaric for detaining them in Guantanamo or barbaric for returning them to their home countries. Make up your minds people. Do you want them released or don’t you.
If the Egyptians or Pakistanis or Saudis demand the return of their citizens, what are we supposed to say? They are not entitled to the rights U.S. citizens receive. Are we supposed to naturalize them and allow them to live in the U.S. because they were fighting us and trying to kill us? Hmmm you make an interesting point regarding future leftist civics curricula. I, however, and other sensible people will be hoping that day does not arrive any time soon.
Hmmm… so, in this situation, you believe that the US must be guilty.
Let’s apply this logic to another recent situation:
However, in the above situation, Saddam must be innocent.
Nice double standard, mofangongren.
And lets factor in those recently busy paper shredders at AI offices.
But we have no proof to dis-prove the claim those were documents relevant to anything.
Quote - The administration has prevented any serious investigation of policy makers at the White House, the Justice Department and the Pentagon by orchestrating official probes so that none could come even close to the central question of how the prison policies were formulated and how they led to the abuses …the tragic impact of the initial decision by Mr. Bush and his top advisers that they were not going to follow the Geneva Conventions, or indeed American law, for prisoners taken in antiterrorist operations.
The series details the killing of two Afghan prisoners at the Bagram prison camp, one of them an innocent taxi driver who was tormented to death by American soldiers. The investigative file on Bagram, obtained by The Times, showed that the mistreatment of prisoners was routine: shackling them to the ceilings of their cells, depriving them of sleep, kicking and hitting them, sexually humiliating them and threatening them with guard dogs - the very same behavior later repeated in Iraq. This pattern should not surprise anyone by now. The same general who organized the harsh interrogation techniques at Guant
Another look at the “Gitmo = Gulags” idiocy from AI spokeperson Irene Khan:[quote]Amnesty International and moral idiocy
Dennis Prager, June 7, 2005
Sometime in the 1970s, I sent a donation to Amnesty International. As soon as I heard that a group had been formed to combat torture, I knew I had to support it.
Unfortunately, like almost all international and most domestic groups, the Left took over Amnesty International, and it devolved into another predictably anti-American, morally destructive organization.
That devolution was most apparent years ago when Amnesty International listed the United States as a major violator of human rights because it executed murderers. The organization’s inability to morally distinguish between executing murderers and executing innocent people means that Amnesty International is worse than ineffectual; the good it has done notwithstanding, it is becoming harmful to the cause of human rights.
Amnesty International reached its nadir two weeks ago when the secretary general of the organization, Irene Khan, branded the U.S. prison camp at Guantanamo Bay “the gulag of our times.” And rather than fire her, Amnesty International has defended her. Among her defenders is the American head of Amnesty International, William Schultz, who apparently loves America as much as he loves moral clarity. He said on Chris Matthews’ “Hardball” that he acknowledges that there is a difference “in scale” between Gulag and Guantanamo, but otherwise the comparison is apt.
For the record, at Guantanamo there are about 520 prisoners, the vast majority, if not all, of whom have been rounded up in anti-terror warfare. They were non-uniformed terrorists who are not subject to Geneva Convention rules on prisoners. But even if they did wear uniforms, they would await release at the end of hostilities. They are, even according to Schultz, provided with medical care and a fine diet that honors their religious codes, and they are allowed to practice their religion.b[/b]
townhall.com/columnists/denn … 0607.shtml[/quote]
I would argue that Bush is dangerous due to his administration’s sheer incompetence.
Amnesty International is pushing its leftwing vendetta so hard it risks toppling the apple cart. I mean, let’s get real…does any clear-headed, intelligent person (i.e. someone like me, a centrist) really believe that Guantanamo is a “gulag?” Of course not. It used to be that organizations with a left-leaning slant would still make some sense some of the time, but these days they’re looking grim. Perhaps the Left needs to completely bottom out in the court of reasonable public opinion before it starts back on the road to recovery.
A recovery, I believe, which is sorely needed. And which will be aided greatly by neo- and theocon hubris.
The central problem is that this “war on terror” is a new twist on things, such that the old rules are having trouble fitting in to the new paradigm. If you believe 9-11 was a crime to be dealt with judicially, then Guantanamo is indeed cause for alarm. And there are good reasons backing up this position, such as what has conventionally occurred in other countries (IRA, ETA, etc.).
But if you believe that 9-11 was an act of war, then Guantanamo is small beer, and par for the course.
Which is it? Or is it a combination of the two? And if so, what do you do?
It’s a war and we are sitting around letting the enemy regroup in Syria, Iran and Palestine with others in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Iraq will not get better until we chop off the funding and support from other places. Getting Syria to cough up Lebanon removes a nice economic advantage that they used to have. Let’s rachet it up even more and take them out of the enemy column once and for all but let’s not pretend this is a matter that is isolated to certain countries, it is regional like WWII and we need to treat all enemy combattants as enemies. How ridiculous would it have been to invade Europe but not target German forces in the Balkans or Poland because we were only after Germany? Or even worse, not attacking Germany but all the occupied countries because it would have been too “difficult?”
Gitmo is small potatoes.
[quote=“fred smith”] Or even worse, not attacking Germany but all the occupied countries because it would have been too “difficult?”
Can anyone say ‘Senior’?
I just want to know why Rumsfeld was so happy to use such an extremist, anti-American organization as a supporting source for the Evil of Saddam’s Iraq.
What are you talking about?
Well, he did quote Amnesty reports about how oppressive and evil Saddam’s regime was. If Amnesty are so anti-American and all that, why would he place any faith in their words?
Not if it’s run by the same people that claim to be bringing peace, freedom and democracy to the world.
And it ain’t Gitmo alone - it’s only the one most commonly known.
Besides, if all those sent to Gitmo (and similar places) how come quite a few have been released without any charge or further consequences whatsoever?
Innocent people are usually not arrested, brought to some secretive place, held without trial and access to lawyers for months or years even and then eventually released. Maybe the comparisions are based on those issues?
In the same way UN resolutions are good for justification of the war but otherwise the UN(SC) is ignored/bypassed. Or in the same way humanitarian reasons under international law are cited but then intl’ law is violated by invading a souvereign country. Or to sum it up in one word: hypocrisy.