There's a shocking military scandal that you may not know ab

[ClayShaw]

But you have to admit... if nothing else, Saddam was guilty of crimes against humanity. About the only thing I see him good for was that it was through those tactics of carnage, he was able to maintain order in a very volatile country.

Saddam was an evil man.... No one can argue the opposite.

However, water boarding, detention in Guantanamo without a trial, execution of Saddam after a dodgy trial, refusing to sign the Geneva convention, illegal CIA prisoner transfers, etc demonstrate the respect you have for human rights as well.

I find it very ironic that you can freely criticise other countries, but you have a total disregard for human rights.

__________________________________________________________

On the subject of animals..... Someone mentioned that doctors are capable of working in stressful situations without killing animals... I have an idea, why don't we make the soldiers work in the ER as male nurses, some sort of temporary role that they can do with little training? That way, they get to deal with life and death all the time, and they get exposed to blood.

I personally do not have a problem with killing animals. I was brought up in a farming community, and killing animals was the norm. That doesn't mean I enjoy it, but it's something that I would do if I have to feed myself. The stress here is on "HAVE TO DO IT FOR FOOD".

I'm assuming, in replying to the first part, that you're neither American nor British, and that when you say "you", you're referring to Americans and Brits.
As an American, from a part of the country that never liked Bush, I can say for sure that we spent plenty of time criticizing our own country.
I eat meat as well, so I have no problem with the killing of animals. Its the way that its done (supposedly) that is the problem.

 

[ali777]

As an American, from a part of the country that never liked Bush, I can say for sure that we spent plenty of time criticizing our own country.

This is not only about Bush. Bush is gone, but Guantanamo is still open. Obama's administration decided not to investigate the illegal use of "enhanced interrogation techniques" that took place during Bush' administration.

Also, rendition flights were there even before Bush era.

You can't just put the whole blame on Bush and get away with it.

Anyway, the point was, to have credibility, first of all you have to make sure you respect the universal declaration of human rights.

 

[Bryan]

You can't just put the whole blame on Bush and get away with it.

Anyway, the point was, to have credibility, first of all you have to make sure you respect the universal declaration of human rights.

Despite some of the well-documented excesses of the Bush Administration (keep in mind that 911 forced us into an unusual position), nevertheless we are still a model of human rights for most of the world.

 

[HughJass]

You can't just put the whole blame on Bush and get away with it.

Anyway, the point was, to have credibility, first of all you have to make sure you respect the universal declaration of human rights.

Despite some of the well-documented excesses of the Bush Administration (keep in mind that 911 forced us into an unusual position), nevertheless we are still a model of human rights for most of the world.

sorry, but only Americans believe that

the extension of human rights and respect for international law etc has rarely been a feature of your country's foreign policy.

And you guys are the only western nation left to still practice capital punishment.

 

[The Gardener]

the extension of human rights and respect for international law etc has rarely been a feature of your country's foreign policy.

Well, I think you need to do a dual assessment here, one internally, and one externally.

Internally, before 9/11 human rights WITHIN the US were of quite a high standard. They are still probably relatively quite high, with some exceptions.

Now, when it comes to how much we honor human rights in terms of our behavior with respect to people outside of the US, our record is, has, and always has been a disgraceful abomination. Starting in the post-WW2 period where we installed dictators throughout our third world "hegemony", dictators that oversaw torture and state kidnapping, literally people "disappearing" and ending up being shot dead in a sports arena somewhere in town (see the Argentine junta, Pinochet in Chile, Somoza, Vargas, the Shah in Iran, the Greek military junta, the South Korean military junta, Noriega, D'Aubuisson, Ferdinand Marcos, Saddam Hussein, The House of Saud, Mubarak in Egypt, the former General Zia in Pakistan... all of these leaders COMPLETE TYRANTS... but they were "our tyrants", I suppose said their logic.) The US has inflicted an overwhelming amount of pain and suffering amongst millions of innocents, we've torn apart families, brutally repressed freedom of expression and speech, all in the name of ensuring regimes in these nations that were in favor of US multinational corporations uninterrupted harvest of natural resources, cheap exploitation of their labor, or, favorable access to their markets.

