Amnesty International & Hypocrisy

The Most Offensive Defence is A Spun Offence.

from JoeUser Forums

gulag.

amazing that one small word can be so powerful or evoke such a horrific response. 

i first became familiar with the concept while reading 'one day in the life of ivan denisovich' by alexander solzhenitsyn when i was still in grade school (clearly my recreational reading tastes were a bit precocious as well as extreme).  for a week during the summer between 7th and 8th grade, i shivered in the heat and humidity of late july in da motah city as ivan and i--convict slave laborers--endured the frozen extremes of siberia and the brutally inhumane excesses of a pitiless totalitarian state that had nullified our lives.

why were we there?  for how long would we remain?  there was no way of knowing.  worst of all, no one--least of all our former families and friends-- except those who kept us here and our fellow slaves knew for sure we even existed. 

amnesty international's international report, released on may 25, 2005, characterizes as a gulag the facility at guantanamo, cuba where the us holds some of  those captured in its war on terrorism.   not surprisingly, the current administration refutes that designation.  according to bush, it's an obvious case of disassembly (which he defines as lying).

not surprisingly, there are more than a few ju bloggers who are outraged by the amnesty international report.  

the war on terror is an honorable endeavor being waged against those who hate us and are willing to go to any length to destroy us because--as our president has proclaimed--they hate freedom.

finally  amnesty international has revealed its true agenda  and shown it hates us and our freedom as well.

how could we have been so foolish as to believe that an organization which has, for years, despised  the freedom enjoyed in north korea, china, vietnam, algeria, myanmar,  the maldives, turkey, morroco, today's russia, the former soviet union and its eastern european colonies, chile (under pinochet), argentina, cuba, the sudan and dozens of other bastion of freedom countries wouldn't eventually add us to the list.? 

fortunately we have plenty of examples on which to base our response---thanks to those nations for which this whole thing is old hat.

before we go there, let's clear something up.  guantanamo isn't a network of slave labor camps in the wilds of siberia into which millions of our own citizens disappear, most never to return.  hell, it's not even cold there.

on the other hand, perhaps amnesty international meant it figuratively.  after all, there are 500 people who've been locked up in gitmo for nearly 3 years without ever having been charged with any crime.  as far as they know, it could be another 20 years before they'll have a day in court.  their families have no clue as to their status.  no one except the force that's detaining them knows whether they're well or ill or alive.

nawwww.  that couldn't be it.

ai has a lotta nerve.  after all, didn't the president pledge in his 2nd inaugural address that the us was dedicated to spreading democracy and freedom.  aren't we spending billions and putting our military into harm's way to do just that in iraq?  if you can't trust our government, who can you trust?  

(who better to answer that question than those of you who join heston in announcing that they'll have to pry your gun outta your cold dead hands.  but then again, amnesty international doesn't own any guns huh?)

so anyway we're busy spreading freedom and democracy  not only by deed but by example--certainly there's no better advertisement than good example--and all amnesty international can do is criticize us.

no wonder cheney took offense and won't take ai seriously.  he's a flexible guy and just because he, the president and rumsfeld used to take them seriously enough to cite them multiple times in white house position papers  on hussein's iraq  Link  (In August 2001 Amnesty International released a report entitled Iraq -- Systematic Torture of Political Prisoners, which detailed the systematic and routine use of torture against suspected political opponents and, occasionally, other prisoners. Amnesty International also reports "Detainees have also been threatened with bringing in a female relative, especially the wife or the mother, and raping her in front of the detainee. Some of these threats have been carried out." ) , don't mean he cant change his mind.  or maybe his mind is the same but amnesty international is different. ( i can hear him singing along with joe walsh...'everybody's so different, i'm still the same.' )

fact is, amnesty international provided a good deal of the source material used by bush, cheney and rumsfeld to justify their planned invasion of iraq.  so having ai slam em now must really not bother them a bit because the organization just doesn't have any credibility

not that everything ai had to say about america was bad.  they approved the supreme court ruling that requires a court hearing for prisoners of the 'war on terror'.   big deal huh?

the final straw has to be ai's outrageous demands that the us stop secretly holding prisoners incommunicado (ghost prisoners), permit the international red cross access to all prisoners, ensure due process for all prisoners, implement an independent investigation of all allegations of torture and prosecute all who cause detainees to be brutalized or tortured while in the custody of the us. 

if that sounds familiar, it's probably cuz those damn amnesty international freedom-haters stole it directly from past presidents who demanded the soviet union do the same thing at their gulags.

if all of this pisses you off, you're not alone.

i'm pissed off too.  pissed off really badly that my country has engaged in the type of thing for which we used to condemn rogue states like north korea and the soviet union.   pissed off that my president says he wants to promote democracy and freedom throughout the world while eroding the essentials of democracy and freedom at home. pissed off that such blatant hypocrisy is ignored and--even worse--approved by those who claim to be the most stalwart advocates of the rule of law and our constitution.

one final note: in another thread, one commentor said he was dismayed because amnesty international had diminished the horror of the gulag in its report.  after all, there's no comparison.   this same commentor claims to be a student of history.  not a very good student in my opinion or he'd remember that gulags--like rome--aren't built in a day.  once you lay the first stone, the next one is a little easier. 

politics
44,790 views 182 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top

if the president hadda bump his remarks, it would give him one more chance to think about what he was gonna say. (not that it works for me hahahahah)

Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
gulags--like rome--aren't built in a day.  once you lay the first stone, the next one is a little easier. 


