Human Rights

Or any American in thaat region. Their actions go farther than that.

It's the notion that the report or that the abuses of Saddam somehow excuse the actions that sickens me.

E_S

 

cal_silverstar posted on 5/31/05 4:26pm

---

But [b]H_G[/b], where else are we going to keep enemy combatants?
[hr][/blockquote]

Many of them are not enemy combatants; in fact, we do not know why some of them are even there in the first place.

 

Good to see that you've ignored my last post, E_S.

 

Alright, name a single country that now violates human rights or endorses pre-emptives stikes that didn't before 9/11.

Israel.

Now, go and do your homework and respond to my 10 posts to you.

E_S

 

Israel.

I assume that is another Simpson's joke?

 

No, it's the sound I just made when I owned you from on high.

And I just converted that one too! Wow! A try and a conversion!

E_S

 

in fact, we do not know why some of them are even there in the first place.

I'd go so far as to say that these days, they (whoever that is now) don't know why some of them are there either.

 

No, it's the sound I just made when I owned you from on high.

And I just converted that one too! Wow! A try and a conversion!

You right as far as the legallity of sleep deprivation was conserned.

But all other countries, including Isreal, are behaving as they historicly always have.

And it should also be acknowledged that the US has yet to enact a pre-emptive strike. Remember, Iraq broke the cease-fire agreement, so we kept our end.

The UN had a wonderful opportunity to become relivant, but dropped the ball when they incorrectly called it an illegal action.

But hey, I understand that they were busy starving the Iraqis by steeling money from the Oil-For-Food program, as well as filming themselves raping 14 year old Congan girls.

So they already had their hands full at the time...

 

Many of them are not enemy combatants; in fact, we do not know why some of them are even there in the first place.

Al-Qaeda suspects and the like.

 

To paraphrase Harry Callahan: "Well, I'm all broke up about al-Qaeda's human rights."

Can someone tell me who speaks for the human rights of the victims of al-Qaeda? The UN and Amnesty International did not seem to be doing a very good job of it. The Department of Defense, on the other hand...

 

J-Rod the doctrine of preemption has nothing to do with Iraq as I already informed DM; is that the limit of your understanding of it?

E_S

 

Can someone tell me who speaks for the human rights of the victims of al-Qaeda?

That's not the point. I think everyone is already concerned about the victims of al-Queda, and thus there's no need for an investigation on it/them.

If we as a country and a people ever get so callous and arrogant about human rights and justifying wrongs on the basis that "they" did worse, we're in deep trouble. Sad thing is that we may already be at that point.

You're only as strong as your weakest link.

 

Can someone tell me who speaks for the human rights of the victims of al-Qaeda? The UN and Amnesty International did not seem to be doing a very good job of it. The Department of Defense, on the other hand...


It strikes me if they really were conclusively al-Qaeda terrorists they would have been convicted for terrorist offenses by a court...

Zing.

But you keep playing the nationalist knee-jerk card then acting perplexed when people say bad stuff about neoconservatives.

Sorry, JS, but that was a typically weak argument with dashes of neocon rhetoric which I assume was meant to cover up the lack of substance?

It didn't, by the way.

E_S

 

Knightwriter

Well excuse me for deciding that the rights of innocent people to not be blown up because they're going to work or taking a flight are more important than the rights of terrorists. As far as I'm concerned, the "Texas defense" is arguably applicable when it comes to the likes of al-Qaeda and Pablo Escobar, among others.

Amnesty International would probably complain if the CIA had knocked off Pol Pot. I'm sorry, Amnesty International has become an absurdity.

 

I admit, this is an opinion piece but she makes a good point:

The truth about Guantanamo Bay

by Michelle Malkin


The mainstream media and international human-rights organizations have relentlessly portrayed the Guantanamo Bay detention facility as a depraved torture chamber operated by sadistic American military officials defiling Islam at every turn. It's the "gulag of our time," wails Amnesty International. It's the "anti-Statue of Liberty," bemoans New York Times columnist Tom Friedman.

