View Full Version : Amnesty's Report: US mostly responsible for global rollback in human rights
Hurin_Rules
05-25-2005, 16:09
Not that its a surprise to anyone, but Amnesty has just pointed out the gap between Bush's rhetoric and the reality:
Amnesty slams U.S. on human rights
Wednesday, May 25, 2005 Posted: 6:42 AM EDT (1042 GMT)
LONDON, May 25 (Reuters) -- Four years after the September 11 attacks on New York and Washington, human rights are in retreat worldwide and the United States bears most responsibility, rights watchdog Amnesty International said on Wednesday.
From Afghanistan to Zimbabwe the picture is bleak. Governments are increasingly rolling back the rule of law, taking their cue from the U.S.-led war on terror, it said.
"The USA as the unrivalled political, military and economic hyper-power sets the tone for governmental behavior worldwide," Secretary General Irene Khan said in the foreword to Amnesty International's 2005 annual report.
"When the most powerful country in the world thumbs its nose at the rule of law and human rights, it grants a licence to others to commit abuse with impunity," she said.
London-based Amnesty cited the pictures last year of abuse of detainees at Iraq's U.S.-run Abu Ghraib prison, which it said were never adequately investigated, and the detention without trial of "enemy combatants" at the U.S. naval base in Cuba.
"The detention facility at Guantanamo Bay has become the gulag of our times, entrenching the practice of arbitrary and indefinite detention in violation of international law," Khan said.
She also noted Washington's attempts to circumvent its own ban on the use of torture.
"The U.S. government has gone to great lengths to restrict the application of the Geneva Convention and to 're-define' torture," she said, citing the secret detention of suspects and the practice of handing some over to countries where torture was not outlawed.
U.S. President George W. Bush often said his country was founded on and dedicated to the cause of human dignity -- but there was a gulf between rhetoric and reality, Amnesty found.
"During his first term in office, the USA proved to be far from the global human rights champion it proclaimed itself to be," the report said, citing Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay.
'Blurred distinction'
But the United States was by no means the sole or even the worst offender as murder, mayhem and abuse of women and children spread to the four corners of the globe, Amnesty said.
"The human rights abuses in Iraq and Afghanistan were far from being the only negative repercussions of the response to the terrible events of Sept. 11, 2001.
"Since that day, the framework of international human rights standards has been attacked and undermined by both governments and armed groups," Amnesty said.
The increasingly blurred distinction between the war on terror and the war on drugs prompted governments across Latin America to use troops to tackle crimes traditionally handled by police, the report said.
In Asia too, the war on terror was blamed for increasing state repression, adding to the woes of societies already worn down by poverty, discrimination against minorities, a string of low-intensity conflicts and politicization of aid, it added.
Africa too remained riven by regional wars and political repression, and the abject failure of the international community to take concerted action to end the slaughter in Sudan's vast Darfur region was a cause of shame.
Khan also condemned the United Nations Commission on Human Rights for failing to stand up for those supposedly in its care.
"The U.N. Commission of Human Rights has become a forum for horse-trading on human rights," she said. "Last year the Commission dropped Iraq from scrutiny, could not agree on action on Chechnya, Nepal or Zimbabwe and was silent on Guantanamo Bay."
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/05/25/amnesty.report.reut/index.html
PanzerJaeger
05-25-2005, 19:51
"The detention facility at Guantanamo Bay has become the gulag of our times, entrenching the practice of arbitrary and indefinite detention in violation of international law," Khan said.
^And there's where she loses all credibility. If she knew anything at all about what a gulag was and how it operated she wouldnt invoke such a word. What an idiot, or maybe just a propagandist.
I understand that she has a strong opinion, but to compare guantanamo to a gulag shows that she really has no idea what shes talking about.
AI has made its political stance well known. Add that to this fiery rhetoric and the basic point of her words which was "Its all the US's fault even though they have no actual control over other government's actions" - and you find yourself with a clear agenda.
Goofball
05-25-2005, 20:16
^And there's where she loses all credibility. If she knew anything at all about what a gulag was and how it operated she wouldnt invoke such a word. What an idiot, or maybe just a propagandist.