We've even employed terrorism to "further our goals", the Nicaraguan Contras and the El Salvadoran ARENA thugs, who both went on a crusade of bloodlust against anyone in those nations who spoke against tyranny... to the point where we slaughtered a third of the Catholic clergy in these nations for the sole reason that the clergy were attempting to call TYRANNY as they saw it. Literally, dragging priests out of their lodging in the middle of the night, slashing their throats, and leaving the bodies in the town squares of their parish. We trained and mentored the Shah of Iran's SAVAK, who would abduct college students for no reason other than for "asking the wrong questions" in class.

YES the world has, on the whole, probably experienced an overwhelming amount of GOOD things and prosperity during the age of the American Empire. There has been relative peace, an explosion in global commerce, unprecedented leaps in communication and globalization, exchange of ideas, dialogue, trade... but make NO mistake about it, there has been a HEAVY price to pay for this. NO empire has clean hands.

And you guys are the only western nation left to still practice capital punishment.

Well, not sure how you are defining "Western" here, but Japan and South Korea also practice capital punishment.

I don't think it's an immoral policy given the context of the times in which it was first enacted, but I very much think that its a stupid, short-sighted, and philosophically obsolete policy... advances in DNA have proven scores of death verdicts have been given to innocent people. Additionally, the entire death penalty "legal infrastructure" costs more for processing a convict than it would to just imprison the person indefinitely. So, I think its impractical, uneconomic, and because many verdicts have been wrong and there is no "appeal" once you are dead, its also quite unfair to some people, to put it euphemistically. The only redeeming factor I see in maintaining a death penalty is that it quenches the desire for retaliatory bloodlust. If life in prison and the death penalty both satisfy the same practical goal of removing a human from circulation in society, why not just scrap the death penalty? In my opinion, pandering to the need for bloodlust revenge only exercises the same irrational rage in the human psyche that the criminal engaged in when committing his crime.

But most of all, I just don't think it wise to grant the government the legal right to systematically take a life. I think that over time, it will be abused, and we'll regret it... especially given the general southward trajectory that our nation's government has been taking lately. I certainly don't think that the current crop of leaders, say, a Barack Obama, John McCain, Hillary Clinton, Eric Cantor, Bobby Jindal, or a Mitt Romney, would ever put the brutal screws on the general populace to maintain their legitimacy... but I worry that with increased chaos ahead, this country might become increasingly fertile soil to breed a 21st century Hitler, a new school of potential leaders... and we may VERY MUCH regret having given the central federal government as much power as we have.

 

[ali777]

Despite some of the well-documented excesses of the Bush Administration (keep in mind that 911 forced us into an unusual position), nevertheless we are still a model of human rights for most of the world.

You are making excuses!!! What you are saying is, some problems should be resolved by ANY means.

YES the world has, on the whole, probably experienced an overwhelming amount of GOOD things and prosperity during the age of the American Empire. There has been relative peace, an explosion in global commerce, unprecedented leaps in communication and globalization, exchange of ideas, dialogue, trade... but make NO mistake about it, there has been a HEAVY price to pay for this. NO empire has clean hands.

You are also making excuses. All the empires in the history brought a certain amount of trade to the places they governed, that's not an American thing. The Western Europeans had their companies, eg West Indies company, East Indies company, etc that invaded territories on behalf of the empire in return for exclusive trade rights. Globalisation as we know it wasn't invented by the Americans, it's just a continuation of what the Europeans started.

Post WWI and WWII, America had the resources for technological development, and I think that's what you are referring to when you say unprecedented leaps in communication. You have to bear in mind that the process of academic publishing and peer-review academic papers was happening in Europe way before you had a country. Exchange of ideas, trade, dialogue, trade was happening way before you came around. We can go as far back as the written history takes us. The Egyptians and the Romans had trade routes and they exchanged ideas. Middle Easterns were in touch with China through the Silk Route, etc....

Most of the scientists that set you on the way to a super power were born and educated in Europe and they used the extensive knowledge accumulation in Europe. The difference is that you had the resources to sponsor their research. I admit in the last 60 to 100 years you've had the upper hand in technology.

Also, the IT and the communications industry wasn't really invented in the US. You probably know about Enigma, Bletchly park, and Turing? The first semi-conductor based computer was build in Manchester, UK. The Brits had the radar during WWII, etc...

