kingbee kingbee

Amnesty International & Hypocrisy

▼

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
44,829 views 182 replies
Reply #176 from PolMach Forums Top
either you don't realize the word has more than one meaning or you're choosing to fixate on a meaning that isnt applicable in this case. common sensei explained it more clearly and fully than i. the statement you found so puzzling wasn't referring to the area around the caspian sea. it related solely to the soviet union's campaign to establish itself as a major force in the region by arming egypt, iraq, syria, etc.


Good point, I stand corrected.
Reply #177 from JoeUser Forums Top
Yeah, I was remiss in not including Syria and Egypt in my remarks...Nasser's government was a very socialist oriented thing...Kids in Iran back in the late 70s were looking at people like Castro and Che Guevara as ideal guerrillas. The area around the Caspian might be looked at as a battle between Communist powers -- The USSR didn't want China to control that territory. Egypt, Iraq, et al. were a battle against the west.



Actually, Islam has probably hated both sides since around 1097, the time of the crusades.


I wasn't aware that the United States existed in the 11th century. Maybe now that copy of the Constitution I have written in Elder Futhark Viking Runes will be worth something!

I figure Amnesty International used hyperbole in their report because they wanted to speak Bush's language. After all, he's the one that talks about divine justice, mysterious 'evil doers,' and consulting his higher father (put this quote with some of Bush's times of saying "smoke 'em out" and the meaning changes greatly..."consult my higher father...and smoke 'em out"... but I digress.)

But you're the monster. And if being that way is the only way to be a patriot, well, then, fuck that. But luckily, most 'monsters' like yourself are just talk -- and if they do act they aren't smart enough to get away with stuff for long.

"President Leif Erikson and King Richard I are in closed talks with Saracen leader Saladin today in Geneva..."
ObjectDock - Access shortcuts and frequently used applications from an animated dock.
Reply #178 from PolMach Forums Top
But you're the monster. And if being that way is the only way to be a patriot, well, then, fuck that.


Ah, it seems you speak of your fears when I have said no such thing. Patriotism comes in many forms. I have NEVER nor will I ever insinuate that being willing to perform the necessary evils that many people find repugnant is the only path to patriotism.

But luckily, most 'monsters' like yourself are just talk -- and if they do act they aren't smart enough to get away with stuff for long.


No, the lucky part is that my willingness to do those repugnant things is only directed at those that mean to harm our country or it's citizens and not those brave souls who sling insults from behind a keyboard.

Intellectual thinkers like yourself and kingbee, making sure that us monsters spell correctly and know our histoy is a big part of what makes this country great. I mean that in all sincerity. After a couple days of reading kingbee's rants, I know that I will never make your type understand the need for us monsters and that's fine.

I noted the irony of you using Sensei as your tag. Were America populated only by people who thought like you and kingbee, we would probably all be speaking Japanese or maybe German.
Reply #179 from PolMach Forums Top
Sensei:

Before you come back with another drawn out lecture of history, further obfuscating the subject at hand, let me return to the original arguement.

This whole post started as a debate about the comparison of Gitmo to the Gulag. I was watching CNN last night, you know that pro Bush bastion of conservatism, and the report was about the latest insghts into Gitmo. While the report was not positive in nature, they at least finalized the report with a statement to the tune of "the problem is what to do with these people in the legal black hole of not being charged with a crime but obviously desiring harm come to the US".

That is a very difficult question. Kingbee has given his opinion, he thinks we should release them all and keep tabs on them. What do you think? I know you have the impression that I don't care about other people's opinions, but I would really love to hear a viable alternative. I don't agree one bit with kingbee's solution, but I give him credit for offering it. Honestly, how do you feel about it? The recent magazine article recounts the story of a man who was denied entry into the US in August of 2001. He was later captured on the field in Afghanistan. The assumption could easily be made that this guy wants harm to come to our country and it's citizens. Some think he was destined to be a part of 9/11 had he not been denied entry by immigration. What should we do with a guy like that? Set him free to the caves and mountains of Afghanistan and keep tabs on him like we've done so well with Bin Laden? I just don't agree with that logic but I would love to hear your thoughts on the subject.

Before you answer, you need not lecture me about due process and basic freedoms. I know he has not seen a lawyer, I know he is probably not convictable of any crime, at least not under our legal system. I know that we technically have no legal right to hold him without using that made up "enemy combatant" title. The simple fact is we know that if he get's a chance, he will kill Americans, period. Do we have proof of that fact that could stand up to our legal standard of guilt? Not a chance. So Bush is having to make the difficult decision of how to protect us from this guy. Say what you will about Bush, but I do not doubt for one second that he at least believes that he is doing what is necessary to protect American lives. I do not think that anything is more important to him right now. This guy is not running for reelection, hell he could close Gitmo, high tail it out of Iraq and when the next terrorist attack occurs, he could just blame it on the left wing radicals forcing him to give up the war on terror. But he won't do it and I personally believe it is because he thinks he is protecting us. That's just my take and I am sure you will thoroughly ridicule it with lot's of big words.