Not so. Although Gitmo might not rival a traditional gulag in terms of actual prisoner abuse (although given the weight of anecdotal evidence of same, even that point could be argued), it certainly resembles a gulag in one major respect: people are locked up without evidence or charges against them for an indefinite period of time at the pleasure of the government.
That certainly resembles a gulag.
Adrian II
05-25-2005, 20:23
If she knew anything at all about what a gulag was and how it operated she wouldnt invoke such a word.I think you're right. The use of the word is disgraceful and shows no sense of porportion. Just like currencies, words can suffer inflation due to forgery, and Amnesty's print shop is clearly working overtime here.
However, Irene Khan makes a point that should be addressed. A nation like the United States that is always full of talk about the use, indeed the essence of good role models in sports, the arts, science, religion and politics, should certainly worry over this:
'The USA as the unrivalled political, military and economic hyper-power sets the tone for governmental behavior worldwide. When the most powerful country in the world thumbs its nose at the rule of law and human rights, it grants a licence to others to commit abuse with impunity.'
AI has made its political stance well known. Add that to this fiery rhetoric and the basic point of her words which was "Its all the US's fault even though they have no actual control over other government's actions" - and you find yourself with a clear agenda. Yep, typical 'everything in the world is the fault of the US' mentality.
Darfur? Because of Guantonamo.
Uzbekistan? Because of Abu Ghraib. And so on....
yeah I agree with Goof' here, Gitmo sure does feel like a gulag.
And I agree with Amnesty here.
^And there's where she loses all credibility. If she knew anything at all about what a gulag was and how it operated she wouldnt invoke such a word. What an idiot, or maybe just a propagandist.
So, by saying that the war on terror is a crusade, Dubya loses all credibility?
In any case, "we blame the US" is a hilariously forward statement to make.
So, by saying that the war on terror is a crusade, Dubya loses all credibility?
In any case, "we blame the US" is a hilariously forward statement to make.
Well it's true to a point. If the USA said "we're gonna take down any country with human rights abuses, starting alphabetically" by the time you got to Uzebkistan they would be staggeringly well behaved.
Adrian II
05-25-2005, 20:50
Well it's true to a point. If the USA said "we're gonna take down any country with human rights abuses, starting alphabetically" by the time you got to Uzebkistan they would be staggeringly well behaved.They would remain stuck in the letter 'C'. Guess why? ~:cool:
The same countries that were abusing human rights before 9/11 are still abusing human rights. THe only power that has changed is the Taliban and Saddam's Regime - they got removed by force - and the human rights abuses of both countries just have a different government in charge of them. Of course the United States is violating some human rights of some individuals - we have the death pently, and now we are fighting a war against a nebulous enemy - who has no problem committing several forms of criminal and horrendous acts.
No other government has had drastic change - and this report only states a politicial opinion of Amensity International. An organization that was condemning the United States for Human Rights abuses before 9/11. So one must take with a grain of salt anything coming out of this organization, and since the United States is the biggest kid on the block - its easier to point to us then to actually condemn and hold responsible the leaders and countries that commit human rights violations.
I
"The detention facility at Guantanamo Bay has become the gulag of our times, entrenching the practice of arbitrary and indefinite detention in violation of international law," Khan said.
If I recall correctly, some 40 million were imprisoned in the Gulags over the span of their use. In the largest gulag alone some 3 million are thought to have died. Gitmo has 500 prisoners most of which were taken on the field of battle. hmmm.
This is stupid on stilts.
However, Irene Khan makes a point that should be addressed. A nation like the United States that is always full of talk about the use, indeed the essence of good role models in sports, the arts, science, religion and politics, should certainly worry over this:
'The USA as the unrivalled political, military and economic hyper-power sets the tone for governmental behavior worldwide. When the most powerful country in the world thumbs its nose at the rule of law and human rights, it grants a licence to others to commit abuse with impunity.'
One can argue that violations have occurred. These should be pointed out and offenders should be prosecuted. Extending that to a policy of atrocities is flawed and irresponsible.
They would remain stuck in the letter 'C'. Guess why? ~:cool:
California! I knew it. That pit of...