That explains it.

The other day I laid some green felt on the table in preparation for a project, and the city immediately shut me down and fined me for starting an "unlicensed gaming establishment." Now I see the logic. Obviously I was laying the groundwork. Silly me. I should have known better.

I do think the Gulag metaphor was a bit of a stretch.

AI did some sound-bite hyperbolizing to get their message heard. Too much of it will make them look as much like chicken littles as The Center for Science in the Public Interest, or even -- God forbid -- PETA. How harmful a little is, is debatable.

The people who will think negatively of them for it and use it against them are probably pre-disposed to do so anyway, so I doubt it's much of a loss.

Ironically, by complaining so loudly and longly they're giving AI exactly what it calculated -- massive publicity. There's nothing like getting your enemy to deliver your message for you.


(I saved a couple of references on this topic yesterday, intending to blog about it. I may have just shot my wad, though. Damned premature explication.)
WindowBlinds - Free yourself of the default settings, customize your desktop.
Reply #3 from PolMach Forums Top
kingbee:

Please see below a description of the Gulag:

The Soviet system of forced labor camps was first established in 1919 under the Cheka, but it was not until the early 1930s that the camp population reached significant numbers. By 1934 the Gulag, or Main Directorate for Corrective Labor Camps, then under the Cheka's successor organization the NKVD, had several million inmates. Prisoners included murderers, thieves, and other common criminals--along with political and religious dissenters. The Gulag, whose camps were located mainly in remote regions of Siberia and the Far North, made significant contributions to the Soviet economy in the period of Joseph Stalin. Gulag prisoners constructed the White Sea-Baltic Canal, the Moscow-Volga Canal, the Baikal-Amur main railroad line, numerous hydroelectric stations, and strategic roads and industrial enterprises in remote regions. GULAG manpower was also used for much of the country's lumbering and for the mining of coal, copper, and gold.

i'm pissed off too. pissed off really badly that my country has engaged in the type of thing for which we used to condemn rogue states like North Korea and the Soviet Union. pissed off that my president says he wants to promote democracy and freedom throughout the world while eroding the essentials of democracy and freedom at home. pissed off that such blatant hypocrisy is ignored and--even worse--approved by those who claim to be the most stalwart advocates of the rule of law and our constitution.


Now, I am trying to figure out what about Guantanamo you disagree with? What do we have in common with North Korea and The Soviet Union? Understand this, these people being held do not merely have an opposing view of our government, they do not merely disagree with our religious practices. No, these are people that hate your stinking guts no matter how ashamed or pissed off you are with your government. They do not care that you cry for them and their treatment. Were you to open the gate to their freedom, they would promptly slit your infidel throat. These people are not being held by an oppressive government trying to stifle their peaceful voice. These people are being held so that they cannot kill you and your neighbors.

What our government is trying to do is to insure that another 9/11 does not occur. We are not dealing with an enemy that believes in live and let live. We are not dealing with an enemy that is content to have an ocean between us. No, they will go to all efforts and expenses to get to us and kill us. This is not about trying to make us see their point of view. THEY WANT US DEAD!!! There is no if, ands or buts about it. How do you propose we hold these guys? Were it my choice, I would say that they should all have a bullet in their head and not because I hate them, but because I know how much they hate me and that they will stop at nothing to kill me. The only way to eliminate the threat is to do just that... eliminate it. This is an enemy unlike any we have ever faced and unconventional means must be used. We are not interning every person of Muslim faith in labor camps. We are merely protecting ourselves from terrorists. It is plain and simple to me. Your mind cannot begin to understand or appreciate the sort of enemy that we are facing. If you feel one moment of sympathy for the animals that want you dead, then you will never understand the concept of what we must do to win. We can do one of two things, kill them or try to show them that democracy is not so bad. It seems to me that we are doing exactly that in Iraq.

Now, on to your point about eroding democracy. Apparently what you really want is anarchy. Democracy is defined as follows:

de•moc•ra•cy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-mkr-s)
n. pl. de•moc•ra•cies
1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
2. A political or social unit that has such a government.
3. The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.
4. Majority rule.
5. The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.