As to torture of prisoners; I do not relish the thought of putting a man through unbearable pain. I would never condone torture just to take out one's anger on a prisoner or as a punishment. However, if I know that a man has information that could help save American lives, then I would stop at nothing to get that info. I know that thought probably makes you ill and you said earlier that probably I'm just a talker. But I know in my heart of hearts that I would do so. I respect the fact that you and kingbee would not. I often use the movie "A Few Good Men" to make analogies. I agreed with almost everyone in that movie. I was rooting for Kaffee while at the same time I understood the points made by Kendrick on the stand. I wept for Santiago, while I agreed with Jessup and his ultimate mission to save lives. I agreed with Weinberg's charaterization of Dawson and Downey as bullies, while I applauded Galloway's contention that they were heroes. The long and short is that I don't see the world in black and white. I know that torture is wrong and should be beneath the standards of every American. But I am a realist and understand that we are facing a very unique enemy; an enemy who welcomes death as a martyr as his ticket to paradise adn no matter how nicely we treat him while in detention, he will be no more or less endaered of us afterwards. He will not want us more dead than he already does. Mohamed Atta did not spend one day at Gitmo, yet he was willing to fly a plane full of passengers into one of the world trade center buildings, so I'm not concerned with torturing a terrorist for information is going to make him hate us even more. They already seem plenty full of hate as it stands.

Again, please forgive me if I seem to not be interested in other opinions. I am most interested in hearing a solution that is better than our current policy.
Reply #180 from JoeUser Forums Top
Intellectual thinkers like yourself and kingbee, making sure that us monsters spell correctly and know our histoy is a big part of what makes this country great. I mean that in all sincerity. After a couple days of reading kingbee's rants, I know that I will never make your type understand the need for us monsters and that's fine


as i recall (feel free to prove me wrong), you were the one who pointed out a word i'd misstyped rather than misspelled. unlike a lotta people (from what i see here), i not only don't mind having errors brought to my attention, i find it helpful.

history is another matter. understanding the present requires knowledge of the past and i won't apologize for challenging erroneous chronologies or contributing pertinent information. i'd much rather be proven wrong than permitted to remain ignorant.

as to whether monsters are necessary (and i don't consider you a monster by any means), that goes to the heart of this discussion. the following statement is also relevant.

Patriotism comes in many forms. I have NEVER nor will I ever insinuate that being willing to perform the necessary evils that many people find repugnant is the only path to patriotism.


when barry goldwater accepted the republican party's nomination, he made a speech in which (among other things) he spoke of those things that set america apart from the rest of the world, one of which he described as follows:

freedom made orderly for this nation by our constitutional government; freedom under a government limited by laws of nature and of nature's God; freedom - balanced so that liberty lacking order will not become the slavery of the prison cell; balanced so that liberty lacking order will not become the license of the mob and of the jungle.

this is the same speech in which be proclaimed:

I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.

i've no doubt that you feel i'm an extremist for rejecting the bizarre idea that my government and its executive branch must be exempt from the rule of law in order to protect it, that liberty is best served by limiting liberty or that injustice is justified for any reason.

like i said earlier in this thread, i'd rather not be than be like them.
Reply #181 from PolMach Forums Top
like i said earlier in this thread, i'd rather not be than be like them


And I respect you for that.

i've no doubt that you feel i'm an extremist


I believe extremists exist on both sides. While I think you are a bit close minded on the issue, you are by no means extremist. The same is true that I am a bit closed minded towards my view and I do not consider myself an extremist either. However, I do feel I'm a bit more open minded as I would relish a viable alternative to our current policy.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I would be willing to guess that you are probably a huge supporter of the seperation of church and state? As you would guess, I am the type that firmly believes in the pledge of allegiance in schools and moments of silence at certain times. But I also believe that unfortunately, the right thing to do is to keep these practices out of schools. Not because I want to avoid offending a non-christian, but because we have made a promise in our country's constitution that we will keep the church and state seperate. So while in principle, I hate the liberal lawyers that take school systems to court, in the end, I know it is the right thing to do.

Here's where I am trying to go with this; I will defend, however bregrudgingly, the liberals that fight to maintain a seperation of church and state, even though I do not necessarily agree with them. I would do this because I believe that if the constitution calls for that seperation , then we should make it so. However, sticking by our principles in the case of seperation of church and state does not put American lives in danger. It is quite possible, in fact I believe imminent, that if we stick by our principles in this war on terror that many more American lives will be lost. I for one would be unwilling to feel pride in losing a spouse or a son or daughter or a co-worker or a neighbor or any other American for that matter because we refused to stray from the higher ground. If you could die happy at the hands of a terrorist that we could have stopped by breaking our own rules or if you could accept the loss of a loved one or even just a fellow citizen, then I guess you are just a stronger man than I.
Reply #182 from JoeUser Forums Top

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I would be willing to guess that you are probably a huge supporter of the separation of church and state? As you would guess, I am the type that firmly believes in the pledge of allegiance in schools and moments of silence at certain times. But I also believe that unfortunately, the right thing to do is to keep these practices out of schools. Not because I want to avoid offending a non-christian, but because we have made a promise in our country's constitution that we will keep the church and state separate. So while in principle, I hate the liberal lawyers that take school systems to court, in the end, I know it is the right thing to do.


The constitution only grantees freedom "of" religion, not freedom "from" religion.