~;)
Back on topic, I think it was referring to countries finding that they can get away with 'terrorists' disappearing now, whereas before they would have been taken to task about why the opposition party had suddenly all been taken away in trucks and never come back.
They would remain stuck in the letter 'C'. Guess why? ~:cool:
Damn Canadians!
Devastatin Dave
05-25-2005, 20:59
This is stupid on stilts.
Love that line!!! Good post.
LOL, AI has as much credibility as Libya being on the Human Rights Commission for the UN. :dizzy2:
Adrian II
05-25-2005, 20:59
One can argue that violations have occurred. These should be pointed out and offenders should be prosecuted. Extending that to a policy of atrocities is flawed and irresponsible.One can argue that rights and rules of due process have been suspended by the highest authorities, practices changed for the worse, and some execrable examples set in the course of an illegal war. But I will read the report before commenting on its contents.
One can argue that rights and rules of due process have been suspended by the highest authorities, practices changed for the worse, and some execrable examples set in the course of an illegal war. But I will read the report before commenting on its contents.
The arguement is flawed when one resorts to labeling something illegal which is not. Show me where the war in Afganstan is illegal - which is where the GITMO detainee's primarily come from - with a few expections. Show me where the War with Iraq is illegal - because frankly we have had this discussion and you have yet to show where the conflict has been ruled illegal by any legimate judicial body. Just a label thrown about by those who oppose the action is all the term really is.
Hurin_Rules
05-25-2005, 21:16
If I recall correctly, some 40 million were imprisoned in the Gulags over the span of their use. In the largest gulag alone some 3 million are thought to have died. Gitmo has 500 prisoners most of which were taken on the field of battle. hmmm.
I'm sure there were gulags with less than 500 prisoners.
Calling it a Gulag may be a bit much. But arbitrary detention at the whim of the government is still arbitrary detention at the whim of the government, however you want to slice it.
One can argue that violations have occurred. These should be pointed out and offenders should be prosecuted. Extending that to a policy of atrocities is flawed and irresponsible.
Then you've just advocating prosecuting Bush himself, because the policies currently being carried out at Guantanamo go all the way to the White House, via Rumsfeld and Gonzales.
Adrian II
05-25-2005, 21:35
Show me where the War with Iraq is illegal (..)I don't believe this! I chased you all the way down resolution 1441 and you didn't have a Redleg to stand on.
We're not going over all that again. :mellow:
One can argue that rights and rules of due process have been suspended by the highest authorities, practices changed for the worse, and some execrable examples set in the course of an illegal war. But I will read the report before commenting on its contents.
Due process has been suspended? What are you referring to here? Are you suggesting there is no legal element? Are you suggesting there is no criteria or standard for those in Gitmo?
The U.S. is not involved in any illegal wars. I thought this confusion had been dealt with. We can begin with the base notion of law again if required and then move forward, but I thought the other thread was fairly clear in ending this fiction.
Hurin_Rules
05-25-2005, 21:47
Pindar, even Redleg has admitted that manner of detention of some of the detainees (specifically, the Taleban and non-Al Qaeda) is in violation of the law (Geneva and Hague conventions, specifically).
Fair and competent tribunals have not been held for the detainees at Guantanamo. Some of the detainees have been waiting for three years now. Are you saying that they have had due process?
I never thought anyone could, with a straight face, characterize a thread that saw an extended and rancorous debate, in which very different opinions were expressed regarding the legality of the war in Iraq, as settling the matter in your favour. I stand corrected.
I'm sure there were gulags with less than 500 prisoners.
Calling it a Gulag may be a bit much. But arbitrary detention at the whim of the government is still arbitrary detention at the whim of the government, however you want to slice it.
I don't believe detention is arbitrary.
One can argue that violations have occurred. These should be pointed out and offenders should be prosecuted. Extending that to a policy of atrocities is flawed and irresponsible.
Then you've just advocating prosecuting Bush himself, because the policies currently being carried out at Guantanamo go all the way to the White House, via Rumsfeld and Gonzales.
Gitmo policy itself is not a violation.
I don't believe this! I chased you all the way down resolution 1441 and you didn't have a Redleg to stand on.