Which of the above principles are we eroding? Which freedoms are you being denied? I mean let's be serious for just a moment. Please lay out for me even one freedom that you have been denied since 9/11? Just one. Last I checked we still come and go as we please. We only need a passport to leave and return to the country and that is merely for your protection. I get up when I want to, I go to work where I want to, I spend my money how I want to. If I were so inclined, I could be like you and start bitching about the president and his policies without fear of being thrown in the gulag. What the hell else do you want? What other freedom has President Bush stolen from you? What new laws have been enacted that is driving you into a sense of despair over your previously enjoyed freedom? Do you mean to say the Patriot Act? Here is a link to the entire text of the Patriot Act: http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html I challenge you to find anything that denies you any of your previously enjoyed freedoms. It's like this, is it easier to get wiretaps and surveillance for suspected terrorists? Yes. Does this mean that everyone in the US has to fear Big Brother snooping in on them? No. If anyone is ever indicted for a crime that is not terrorist in nature, any decent lawyer would get them off the hook faster than you can say ACLU. Is it national ID cards that scare you? First and foremost I would ask why? Imagine this; I work in a place that mainly employs Hispanics. If immigration shows up to run off the illega’s, tell me what I am carrying in my pocket to prove I am a citizen? My driver's license? Wrong, all of the terrorists in involved in 9/11 had licenses (most had more than one). The fact is, I have nothing proving that I am an American. A national ID card would solve that problem. That's all, nothing sinister, no Gestapo, no Cheka, just a way to prove your identity. Like I said earlier, what you obviously want is anarchy, a complete freedom from government.

The one thing about liberals that I do truly admire is their PR machine. I mean they are capable of making you believe that your freedoms are being eroded when your life has probably not changed one iota since 9/11. You speak in your final paragraph about laying the first stones. Well the Patriot Act was put into place October 24th, 2001; nearly four years ago. Again, I look forward to hearing your woeful tale of your loss of freedoms.

You are yet another person in a long line of ignorant dolts that do not like the president and will jump on any story that can in some way be construed as a criticism of him personally. You think your intellectual banter will lend some credence to your asinine ramblings about your imaginary loss of freedoms. If you are so afraid of the future gulags, you may want to cease and desist the criticism of the president or you'll be in the gulag as a political dissenter; or could it be that you are not really as afraid of that eventuality as you would have us believe? If you were as sure of the erosion of freedoms as you would try to convince all of us, then you would be hastily planning your move to Canada.

And you speak of hypocrisy. You are a sore loser liberal and an intellectual joke.
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top

Funny, I cant find the section of the Geneva Convention that says armed combatants in a war, wearing no uniform of state, must be read their miranda rights.

I also cant find the section in the Geneva convention that says spys must be treated like royalty, and catered to their every whim.  I must have missed those, please post appropriate links so I may learn as much as you know.

Gulags were not started overnight, but they were for the forced enslavement of the citizens of the country in Question, without due process.  Last I heard, they took the americans and tried them as traitors.  None have been shot either.  Funny, how you would support the equating of Gulags to Gitmo.  Why not Nazi Concentration camps?  They are much closer to being the same as they held foreigners that had taken up arms against the German state, and not all of them wore a uniform of state.

Why?  Because you and AI know instinctivevly how stupid the comparison is.  However since the Nazi comparison has been beaten to death by left wing idiots who dont know history period, they decided to go another route for the shock value.  People have just become desensitized to the nazi terms as they are used all too often and without validation.  So they use the next best image to yell fire in a crowded theater.

Hide your head in shame if you want.  I will not be joining you or the UN or AI in belittling a true horror of humanity by comparing it to handling the Koran without gloves on.  I will not join you in rending my clothes to show my disgust for locking up animals that would rather spit on you and kill you than live another day.  I will not join you in cheapening the memory of millions of Soviet citizens who died for the simple crime of living in the wrong place a the wrong time.

Whatever Gitmo is, is not really the issue with you and AI and the UN.  The issue is that you have forgotten history as have most of your contemporaries.  So the unspeakable horrors of the mid 20th century will be repeated insted of remembered.  All because people have so much hate, they must lie about the horrors of that time to make a point.  Go ahead and revel in your glory at the stupidity of AI and the UN.  I will remember the true history of the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany, and not compare it to a bunch of left wing nut jobs who like to beat up people without their views.  I wont call them Nazi's.  I would not cheapen the memory of the vicitms of Nazi Germany.  I wil just call them what they are, thugs.  That may not have the inflamatory effect of calling them jack Booted SS stormtroopers, but it will be more accurate. 

Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
Now, I am trying to figure out what about Guantanamo you disagree with? What do we have in common with North Korea and The Soviet Union? Understand this, these people being held do not merely have an opposing view of our government, they do not merely disagree with our religious practices. No, these are people that hate your stinking guts no matter how ashamed or pissed off you are with your government. They do not care that you cry for them and their treatment. Were you to open the gate to their freedom, they would promptly slit your infidel throat. These people are not being held by an oppressive government trying to stifle their peaceful voice. These people are being held so that they cannot kill you and your neighbors.


I will not join you in rending my clothes to show my disgust for locking up animals that would rather spit on you and kill you than live another day.


I am from Northern Ireland and am currently living in England. I recently had the pleasure of sharing our house with an American guy who, by his admission, was pretty much your average American.

He was very good natured, all too aware of potentially causing offence and was quite funny.

When he started talking about politics he presented what appeared to be well thought out views.