You are overestimating the current state of your technology. The rest of the world is not far behind, in certain aspects the EU is probably ahead of you. You have a very strong culture of commercialisation of products that has the disadvantage of "closed technology and patents". I'm pro-patents but closed technology goes against what you said about exchange of ideas. Closed technology is an obstacle to development.

 

[ClayShaw]

As an American, from a part of the country that never liked Bush, I can say for sure that we spent plenty of time criticizing our own country.

This is not only about Bush. Bush is gone, but Guantanamo is still open. Obama's administration decided not to investigate the illegal use of "enhanced interrogation techniques" that took place during Bush' administration.

Also, rendition flights were there even before Bush era.

You can't just put the whole blame on Bush and get away with it.

Anyway, the point was, to have credibility, first of all you have to make sure you respect the universal declaration of human rights.

Can you name a country that has its hands totally clean? I can't think of any.
Obama is closing Gitmo. It takes time. Some of the people there are truly dangerous, and they have to put a system in place to try those people and come up with a place to put them.
They can't investigate the interrogation techniques, because it would lead to the prosecution of Bush and Cheney and others, and that would be horribly bad for America.
Where are you from? Unless you're Canadian, my guess is your country has done some pretty horrible things as well.

 

[ClayShaw]

If you're going to criticize America for human rights violations, how about all the years up until 1965, at least? That was pretty bad.

 

[HughJass]

They can't investigate the interrogation techniques, because it would lead to the prosecution of Bush and Cheney and others, and that would be horribly bad for America.

It would make for some pretty good television though.

 

[ClayShaw]

They can't investigate the interrogation techniques, because it would lead to the prosecution of Bush and Cheney and others, and that would be horribly bad for America.

It would make for some pretty good television though.

It would be amazing.
The reaction from the right would not be good. It would be violent.

 

[ali777]

If you're going to criticize America for human rights violations, how about all the years up until 1965, at least? That was pretty bad.

I'm not trying to criticise your country. My whole point is, some of the comments the Americans make about other countries is pure hypocrisy.

Can you name a country that has its hands totally clean? I can't think of any.

I can't think of any neither. But that's the whole point, you can't blame someone else until you clean your own house.

Obama is closing Gitmo. It takes time. Some of the people there are truly dangerous, and they have to put a system in place to try those people and come up with a place to put them.

How do you know they are so dangerous? Have they been tried in an independent court? Is it not written in your constitution that everyone is innocent until proven guilty?

Having those guys there is not only against the universal declaration of human rights, but also against your constitution.

They can't investigate the interrogation techniques, because it would lead to the prosecution of Bush and Cheney and others, and that would be horribly bad for America.

Why? Why is it acceptable to put Saddam in front of a made-up court in a country that had no functioning judiciary system at the time, but it is not acceptable to investigate the wrongs of your previous administration?

Surely, they have some sort of immunity in place? So, even if found guilty, Bush wouldn't serve a sentence.

Where are you from? Unless you're Canadian, my guess is your country has done some pretty horrible things as well.

I'm from Europe.

 

[ClayShaw]

If you're going to criticize America for human rights violations, how about all the years up until 1965, at least? That was pretty bad.

I'm not trying to criticise your country. My whole point is, some of the comments the Americans make about other countries is pure hypocrisy.

Agreed. Americans who think America is perfect are nuts.

Can you name a country that has its hands totally clean? I can't think of any.

I can't think of any neither. But that's the whole point, you can't blame someone else until you clean your own house.

I agree and disagree. The fact that America is not perfect doesn't mean we can't call out other countries who do really bad sh*t. By your logic, we should have left Hitler alone because of the things we did to blacks/natives/minorities in general in America, and I don't agree with that. But, to criticize other countries and pretend that America is some shining beacon of perfection is ridiculous.

Obama is closing Gitmo. It takes time. Some of the people there are truly dangerous, and they have to put a system in place to try those people and come up with a place to put them.

How do you know they are so dangerous? Have they been tried in an independent court? Is it not written in your constitution that everyone is innocent until proven guilty?