The UN has no extra-territorial authority nor does it have any legal hold over the U.S.
Pindar, even Redleg has admitted that manner of detention of some of the detainees (specifically, the Taleban and non-Al Qaeda) is in violation of the law (Geneva and Hague conventions, specifically).
Fair and competent tribunals have not been held for the detainees at Guantanamo. Some of the detainees have been waiting for three years now. Are you saying that they have had due process?
I won't speak to Redleg's position.
I think it may be that some detainees were violated or error occurred. This is a government action recall: that is distinct from the policy itself. I'm unaware of any legal proscription.
Military tribunals were held in Afghanistan on the battlefield similar to what was done during WWII.
I never thought anyone could, with a straight face, characterize a thread that saw an extended and rancorous debate, in which very different opinions were expressed regarding the legality of the war in Iraq, as settling the matter in your favour. I stand corrected.
Charges of illegality are and were vacuous. Any understanding of U.S. law cannot support such a position. For your review: law is determinable by national authority and ameanable to the same: in this case, that authority would be the U.S. Senate. Contrary opinions on this matter are uninformed.
I don't believe this! I chased you all the way down resolution 1441 and you didn't have a Redleg to stand on.
We're not going over all that again. :mellow:
And you did not prove your point - nor did you accept my point.
Resolution 1441 did not state what you said it stated. The resolution did not authorize the use of force - nor did it deny the use of force. In several aspects it refered to the other Resolutions which did authorize the use of force against Iraq.
Like I said your arguement is flawed because you have decided to term the war illegal because of the way you understand the law. When the Hague convens (SP) to determine if the United States War with Iraq is illegal - then maybe I will accept that conclusion - however I refer to the fact that in 1991 Iraq signed a ceasefire with the United States followed by the United Nations resolution 687 a month later.
The Nation of Iraq had an obligation under the Hague Convention of 1907 to honor that cease fire, under that convention the United States has the right under International Law to enforce the conditions of the ceasefire by resuming armed conflict. Resolution 1441 does not negate or over-ride the Hague Convention of 1907 since all Western Armies still operate under that convention. By terming the war illegal - all your doing is making an emotional based arguement and refusing to see the other side of the arguement.
Edit: and by the way the United Nations recongized the Hague Convention of 1907 as the Law of War.
Hurin_Rules
05-25-2005, 23:10
I think it may be that some detainees were violated or error occurred. This is a government action recall: that is distinct from the policy itself.
More hairsplitting? The government action was carrying out the policies of the Bush administration.
Military tribunals were held in Afghanistan on the battlefield similar to what was done during WWII.
Actually, the detainees in WWII were given lawyers and a court hearing.
Charges of illegality are and were vacuous. Any understanding of U.S. law cannot support such a position. For your review: law is determinable by national authority and ameanable to the same: in this case, that authority would be the U.S. Senate. Contrary opinions on this matter are uninformed.
You are prepared, then, to give up your self-designated title of 'International Lawyer' and instead to refer to yourself only as an 'International Treaty-guy'?
PanzerJaeger
05-25-2005, 23:15
Actually, the detainees in WWII were given lawyers and a court hearing.
Really? All of them? :inquisitive:
Pindar, even Redleg has admitted that manner of detention of some of the detainees (specifically, the Taleban and non-Al Qaeda) is in violation of the law (Geneva and Hague conventions, specifically).
Yes the Militia of the Taliban is a legimate force according the the Hague Convention of 1907 and are entitled to the protections of the Geneva Conventions. If an individual was captured outside of Afganstan or Iraq and sent to GITMO - then I also believe that is a violation of the United States Constitution. Any detainee that was captured in either Afganstan or Iraq and was not a citizen of either nation - then well they took their chances in performing activities that violate the rules of war, and are not entitled to the protections of the Geneva Convention.
Fair and competent tribunals have not been held for the detainees at Guantanamo. Some of the detainees have been waiting for three years now. Are you saying that they have had due process?
There due process was the tribunal that was held in the location that they were captured in either Afganstan or Iraq - which determined that they needed to be sent to Gitmo. If they were sent to Gitmo from other areas - then I would have to agree that they were not given the due process due to them.