Then I noticed that he was saying things from one side of the fence and when challenged with the view from the other side it appeared as if had never even heard it, let alone considered it or balanced out against his view.

The views presented above mirror some of his arguments in a very worrying way. Yes, these guys were picked up in situations where they were most likely posing a threat, but to reduce them to being treated in the way they are at Gwanbo is hypocritical and unacceptable from the self-styled "protectors of freedom and democracy" that the US has painted itself to be since the attacks of 9/11.

It seems that the freedom, democracy and justice that America offers to the world is on their terms and with their rules. To me this doesn't sound like democracy, more like a dictatorship
Reply #6 from PolMach Forums Top
The Original Vune:

It seems that people from Northern Ireland are the same as our American liberals; you are very good at decrying Bush's methods while failing to offer up an alternative. It is a well known fact that the Democratic party of this country failed miserably in the last elections for one main reason; while they are excellent whiners and criers about Bush's methods, they offer no alternatives. They are not leaders. At least the Republican Party is offering some solution even if many people do not agree with it.

If we lock up our borders and require national ID cards we are eroding freedoms at home. We hunt down the terrorists and put them away, we are tyrants and dictators. I guess the Democratic and obviously European approach would be to simply let them go about the business of blowing up buildings and killing innocent people and make the job of the government to merely eulogize and mourn the dead. Go forbid we actually do anything about it.

While I can't speak for your American guest, I can tell you that I have considered both sides of the issue and I still find myself firmly on the side of Bush. Why you might ask? I have no better alternative. What is the answer? How do you protect yourself from an enemy that hates you for everything you stand for and that enemy is not content to merely hate you, they must kill you? In fact they believe they have a special place in heaven if they die killing you. Most Americans hate communism, yet communist nations need not fear a bunch of Americans showing up to fly planes into their skyscrapers. How do we appease these people? Prior to 9/11 had we occupied a nation and were merely suffering the sort of terrorism as seen in Northern Ireland in a unification dispute? It is not a simple matter of these guys wanting to kick us out of some land that they think we stole as was the case in Northern Ireland. The IRA was not killing just to kill; they were killing to achieve a goal of separation from England and a reunification of the Irelands. As far as I know we are merely guilty of not allowing the decimation of Israel by the Arab nations and therefore we are Zionist infidels who deserve to die.

Also, let us not forget that most of these detainees have been held for more than three years correct? Well that means they have absolutely nothing to do with Iraq as the invasion of Iraq began on March 21, 2003; just over two years ago. These are men that were pulled from the field of battle in direct support of the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. There has been overwhelming support for our mission in Afghanistan and no question as to the terrorist status of those held. In fact there are documented cases of some detainees being released only to be recaptured or killed on the field of battle. Now the detainees in Gitmo are merely being grouped in with people’s dislike of what is going on in Iraq.

I sincerely invite you to offer up an alternative to our current efforts. Please tell us how to properly detain the fine human beings that we currently hold. All sarcasm aside, I would truly appreciate a solution from someone, not just the constant disagreement with anything to do with Bush. It is so easy to constantly spout out the typical liberal rhetoric of human rights abuses, erosion of freedom, tyranny, dictatorship, etc... Can not one of you liberals offer a solution instead of a criticism? I would love to know how we can prevent further terrorist attacks without the use of force or without the erosion of some of the freedoms that we enjoy. Every Arab nation has said that we should look at our policies in Israel. In fact, Rudi Giuliani turned down a ten million dollar donation to the city of New York after the prince's comments that we should change our policy in Israel. Look, I have no religious beliefs whatsoever, so I do not support Israel for their religion. The simple fact is that what the Muslim world wants is for the US to stand by while they utterly annihilate every man woman and child that lives in Israel. We simply will not do that. I guess we would rather rob a few hundred terrorists of their human rights rather watch a nation be annihilated.

If you have a better answer, I welcome it.
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
The other day I laid some green felt on the table in preparation for a project, and the city immediately shut me down and fined me for starting an "unlicensed gaming establishment."


you shoulda argued that it made a lot more sense than laying mark felt on a table or anywhere else for that matter.

I do think the Gulag metaphor was a bit of a stretch.


it certainly is in terms of scope and numbers. on the othre hand, in thinking about what a gulag was, something occured to me that may or may not seem as germane to anyone else as it does me. the most horrific aspect of solzhenitsyn's 'ivan denisovich' and the gulag--to me--wasn't the work or cold or the brutality. it was the persistent awareness that one has been rendered a non-person...null & void.

there's one other thing: before being shipped off to the soviet gulag, the victims were given a trial. there's no question most of those trials--possibly every one of them--were a cruel caricature of what a trial should be. there have been no trials--fair or otherwise--for the prisoners in guantanamo. when and if they do occur, i sure the hell wouldn't take even really long odds there will be any acquittals.

to me it seems likely that amnesty international--having spent a couple decades dealing with husseins--overreacted out of frustration. sorta like if you had a couple neighbors who were always causing trouble and then one day, the guy next door--someone who embodied what a good neighbor should be--came out to find his car had been trashed and immediately began to out-yahoo the yahoos.