Everyone is innocent until proven guilty, but that applies to American citizens prosecuted under American law, not people captured on a battlefield. Not that I'm trying to claim everyone at Gitmo was captured on a battlefield.
I know they are so dangerous because some of them were Taliban captured in Afghanistan. Trust me, I agree with you in a sense, but at the same time, the kind of people who throw acid on teenage girls faces because they want to learn to read should not be let out. They're in the process (I hope) of figuring out which ones are the real threats that need to be dealt with, and releasing the rest. Gitmo is a disgrace, I will not argue that. But some people there are truly sick, and since we have them under control, we shouldn't let them out. But, we should let the red cross in to look at them, and we should comply with the geneva conventions.
By the way, no country in Europe (save maybe the Scandinavian countries) has anything close to a clean house.

How do you do the quotes in pieces like that? I was never able to figure it out.

Having those guys there is not only against the universal declaration of human rights, but also against your constitution.

They can't investigate the interrogation techniques, because it would lead to the prosecution of Bush and Cheney and others, and that would be horribly bad for America.

Why? Why is it acceptable to put Saddam in front of a made-up court in a country that had no functioning judiciary system at the time, but it is not acceptable to investigate the wrongs of your previous administration?

Surely, they have some sort of immunity in place? So, even if found guilty, Bush wouldn't serve a sentence.

Where are you from? Unless you're Canadian, my guess is your country has done some pretty horrible things as well.

I'm from Europe.

 

[Bryan]

Obama is closing Gitmo. It takes time. Some of the people there are truly dangerous, and they have to put a system in place to try those people and come up with a place to put them.

How do you know they are so dangerous? Have they been tried in an independent court?

LOL!! Oh yeah, those poor little Gitmo detainees are all as innocent as babes in the woods, as pure as the driven snow! We should give them back their dynamite and AK-47s and aplogize to them for inconveniencing them!

 

[The Gardener]

I completely agree with Bryan here. A lot of those Gitmo detainees, if met with capture from a nation OTHER than the United States, would probably have been extra-judiciously killed on the battlefield and would never have made it to a prison such as Gitmo. The very fact that they are alive, are engaged in some sort of "legal process", and are not completely "dissappeared", i.e. the govt says "what who now?.. who are you talking about??... never heard of them." (as happens in many other nations, such as China) speaks a great measure about fundamental American beliefs.

As "open kimono" honest as I can be about domestic American foibles, failings, and abhorations in previous postings I have made, I think most all of the rest of the world is just as bad, if not worse. We (the US) just happen to be the "imperial nation in the spotlight" du jour. All western nations have been in our shoes, and they are reaping political capital by "offshoring" this work to us, keeping their hands clean thanks to plausible deniability.

 

[ali777]

Obama is closing Gitmo. It takes time. Some of the people there are truly dangerous, and they have to put a system in place to try those people and come up with a place to put them.

How do you know they are so dangerous? Have they been tried in an independent court?

LOL!! Oh yeah, those poor little Gitmo detainees are all as innocent as babes in the woods, as pure as the driven snow! We should give them back their dynamite and AK-47s and aplogize to them for inconveniencing them!

Two wrongs don't make a right!!!

You are missing the whole point. You not only have a constitution but you also recognise the universal declaration of human rights. Gitmo goes against all that.

Once you start violating the human rights, where do you stop? What makes you different than the terrorists?

I completely agree with Bryan here. A lot of those Gitmo detainees, if met with capture from a nation OTHER than the United States, would probably have been extra-judiciously killed on the battlefield and would never have made it to a prison such as Gitmo. The very fact that they are alive, are engaged in some sort of "legal process", and are not completely "dissappeared", i.e. the govt says "what who now?.. who are you talking about??... never heard of them." (as happens in many other nations, such as China) speaks a great measure about fundamental American beliefs.

So, 20+ years of CIA rendition flights are all documented and all the kidnapped people are involved in some sort of "legal process"?

You are overestimating the "fundamental American believes".

As "open kimono" honest as I can be about domestic American foibles, failings, and abhorations in previous postings I have made, I think most all of the rest of the world is just as bad, if not worse. We (the US) just happen to be the "imperial nation in the spotlight" du jour. All western nations have been in our shoes, and they are reaping political capital by "offshoring" this work to us, keeping their hands clean thanks to plausible deniability.

I agree with you that everyone has their problems. Certain countries are probably much worse than you in regards with respecting the international law.

However, offshoring work to you? That's stretching it. There are lots of countries that don't want to get involved in your battles, but they get carried into it regardless.