I never thought anyone could, with a straight face, characterize a thread that saw an extended and rancorous debate, in which very different opinions were expressed regarding the legality of the war in Iraq, as settling the matter in your favour. I stand corrected.
The problem is that it was not settled - it was agreed to disagree over the different aspects of the issue. However since Adrian believes that the war is illegal - its perfectly acceptable for Pinder and myself to conclude that the war with Iraq is legal.
Adrian II
05-26-2005, 00:02
LOL, AI has as much credibility as Libya being on the Human Rights Commission for the UN. :dizzy2:So, whom did Amnesty beat to death on a concrete floor lately?
Originally Posted by Pindar
I think it may be that some detainees were violated or error occurred. This is a government action recall: that is distinct from the policy itself.
More hairsplitting? The government action was carrying out the policies of the Bush administration.
I don't think making distinction between individual action and policy is hair splinting. Now if you are arguing that Bush ordered troops to rape, kill etc. detainees then you would have a point.
Actually, the detainees in WWII were given lawyers and a court hearing.
Detention was handled under military auspices in field tribunals the same as in Afghanistan.
You are prepared, then, to give up your self-designated title of 'International Lawyer' and instead to refer to yourself only as an 'International Treaty-guy'?
Self-designated title?
Your post suggests you do not understand treaties or what an international lawyer is. A treaty is determined by national governments. The negotiation is handled by diplomats or other government authority typically through the State Department in the U.S.. These may or may not be lawyers. Any accord is pre-legal. It does not gain standing until it has been ratified. That same ratifying authority can change the terms in any fashion at any time.
International lawyers basically operate in the private arena. The designation applies to individuals who have licensing in more than one country.
Papewaio
05-26-2005, 02:12
The US standards of human rights may have dropped a few points compared with before 9/11. But surely they are no where the order or magnitude of say Sudan?
This AI report is in the same path of Greenpeace. Using propaganda and hyperbole rather then facts to highlight the real issue.
Stick to the facts today if you want to be believed tomorrow.
Adrian II
05-26-2005, 02:26
This AI report is in the same path of Greenpeace. Using propaganda and hyperbole rather then facts to highlight the real issue.What do you think is the real issue?
Papewaio
05-26-2005, 02:31
What do you think is the real issue?
Lack of accountability, accuracy and fairness. Which AI/Greenpeace is not helping with such bias.
Hurin_Rules
05-26-2005, 02:36
Your post suggests you do not understand treaties or what an international lawyer is. A treaty is determined by national governments. The negotiation is handled by diplomats or other government authority typically through the State Department in the U.S.. These may or may not be lawyers. Any accord is pre-legal. It does not gain standing until it has been ratified. That same ratifying authority can change the terms in any fashion at any time.
If you're saying that there is no such thing as international 'law', you can't very well talk about 'international lawyers', can you?
On the fairness of the trials:
The government cites Ex Parte Quirin, of which we spoke earlier. Commissions were, in fact, used quite often during World War II. But those aren’t really precedents for what the United States is doing here.
First of all, the World War II commissions were authorized by enabling legislation passed by the U.S. Congress. More to the point, since World War II, principles of international law, embodied in treaties to which the United States is a party, have prohibited ad hoc tribunals or special commissions like those used in that war. Both the Geneva Conventions, which regulate military law, and the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights say that people can only be tried by regularly constituted tribunals that give full and fair hearings and that are impartial.
By “regularly constituted tribunals” they mean commissions or tribunals that are already set up, not created after the fact for something that has just happened. Ad hoc commissions or tribunals are inherently unfair because they’ve been set up with special rules for the specific purpose of convicting particular people.
Remember, the defendants are designated by the president, turned over to the secretary of defense. They are then investigated by the administration. These judges can decide how much evidence is necessary to convict and what evidence is admissible. This is not an impartial judiciary, as we have in other courts in the United States.
This is not a professional judiciary, as we have in courts-martial. The chief executive designates people to be both judge and jury and determines the rules of evidence. A person charged before a commission is given a military defense attorney, also appointed by the executive branch. The defendant has the theoretical right to a civilian lawyer, except it has to be at his own expense, and so it is rather unlikely that most of those charged are going to be able to hire civilian lawyers. And any civilian attorney would have to have a security clearance, which gives the government veto power over any civilian lawyer.