Have there been abuses? Yes. But here is the rest of the story ? the story that the Islamists and their sympathizers don't want you to hear.

According to recently released FBI documents, which are inaccurately heralded by civil liberties activists and military-bashers as irrefutable evidence of widespread "atrocities" at Gitmo:

A significant number of detainees' complaints were either exaggerated or fabricated (no surprise given al-Qaida's explicit instructions to trainees to lie). One detainee who claimed to have been "beaten, spit upon and treated worse than a dog" could not provide a single detail pertaining to mistreatment by U.S. military personnel. Another detainee claimed that guards were physically abusive, but admitted he hadn't seen it.


Another detainee disputed one of the now-globally infamous claims that American guards had mistreated the Quran. The detainee said that riots resulted from claims that a guard dropped the Quran. In actuality, the detainee said, a detainee dropped the Quran then blamed a guard. Other detainees who complained about abuse of the Quran admitted they had never personally witnessed any such abuse, but one said he had heard that non-Muslim soldiers touched the Quran when searching it for contraband.

In one case, Gitmo interrogators apologized to a detainee for interviewing him prior to the end of Ramadan.

Several detainees indicated they had not experienced any mistreatment. Others complained about lack of privacy, lack of bed sheets, being unwillingly photographed, the guards' use of profanity, and bad food.

If this is unacceptable, "gulag"-style "torture," then every inmate in America is a victim of human-rights violations. (Oh, never mind, there are civil liberties chicken littles who actually believe that.)

Erik Saar, who served as an army sergeant at Gitmo for six months and co-authored a negative, tell-all book about his experience titled "Inside the Wire," inadvertently provides us more firsthand details showing just how restrained, and sensitive to Islam ? to a fault, I believe ? the officials at the detention facility have been.

Each detainee's cell has a sink installed low to the ground, "to make it easier for the detainees to wash their feet" before Muslim prayer, Saar reports. Detainees get "two hot halal, or religiously correct, meals" a day in addition to an MRE (meal ready to eat). Loudspeakers broadcast the Muslims' call to prayer five times a day.

Every detainee gets a prayer mat, cap and Quran. Every cell has a stenciled arrow pointing toward Mecca. Moreover, Gitmo's library ? yes, library ? is stocked with Jihadi books. "I was surprised that we'd be making that concession to the religious zealotry of the terrorists," Saar admits. "t seemed to me that the camp command was helping to facilitate the terrorists' religious devotion." Saar notes that one FBI special agent involved in interrogations even grew a beard like the detainees "as a sort of show of respect for their faith."

Unreality-based liberals would have us believe that America is systematically torturing innocent Muslims out of spite at Guantanamo Bay. Meanwhile, our own MPs have endured little-publicized abuse at the hands of manipulative, hate-mongering enemy combatants. Detainees have spit on and hurled water, urine and feces on the MPs. Causing disturbances is a source of entertainment for detainees who, as Gen. Richard Myers points out, "would turn right around and try to slit our throats, slit our children's throats" if released.


The same unreality-ba

 

Well excuse me for deciding that the rights of innocent people to not be blown up because they're going to work or taking a flight are more important than the rights of terrorists.

You're not excused. It's not that people who have been "blown up" are less important. What's important is that human rights for all are maintained, no matter what.

 

Guantanamo Bay will not be the death of this country. The unseriousness and hypocrisy of the terrorist-abetting Left is a far greater threat.

Bullsith.

I have argued against US policy and have made the most visible amount of noise on counterterrorism in the Senate.

THe simple fact is, talking tough and waving this guy around doesn't accomplish anything. Terrorism needs to be dealt with at the grassroots level, which military action won't cure. Both sides have got it wrong but since the left in America is busy imploding and the right was dominated by people totally out of touch with reality (yes JS I mean your beloved neocons), I feel reserving judgement for the guys making bad decisions and not the guys flailing ineffectually is totally fair.