Damned premature explication


the only thing worse is taking a dose of escriba and your pen can't be set down for more than 4 hours.
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
The issue is that you have forgotten history as have most of your contemporaries. So the unspeakable horrors of the mid 20th century will be repeated insted of remembered.


my contemporaries recall all too well how closely america came to going off the rails during the 50s under the sway of fearmongering extremists determined to gut the rule of law in order to save the country.

countries that transport non-citizens halfway around the world, detain them for years without charges, deny them access to legal counsel, bar inspections by the international red cross and refuse reveal even their names to family members--in violation of its own laws and principles--are rarely applauded by international rights organizations.

ask yourself why they're being held in guantanamo? why not in saipan or guam?
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
There has been overwhelming support for our mission in Afghanistan and no question as to the terrorist status of those held


there's a very good chance that some of the detainees were turned over to american forces in order to collect a bounty. unless and until something the government charges them and permits them to defend themselves, their status is very much in question.
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top

ask yourself why they're being held in guantanamo? why not in saipan or guam?



And the difference would be?



#9 by kingbee
Wednesday, June 08, 2005





There has been overwhelming support for our mission in Afghanistan and no question as to the terrorist status of those held


there's a very good chance that some of the detainees were turned over to american forces in order to collect a bounty. unless and until something the government charges them and permits them to defend themselves, their status is very much in question.


Their status is not in question. They are considered to be POW's. Otherwise there would be no Geneva Convention questions! Only POW's are entitled to Geneva accords, right?
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
Their status is not in question


well no wonder we havent had any trials since you've decided theyre all guilty.
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
In my experience Hypocrisy is almost always the child of pandering to those whose values you do not hold. We sacrifice our soldiers every day because we give a damn what the world thinks of us. We could as easily, and more cheaply, defeat an enemy and never set a single foot on the ground.

These people we hold could have easily been turned over to some third world nation in our debt, tortured sufficiently to get whatever information we wanted, and then mercifully killed. Instead, we house them, feed them, wrap the Koran in a towel so as not to 'defile' it with our hands. We spend, literally, millions of dollars on people that 90% of the world would have spent a single bullet on.

Does that set us apart? I think so. Are we right for doing it? Tough question. It makes us no more loved, that's for sure. In the end this isn't about love and respect, because NOTHING we ever do will give us the love and respect of the man-on-the-street in Palestine, or Beruit, or Paris.

Why? Because they have only their self-interest in mind. They don't care how much we sacrifice, in the end it is us and them and 'us' will always fall short. If we release them today, we lose. If we had killed them on the battlefield, we lose. If we had dressed them in the finest velvet and set them on an ass pointed toward home, they would have cursed us for doing it.

In short, screw them. Prick us, do we not bleed? Wrong us, do we not revenge? Our great sin in this is that we refuse to admit that we go where our interests lie. Clinton, among all his sad hypocricies, at least told the truth when he said that we had no interests in Rwanda as 1,000,000 people died.

I, personally, feel it was in our interest to save those lives. Perhaps it is in our interest to let these people go. Perhaps not. I know this, devoutly, though. The same people that hate us today will hate us tomorrow regardless of what we do. We aren't hated for what we do, we are hated for what we are, and for the opportunity that hating us brings.

So, I think we should do whatever it is our concience to do with no apologies, and no sugar coating. It is trying to live in this middle ground, pretending that we are at once seeking our own interests and at the same time catering to those who hate us that makes us hypocrites.
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top

#11 by kingbee
Thursday, June 09, 2005





Their status is not in question


well no wonder we havent had any trials since you've decided theyre all guilty.


Excuse me but since when are trails held for POW's unless they're charged with war crimes? Since they are not charged with that, there WON'T be any trials.
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
The same people that hate us today will hate us tomorrow regardless of what we do. We aren't hated for what we do, we are hated for what we are, and for the opportunity that hating us brings


do the japanese hate us now? the germans? the russians? not that very long ago the answer woulda been all of the above. and we hated them back just as fiercely. as far as the japanese were concerned, we were determined to keep them outta the colonialist club. the germans probably hated us the least cuz if nothing else we werent the russians. like the japanese, we were an affront to the russians. we'd fought our revolution but were determined to make theirs fail.

it may be the iranians hate us for what we are but that hatred started because of what we did in iran.

interestingly enough, osama bin laden may not hate us nearly as much for what we did as for what he wasn't allowed to do. instead of allowing him to drive hussein outta kuwait, the saudi royal family gave the job to us.

as to the hypocrisy, i see several layers of duplicity and guantanamo is a primary component in at least one: the proposition foreign captives taken to guantanamo are outside the reach of us courts because cuba's sovereignty prevails there.

then there's the nonsense about spreading freedom and democracy by doing exactly what we'd condemn if it werent us doing it. refusing to permit the red cross access to guantanamo? holding 500 men--some of whom may not have done anything more than being in the wrong place at the wrong time--indefinitely?

as far as turning them over to cooperatve, less scrupulous partners to be tortured, it's already happening.

perhaps i'm demanding more from my country than it's able to deliver. in that case, perhaps you're right. let's stop all the bullshit bout spreading freedom and do what you suggest.
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
Excuse me but since when are trails held for POW's unless they're charged with war crimes? Since they are not charged with that, there WON'T be any trials.


the president's position--which was denied by the courts but is now being appealed by the president--is they are not pows.
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
I guess the Democratic and obviously European approach would be to simply let them go about the business of blowing up buildings and killing innocent people and make the job of the government to merely eulogize and mourn the dead. Go forbid we actually do anything about it.