 

[Bryan]

LOL!! Oh yeah, those poor little Gitmo detainees are all as innocent as babes in the woods, as pure as the driven snow! We should give them back their dynamite and AK-47s and aplogize to them for inconveniencing them!

Two wrongs don't make a right!!!

Let's try to stay focused on the main point. Nobody here has said that two wrongs make a right. I myself referred to the excesses of the Bush Administration in a recent post. What I was laughing at just now is your implication that all those Gitmo detainees might be as innocent as babes in the woods!

You are missing the whole point. You not only have a constitution but you also recognise the universal declaration of human rights. Gitmo goes against all that.

That may or may not be true, but don't try to suggest to us that Gitmo does NOT have some very very dangerous people in it! :smack:

So, 20+ years of CIA rendition flights are all documented and all the kidnapped people are involved in some sort of "legal process"?

Of course not. That issue certainly needs to be fixed, or at the very least very carefully monitered and regulated.

You are overestimating the "fundamental American believes".

I don't think so.

I agree with you that everyone has their problems. Certain countries are probably much worse than you in regards with respecting the international law.

AMEN, brother.

 

[Old Baldy]

Ali: I think you'll find a substantial reduction in enemy combatants captured in battle from here on out because, with the new rules on prosecuting detainees using civilian courts and procedures, those "detainees" will be killed on the battlefield.

Ever heard of the term "unintended consequences"? (Lefties can be so friggin' stupid and naive that it is mind boggling.)

Whether that's right or wrong is irrelevant because that is what will happen IMHO.

No, forget about my usage of "IMHO" because that is what will happen!!

 

[HughJass]

However, offshoring work to you? That's stretching it. There are lots of countries that don't want to get involved in your battles, but they get carried into it regardless.

Too true. The US's allies don't get to enjoy those 'special relationships' for nothing.

 

[ali777]

However, offshoring work to you? That's stretching it. There are lots of countries that don't want to get involved in your battles, but they get carried into it regardless.

Too true. The US's allies don't get to enjoy those 'special relationships' for nothing.

Don't bother!!! This thread is as pointless as the discussion of Soccer-vs-American Football-vs-Aussie rules football.

Ever heard of the term "unintended consequences"? (Lefties can be so friggin' stupid and naive that it is mind boggling.)

The main problem isn't that we are stupid, but that you are treating us like stupid.

Obviously some of you support the use of necessary evil to fight the other evil.

However, when you invade countries in the name of human rights, democracy, equality, etc, the least you can do is recognise those concepts yourself. Otherwise, it's pure hypocrisy, the whole thing doesn't have credibility.

What I was laughing at just now is your implication that all those Gitmo detainees might be as innocent as babes in the woods!

That may or may not be true, but don't try to suggest to us that Gitmo does NOT have some very very dangerous people in it! :smack:

I am not suggesting they are innocent. All I'm saying is, according to the international law, and your constitution, "everyone is innocent until proven guilty", and "everyone has the right to a fair trial". I presume those are some of the "fundamental American values" (an expression someone used earlier in the thread). The moment you start denying those rights to whoever the person may be, you are in effect going against your fundamental values.

 

[Bryan]

I am not suggesting they are innocent. All I'm saying is, according to the international law, and your constitution, "everyone is innocent until proven guilty", and "everyone has the right to a fair trial". I presume those are some of the "fundamental American values" (an expression someone used earlier in the thread). The moment you start denying those rights to whoever the person may be, you are in effect going against your fundamental values.

I'm curious about something. Let's say you're an American soldier in Afghanistan, and you happen to come across a sleeping Muslim man in one of those famous Tora Bora caves who is armed to the teeth: he has an AK-47, and tons of ammunition with him. He has lots of C4 explosive and detonators with him, a rocket-propelled grenade launcher, and numerous other pieces of military hardware. But he's just there SLEEPING. You haven't actually seen him shooting at Americans. When you wake him up, he claims (through an interpreter) to be a "friend of America", and says he means no harm to you.

So what do you do? Do you arrest him immediately, which would probably get him sent to Gitmo? Or do you let him go because you don't have any "proof" that he's an enemy combatant, despite the fact that he would probably jump at any chance to kill you? Seriously, what would you do??