Another major, fundamental defect in the rules is that the commission may allow any kind of evidence, as long as it’s what they call probative – as long as it has some value, whether or not it would be admissible in a normal criminal trial.
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:HA16AUTqCA0J:www.narconews.com/Issue35/article1184.html+guantanamo+world+war+II+trial+lawyer&hl=en&client=firefox-a
See also: http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/11/05/usdom9615.html
Note that in fact even this fails to note that many of the lawyers originally appointed to defend the inmates complained that the procedures were unfair, and were promptly fired. The 'counsel' most of the detainees were given afterwards have not even gone to law school or passed the bar exam, nor, apparently, have the 'judges'.
At today’s hearing, Swift questioned the panel of judges on their military experience and knowledge of international law. Only one of the panelists, Army Colonel Peter Brownback, who serves as presiding judge in the hearings, has legal training; he served as a military judge for ten years. Swift challenged even Brownback’s ability to lead the panel, stating that the judge was not even a member of the Bar Association in his home state of Virginia.
As reported by the Los Angeles Times, one of the alternate panelists revealed that he did not even have an understanding of the basic international law that sets out the requirements for the treatment of detainees during times of war. When Swift asked Lieutenant Colonel Curt S. Cooper if he knew what the Geneva Convention was, Cooper answered: "Not specifically. No sir. And that's being honest."
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:AO5TWJrIG_0J:newstandardnews.net/content/%3Faction%3Dshow_item%26itemid%3D878+guantanamo+tribunals+judges&hl=en&client=firefox-a
You're still going to defend this kangaroo court as providing due process?
I think the of "Gulag" was inappropriate. But as it is a " ... Marketing ... " or " ... Propaganda ... ", it should be treats as such. Different language is sometimes used to emphasise a point.
I agree "Papewaio". Facts should be used.
Why did they do this ?
Last year the (UN) Commission (for Human Rights) dropped Iraq from scrutiny
I suspect it was too unsafe for them to be there in person, that does not mean they should not investigate abuses.
PanzerJaeger
05-26-2005, 02:44
You're still going to defend this kangaroo court as providing due process?
Your still trying to defend this kangaroo statement by AI as providing objective analysis? ~:handball:
Adrian II
05-26-2005, 02:47
Lack of accountability, accuracy and fairness.And would you agree with Mrs Khan that 'when the most powerful country in the world thumbs its nose at the rule of law and human rights, it grants a licence to others to commit abuse with impunity'?
Papewaio
05-26-2005, 02:57
And would you agree with Mrs Khan that 'when the most powerful country in the world thumbs its nose at the rule of law and human rights, it grants a licence to others to commit abuse with impunity'?
No.
First you have to prove USA is the most powerful country in the world. I give that to title to NZ.
Second. I don't think that on the whole the USA's stance for or against Human Rights has changed that drastically.
Third. A lot of countries didn't follow the US before 9/11 with regards to HR so why should US's decrease give them a licence now?
Fourth. Multiple offenders never makes a crime have impunity.
If you're saying that there is no such thing as international 'law', you can't very well talk about 'international lawyers', can you?
This comment doesn't fit with what I wrote. Go back and read again.
Regarding the tribunals. Military Tribunals are legal under U.S. law. The web citation is wrong to assume otherwise. If someone did not get a proper hearing : they should. This is separate from the basic policy discussion.
Most Powerful ... I give that to title to NZ. ...
Thank you. We did have "Gandalf" for a while, does that count. ~D .
Papewaio
05-26-2005, 06:14
As far as leaders in HR NZ did a few firsts.
Most progressive in womens right to vote, native title, parole, tertiary education, sporting prowess (which is an indirect way of measuring the size of a countries middle class).
Although it has slipped in a few areas like the amount Uni costs nowadays.
bmolsson
05-26-2005, 07:46
Just for the record. They are wrong about Indonesia too..... ~;)
The US standards of human rights may have dropped a few points compared with before 9/11. But surely they are no where the order or magnitude of say Sudan?