I was thinking more of arresting them and then allowing them a fair trial and then keeping them detained once they had been proven guilty. Its a crazy idea, I know!

merely suffering the sort of terrorism as seen in Northern Ireland


You seem to be completely passing over the fact that the terrorism merely suffered in Northern Ireland went on for 30 years and caused the deaths of countless civilians, police, army and paramilitaries. Whereas the US has had, what, two terror attacks in recent memory? I'm not meaning to do down the horror of these attacks, just comparing them to what you dismiss as not important.

The big difference, of course, was the funding of the terrorism in NI by the Irish American community.

There has been overwhelming support for our mission in Afghanistan and no question as to the terrorist status of those held.


Let them face trial then. If there is no question there should be no problem with putting it beyond doubt!
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top

#15 by kingbee
Thursday, June 09, 2005





Excuse me but since when are trails held for POW's unless they're charged with war crimes? Since they are not charged with that, there WON'T be any trials.


the president's position--which was denied by the courts but is now being appealed by the president--is they are not pows.


Then they can NOT be given geneva convention status, can they?
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
Then they can NOT be given geneva status, can they?


i'm gonna go really slow here so you don't get confused. let's say one of your neighbors is found walking down the road with a bloody axe and when the cops try to ask him what the fuck is up, he does his best to damage as many cops as possible. let's say he succeeds and does in the town's favorite cop. once they get the axe away from him and he's handcuffed & hogtied, detectives begin following a trail of gore to see who else had the bad fortune to run into the axeman.

turns out he'd started at the holy child orphanage where he tortured and then dispatched all the lil unfortunates living there after using the crucifices off the altar to do horrible perverted things to the nuns who took care of em.

he'd even chopped up the orphans shetland pony and slowly hacked apart the smartest, most loyal collie ever to walk the earth.

with me still dr???

despite having done all those horrible things, it is neither ethical nor moral for you--the good citizens of your formerly peaceful lil village--to dispense with the formalities and beat him to death with bats. whether he deserves that isn't important.

if you are an american citizen, it is not legal for to you to transport this man to a little island you've leased from dr. evil so as to deny him the right to a trial.

if the president gets a couple corrupt attorneys to provide him assurances it is legal for him to prevent this man from being charged...or to prevent him from being informed of the charges against him...or to bar him from legal representation...or to refuse him the right to confront his accusers...the president may be violating his oath of office, and he's certainly acting in a manner inconsistent with the rule of law. realisticaly, that president's no better than any other tinhorn dictator who disappears people.

same thing goes for trying to invent new rules to cover someone captured half a world away for doing the same horrible things and then transported to an offshore facility operated by the us government.

even if it is eventually determined to be technically legal, it still aint right and it aint the american way.
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top

#18 by kingbee
Thursday, June 09, 2005





Then they can NOT be given geneva status, can they?


i'm gonna go really slow here so you don't get confused. let's say one of your neighbors is found walking down the road with a bloody axe and when the cops try to ask him what the fuck is up, he does his best to damage as many cops as possible. let's say he succeeds and does in the town's favorite cop. once they get the axe away from him and he's handcuffed & hogtied, detectives begin following a trail of gore to see who else had the bad fortune to run into the axeman.

turns out he'd started at the holy child orphanage where he tortured and then dispatched all the lil unfortunates living there after using the crucifices off the altar to do horrible perverted things to the nuns who took care of em.

he'd even chopped up the orphans shetland pony and slowly hacked apart the smartest, most loyal collie ever to walk the earth.

with me still dr???

despite having done all those horrible things, it is neither ethical nor moral for you--the good citizens of your formerly peaceful lil village--to dispense with the formalities and beat him to death with bats. whether he deserves that isn't important.

if you are an american citizen, it is not legal for to you to transport this man to a little island you've leased from dr. evil so as to deny him the right to a trial.

if the president gets a couple corrupt attorneys to provide him assurances it is legal for him to prevent this man from being charged...or to prevent him from being informed of the charges against him...or to bar him from legal representation...or to refuse him the right to confront his accusers...the president may be violating his oath of office, and he's certainly acting in a manner inconsistent with the rule of law. realistically, that president's no better than any other tin-horn dictator who disappears people.

same thing goes for trying to invent new rules to cover someone captured half a world away for doing the same horrible things and then transported to an offshore facility operated by the us government.

even if it is eventually determined to be technically legal, it still aint right and it aint the american way.