What's important is that human rights for all are maintained, no matter what.

Neoconservatives don't have a word for "unalienable", as in "unalienable human rights". The ink ran off the parchment when they were pissing ont he Universal Declaration of Human Rights in the interests of hegemony... I mean, security.

E_S

 

Knightwriter

If you want to take that risk - fine. As for me, I'd rather keep these captured combatants locked up. Every one we lock up at Gitmo is one that won't be carrying out a murder-suicide bombing or worse.

 

E_S said...J-Rod the doctrine of preemption has nothing to do with Iraq as I already informed DM; is that the limit of your understanding of it?

I understand it. I just wanted to make clear that the US has just to act on the Bush Doctrine.

I also want to make clear that the very purpose of the UN is human rights.

I also want to make clear that every time I bring up the UN's own human rights violation you act as you claim I do about the US's violations.

Are you gonna acknowledge that the UN is at least as guilty as the US? 'Cause I think that stacking naked terrorists on each other and photographing it is not as "gross" a violation as videoing the rapes of innocent 14 year-old girls you are supposed to be protecting.

KW said...If we as a country and a people ever get so callous and arrogant about human rights and justifying wrongs on the basis that "they" did worse, we're in deep trouble. Sad thing is that we may already be at that point.

We aren't justifying it because "they" did worse. But the fact is "they" have to be stopped, and "they" won't be stopped by coddling them.

 

Ender Sai

Take your neo-con baiting and shove it where the sun don't shine.

 

Why not? They weren't doing it before, they won't be doing it now!

Be sure to pretend the next time Americans are killed by terrorists it's an unprovoked act of unmitigated evil and those who suggest it's a blowback against exactly this kind of thing hate America and freedom and love terrorists. Because after all nothing about this incites fundamentalist hatred.

E_S

 

Take your neo-con baiting and shove it where the sun don't shine.


Baiting my arse.

Your ideology has seen 1,500+ dead American troops (not to mention associated Allied and Iraqi deaths) die for increased anti-Americanism. Not to mention the number of things terrorists can hate the US for has probably tripled.

No, your ideology is flawed, which is why Mr Bush sent Dr Wolfowitz away, to a place where he can't wreak havoc with US prestige. The nationalist idealism may invoke a kind of Rambo-esque mentality but I think Americans are smart enough to realise neoconservatives are wrong. It's just a pity they have to reap what Wolfy and Perle sow.

Instead of op-ed pieces from sympathetic publications and whatnot, can you actually prove that all the detained at Gitmo are al-Qaeda terrorists?

E_S

 

Are you gonna acknowledge that the UN is at least as guilty as the US? 'Cause I think that stacking naked terrorists on each other and photographing it is not as "gross" a violation as videoing the rapes of innocent 14 year-old girls you are supposed to be protecting.

Because J-Rod this isn't universal human rights bash time, this is specifically about the US. It's not different to people saying that Saddam was worse ergo we shouldn't judge America too harshly as it coudl have been worse.

Sorry, no.

The UN's failings in this area is abysmal and frankly disgusting and the states who supplied the soldiers should refer them to the ICC. But we're not talking about that now, so stop trying to protect by throwing tangent bait into the mix and hoping to land a new fish. We're talking about evil committed by the US. Do you see any room after that period? If not, just the US buddy.

E_S

 

If you want to take that risk - fine. As for me, I'd rather keep these captured combatants locked up.

Who said anything about releasing them?

I suggest trying them all in a court of law. Or would that be too dangerous for you?

All people were created equal. Some are just more equal than others, it seems.

 

I don't dismiss Amnesty Intl and I still respect it as an organization, but I think they are seriously exaggerating the conditions at Gitmo by comparing it to a Soviet gulag.

EDIT: KW How are they eligible in a court of law as they are not U.S. citizens?