This AI report is in the same path of Greenpeace. Using propaganda and hyperbole rather then facts to highlight the real issue.
Stick to the facts today if you want to be believed tomorrow.
Very well said, Pape. AI is doing itself a disservice with this kind of rhetoric- mud slinging such as this only cheapens their value. If they want to criticize the US, stick to the specific cases and don't excuse the rest of the world's problems by blaming it all on the US.
KafirChobee
05-26-2005, 10:29
The same countries that were abusing human rights before 9/11 are still abusing human rights. THe only power that has changed is the Taliban and Saddam's Regime - they got removed by force - and the human rights abuses of both countries just have a different government in charge of them. Of course the United States is violating some human rights of some individuals - we have the death pently, and now we are fighting a war against a nebulous enemy - who has no problem committing several forms of criminal and horrendous acts.
No other government has had drastic change - and this report only states a politicial opinion of Amensity International. An organization that was condemning the United States for Human Rights abuses before 9/11. So one must take with a grain of salt anything coming out of this organization, and since the United States is the biggest kid on the block - its easier to point to us then to actually condemn and hold responsible the leaders and countries that commit human rights violations.
I
First off, the countriies were abusing human rights before 9/11 are where we (the CIA) is now sending as many prisoners as possible too. After all, most of them depend on our doles to them. And, they may allow their people to hate us - but, they love it when they can give use a helping hand by torturing the innocents away from prying eyes - for us.
Two, Amnesty International never attacked the United States actions, but did attack certain States (Texas amongst them) for abusing US constitutional law and ignoring the rights of prisoner held in their "care". Texas, Louisiana, Florida, and Mississippi have always been on their list of "needing investigation into the human rights of those interned.
The bylaws of AI stipulate that they will defend the rights of those with out a voice, of those stolen in the night without cause, and held without legal council. Does any of this sound familiar? The present US administration has bent the rules to serve its own hidden agenda - it grabs people up because of their race, religion, or political beliefs. Catogorizes them, labels them, sends them to countries that practice torture (not that Gitmo doesn't) and then proclaims its hands are clean.
See anything wrong with this? But, AI's finger pointed more at the U.S. prison system as it did the comment of "gulags" (which by deffinition our imprisonment system has become - over 2 million in federal prisons, 1 million in state and local jails, 5 million on the books to process. My GOG, is this the new freedom? Or, spreading of democracy?).
Gulag America, not fiction - fact.
That we as citizens choose to ignore the facts, look elsewhere to place the blame, or desire to live in a fantasy where "we" never do wrong? Well, why not - what the he77 maybe all we need do is continue to bury our heads in the sand, the bible, the voice of Rush, Ann, or Olie to be content that "we" never do wrong. That our leader just didn't know that his underlings would take his Attorney Generals words (briefs, memos, directives) seriosly. Gee, how were they to know he was just kidding when he said the Geneva Conventions were antiquated? Goofy them. Silly boys and girls, abusing prisoners - flushing Khorans (oops, error .. danger Will Robinson .. danger).
It is possible that those opposing AI, really don't understand the good they have (had prior to 9/11) done. The nerve these people have had, or the deaths amongst their troops. Nothing, for nothing brings nothing. These people have not only risked life and limb, but have given them. To accuse them of picking on poor Dubya's administration - you best look back. But, before they persuaded men with conscience - and, confess, that is one thing Dubya doesnot have (or atleast those in his "justice department").
And, yes .... I did read the posts all the way through. This one just surprised me. Red, normally thinks things all the way through. Seems we all get a knee jerk response to somethings. ~;)
:balloon2:
Ja'chyra
05-26-2005, 10:48
Yawn.
Same old same old.
So what's everyone doing for the bank holiday weekend?
And, yes .... I did read the posts all the way through. This one just surprised me. Red, normally thinks things all the way through. Seems we all get a knee jerk response to somethings. ~;)
:balloon2:
And it got a knee jerk reaction from you also there KafirChobee.
And I never said I was an automat - Somethings have a tendency to get a reaction from me.
Now show me where what I wrote is incorrect in its content - verus your normal caustic response. If you can't then your statement is nothin other then the same rethoric as mine.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.