And I'll try going even a little slower for you. You obviously did NOT comprehend my last post at all! You say that they are not POW's. Ok, fine! Then if they are not to be considered POW's then they can NOT claim protection under the Geneva convention! The convention is for POW's!


if the president gets a couple corrupt attorneys to provide him assurances it is legal for him to prevent this man from being charged...or to prevent him from being informed of the charges against him...or to bar him from legal representation...or to refuse him the right to confront his accusers...the president may be violating his oath of office, and he's certainly acting in a manner inconsistent with the rule of law. realistically, that president's no better than any other tin-horn dictator who disappears people.



The key word here as far as we're concerned is "maybe". Until such said time that a ruling is passed giving credence to wether or not they are POW's then we are treating them as we should. If it is ruled that they are indeed not POW's then things have to change!


same thing goes for trying to invent new rules to cover someone captured half a world away for doing the same horrible things and then transported to an offshore facility operated by the us government.


And just where in hell would you have us put them? And what's the difference?
Reply #20 from PolMach Forums Top
You seem to be completely passing over the fact that the terrorism merely suffered in Northern Ireland went on for 30 years and caused the deaths of countless civilians, police, army and paramilitaries. Whereas the US has had, what, two terror attacks in recent memory? I'm not meaning to do down the horror of these attacks, just comparing them to what you dismiss as not important.


When I used the word merely it was in no way to diminish the horrific nature of what has happened in NI. The comparison I was drawing was that in NI there was a solution, there was a reason for what was happening that went beyond mere hate of a race or religion. There was the possibility of going to the table and working out a peaceful arrangement. The IRA considered themselves an army fighting a foreign occupation. There's the big difference; we don't hold any land of these guys, we have nothing they want. In Northern Ireland it was a freaking battle over land, rule and unification. Was the loss of life any less tragic? No, but a solution existed the whole time. Hell, the US has been involved in the peace process in NI; we know a little about fighting colonial rule ourselves. Unfortunately, we are fighting an enemy against whom there is no solution. The only peaceful arrangement we could make with these bastards is if we were willing to lay down and die. Were the soldiers of the IRA willing to bomb themselves as martyrs thinking they would be received in heaven by 70 virgins? NO!! Again, they considered themselves an army fighting an enemy occupation, they saw no glory in dying in the name of Allah and they were not dead set on killing every Brit walking the face of the earth!!

Let them face trial then. If there is no question there should be no problem with putting it beyond doubt!


There you go with the liberal crap again. Okay we put them on trial for what? For hating us? How do we prove under the standards of a court of law that we know they will kill us if we do not detain them? Your logic is like saying that we should not trap an alligator loose in the public unless we put it on trial and prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it will eat us if we don't detain or move it. Also, let us not forget that these guys from Afghanistan were not swept up in house to house raids, these were guys from the field of battle. You people are mixing up your facts here and can't lay off Iraq. Iraqi prisoners are in Iraq. Yes, lot's of the Iraqi prisoners were swept up in house to house raids and many innocent people may be being held, but this is not the case of the men being held at Gitmo. The place being called a Gulag is Gitmo and even Amnesty International is mixing it in with Iraq in order to take a swipe at Bush.

I was thinking more of arresting them and then allowing them a fair trial and then keeping them detained once they had been proven guilty. Its a crazy idea, I know!


You don't detain a man that has been found guilty, you imprison him. You detain someone that you suspect of being guilty.

Whereas the US has had, what, two terror attacks in recent memory? I'm not meaning to do down the horror of these attacks, just comparing them to what you dismiss as not important.


Correct, the US has been attacked on it's own soil twice; the first Trade Center bombing and then 9/11. However, these are just attacks on our on soil. If I must give a history lesson then I will go and look up every embassy bombing, every hijacking, every ship that has been attacked, every hostage situation, etc...

Again, you liberals talk a lot but you offer no real solution. I am talking about a solution to the fact that their are a good many fanatical Muslims that will stop at nothing, including martrydom, in order to kill as many Americans (and now Iraqi Shiites as well) as they possibly can. I repeat, the liberal party of this country was crushed because they have no solution. The politically correct liberals are mad because we have a president who is saying and doing what must be done. Let me use the alligator analogy again; if I have an alligator in my backyard, I am going to kill it or put it in a cage. If I come across the realization that alligators not only want to eat me, also that their is nothing I can do to appease them and furthermore they are willing cross oceans to find me and kill me; then I am going to start hunting down alligators and putting them in cages and killing them before they can kill me.
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top

well no wonder we havent had any trials since you've decided theyre all guilty.

POWs do not get trials.  Why should armed combatants, the equivalent of spies, get a trial? You shoot at our troops and are not killed, you get penned up.  No questions, and no trials.

Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top
"do the japanese hate us now? the germans? the russians?"


I could concede the point had I said 'nations'. I said 'people', though. Frankly, yes, many of the people who survive in Japan and Germany that hated us then still voice the same opinions of us now.

What the Dr. and others are trying to point out is that you are imposing a standard that simply doesn't exist. We don't consult a judge before we shoot someone on the battlefied, and we don't bring terrorists into US courts and treat them like ordinary criminals. The system wasn't made for it.

I suppose the only way to remain safe and please people who hate what we are doing now would be to just shoot them and have it over with before the press finds out. Kind of sad. At least this way they have hope.
Reply #23 from PolMach Forums Top
kingbee:

i'm gonna go really slow here so you don't get confused


Ok kingbee, you've bored us all to tears with the "we aren't true Americans" if we don't give these guys due process crap. So please, regale us with your solution. I'm not talking about a solution to Gitmo; for goodness sake at this point I would say just set them all free to shut you bleeding heart liberals up, but what then? How do we protect ourselves from them? Jose Padilla who is at the center of all this enemy combatant crap is a perfect example. Look, we know beyond doubt that he attended an al quaeda training camp with the express purpose of learning to build and use a "dirty" bomb on American citizens. Do we have enough evidence to pass the stringent tests afforded our citizens to prevent innocents being held? Hell no. Has he done it yet? No. So we just wait for him to do it.

I'm going to go slow just like you did. In your example, we have a guy with the bloody axe, we have evidence, he's killed a few cops. So we put the guy on trial, decide a sentence and he serves it. Mr. Padilla is only guilty at this point of WANTING or DESIRING to kill us. That is why we give him enemy combatant status, because he cannot be convicted of a crime that he has not commited yet. But let's be reasonable, anyone in this country that has attended an al quaeda training camp is not here to further the American way and go out and eat hot dogs and apple pie with us. While they have not commited a crime they are a real and imminent threat to many lives. That is why we have the enemy combatant status. They are not POW's and they are not guilty of a crime,yet, unless we make attending al quaeda camps and hating Americans enough to kill us a crime.

You want the truth? It knida like the good old "A few good men" truth, you obviously can't handle it. The truth is we have people who are willing to fight for the right to hold this Padilla and many other people just to keep them from killing us. I agree with you, are they convictable in a court of law? No way. But would they kill you if given a chance? Hell yes, and that is why he is being held on a military base without the right to an attorney. Because he is not charged with anything and he is not getting a day in court. Although his greatest desire is to kill as many Americans as he possible can, we are feeding him, clothing him and giving him a roof over his head. He is not in anyhting close to a gulag as Amnesty International would have us believe, but yes he is being held and no charges will probably ever be filed against him unless we create a law making it illegal to hate Americans enough to kill us.

Consider it one hell of a restraining order that he is under. If a man gives someone a reason to believe that he wishes to harm them, can we arrest the guy? Can we put him in jail? No, we just create a restraining order keeping from contact with that person he wishes to harm (which I consider to be laughable, how many women have been killed by husbands that have restraining orders against them?). Just consider the guys at Gitmo and Mr. Padilla at the base in SC to currently be under one whopper of a restraining order.

While you, kingbee, cry for these guy's rights at night, I am sleeping better knowing that one less man who wants to kill me and my family is being detained.


Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top
You don't detain a man that has been found guilty, you imprison him. You detain someone that you suspect of being guilty.


Ok, point taken, but you knew what I meant, I'm sure.

When I used the word merely it was in no way to diminish the horrific nature of what has happened in NI.


Again, point taken and well made, in some ways.

Again, you liberals talk a lot but you offer no real solution.


Its funny that you have labelled me a liberal with no other evidence to go on, but I suppose if I am found in a certain place, at a certain time, I can be nothing else than what you decide me to be and therefore deserve to be labelled that way (hmm, sounds spookily like Gitmo)

You people are mixing up your facts here and can't lay off Iraq.


I seem to not have mentioned Iraq at all in this discussion.


Getting away from trialing the prisoners then, there is still the treatment issue and the conditions n which they are forced to live in by a self-proclaimed flag bearer of freedom and democracy.

Please don't use arguements that imply that they would do it to us, given half the chance, or similar. You should be above their tatics and methods
Reply #25 from PolMach Forums Top
I seem to not have mentioned Iraq at all in this discussion.


The fact the you are using the Amnesty International reports lumps you right in with them in my humble opinion. It is Amnesty International that has blended true enemy combatants from Afghanistan with the prisoners in Iraq. No pictures of abuse have come out of Gitmo as did from some of the facilities in Iraq. No evidence of mistreatment has come to light, unless you consider the crap about the Koran abuse to be a credible story and therefore abuse of the prisoner. I mean think about it, if the most scandalous abuse story to come out of Gitmo is about flushing a freaking book down the toilet, then conditions must not be all that bad. I mean I can just see it, "hey the infidel's food is decent, the beds aren't half bad, it's not cold to speak of, but Allah forbid, they flushed my freaking Koran down the toilet.

The only credible arguemnet against Gitmo that I have seen is the status of the detainees there. See my last post to kingbee to see how I feel about that. I don't believe in abusing these guys, simply, I think they should be dropped on a desert island with no chance of escape or humanely executed. Again, if you want to cry due process, then see my last post and how I feel about due process for these guys.