Britons tire of cruel, vulgar US: poll

[Svenskaflicka]

Since the article says "...the British no longer have confidence in their transatlantic cousins to lead global affairs...", I would be interrested in knowing what they said five or ten years ago.

Perhaps the same thing Persson said last year? "Bush is a great leader and a good politician; he gives clear and direct answers to questions."

 

[minsue]

It is sometimes very difficult to support the US. Yet we do.

And it truly amazes me that you do.

 

[cheerful_deviant]

In answer to other questions, a majority of the Britons questions described Americans as uncaring, divided by class, awash in violent crime, vulgar, preoccupied with money, ignorant of the outside world, racially divided, uncultured and in the most overwhelming result (90 percent of respondents) dominated by big business.

So what's wrong with all this?

 

[matriarch]

Wankers.

That's as maybe.
We're all allowed our opinion.
Aren't we, Zeb.

 

[Tom Collins]

The US is supposed to be a nation ruled by law. You certainly have enough lawyers.

Yet two issues cause concern to the US's allies and give comfort to its enemies:

Guantanamo Bay:

Either the people held there are Prisoners of War, in which case the Geneva Convention should apply, or they are possible criminals who should be brought to a normal trial and proven guilty or innocent. The holding of people indefinitely without charge or trial is against international law and against the principles of Magna Carta - no man shall be denied justice.

Extraordinary Rendition:

The US has made most of Europe complicit in their acts of extraordinary rendition by using European airports as staging posts for the transfers.

Both issues show a contempt for the normal processes of law. If any of the people held in Guanatamo or in places of Extraordinary Rendition were to be held on US territory they would have access to the US legal system and could claim that they are held illegally.

The UK government and many European governments have frequently raised these issues with the US administration. Neither issue shows 'democracy' as something that the rest of the world should aspire to.

If I were actually Henry VIII, instead of being someone who plays him occasionally, I could not have defied my own law to the extent that these issues do. I had to convict people of 'crimes' before I could execute them. That meant that I had to bring them to a normal trial and allow them a defence team.

Both issues are very useful propaganda for the enemies of the US and causes for recruiters of terrorists to exploit. Propaganda that is TRUE is the best of all for raising hatred for the US.

As for Abu Gharib: That didn't help the US stance as liberators. I don't believe that what happened was a deliberate policy of the US administration. Many, and not only the US's enemies but some of its friends, DO think that abuse of prisoners was intentional and the only unintentional thing was that the pictures got out.

It is difficult to overstate the impact these issues have on how other states regard the US. Its allies, including the UK, have to be continually on the defensive when these issues are raised.

It is sometimes very difficult to support the US. Yet we do. The UK, and much of Europe, are not just fair-weather friends.

Og

I couldn't possibly agree with you more, Oggie.

 

[Boxlicker101]

I would have to wonder at who the respondents were. If they were basically uneducated, I would expect that kind of response. Tabloids and the BBC report very negatively on the US.

I have to wonder about some other things too. The US is not divided by class anywhere near as much as England is. I would not call it a classless society, but it comes closer to it than probably any other major country. We definitely can be pretty vulgar, especially those of us who write smutty stories. We are not all that obsessed by money.

That part about "imperialism" and "world domination" is completely wrong. There was a period of American imperialism but it ended with the Spanish American War in 1898. The attitude was "Manifest Destiny" and it ended when that destiny was achieved. The US may be the only nation in history that was not bent on world domination after becoming a great military power. That point probably occurred after the Spanish war. After WW1 and again after WW2, the US probably could have conquered the entire Western Hemisphere but we didn't.

The respondents may have been thinking of whaty England or any other nation would have done, given the opportunity again. England was the most imperialistic nation in history, bragging "The sun never sets on the British Empire." They were right, too, until quite recently.

 

[Boxlicker101]

I have been thinking about Gitmo and the Geneva Convention and Afghanistan. The GC applies to its signatories. That includes the US and the UK but I don't know if it includes Afghanistan or not.

In any event, if the prisoners were captured on the battlefield, they are POW's, and are being properly held, as long as they are not mistreated. Normally, POW's are held until the fighting has ended. Since it is still going on, they should not be released. On the other hand, if they are criminal suspects, they should be turned over to the Afghan government, once that entity is stable, for prosecution. Knowing what they have done, and would do if they had a chance, I have absolutely no sympathy for them.

 

[minsue]

I have been thinking about Gitmo and the Geneva Convention and Afghanistan. The GC applies to its signatories. That includes the US and the UK but I don't know if it includes Afghanistan or not.

In any event, if the prisoners were captured on the battlefield, they are POW's, and are being properly held, as long as they are not mistreated. Normally, POW's are held until the fighting has ended. Since it is still going on, they should not be released. On the other hand, if they are criminal suspects, they should be turned over to the Afghan government, once that entity is stable, for prosecution. Knowing what they have done, and would do if they had a chance, I have absolutely no sympathy for them.

One problem with that theory, Box - the US gov't has stated that they consider the prisoners "enemy combatants" and not POWs and therefore the rules for POWs do not apply.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxlicker101
I have been thinking about Gitmo and the Geneva Convention and Afghanistan. The GC applies to its signatories. That includes the US and the UK but I don't know if it includes Afghanistan or not.

In any event, if the prisoners were captured on the battlefield, they are POW's, and are being properly held, as long as they are not mistreated. Normally, POW's are held until the fighting has ended. Since it is still going on, they should not be released. On the other hand, if they are criminal suspects, they should be turned over to the Afghan government, once that entity is stable, for prosecution. Knowing what they have done, and would do if they had a chance, I have absolutely no sympathy for them.

One problem with that theory, Box - the US gov't has stated that they consider the prisoners "enemy combatants" and not POWs and therefore the rules for POWs do not apply.

Okay, then they have no rights at all. They are not covered by the Constitution because they are not US citizens and have never been in the US. SCOTUS has no jurisdiction either. Actually, their status, no rights at all, is about where they held women for as long as they could. Poetic justice.

They will probably eventually be returned to Afghanistan to face justice there. When I say "justice" I mean hanging or beheading.

 

[minsue]

Okay, then they have no rights at all. They are not covered by the Constitution because they are not US citizens and have never been in the US. SCOTUS has no jurisdiction either. Actually, their status, no rights at all, is about where they held women for as long as they could. Poetic justice.

They will probably eventually be returned to Afghanistan to face justice there. When I say "justice" I mean hanging or beheading.

And we wonder why we're looked on so poorly in the rest of the world.

 

[Tom Collins]

And we wonder why we're looked on so poorly in the rest of the world.

I don't wonder, min. I bloody well know why and don't blame them in the least.

 

[Huckleman2000]

One problem with that theory, Box - the US gov't has stated that they consider the prisoners "enemy combatants" and not POWs and therefore the rules for POWs do not apply.

That argument is exactly what the Supreme Court invalidated last week. They said that Bush can't unilaterally decide who is an "enemy combatant" and who isn't, and that under treaty obligations the prisoners are subject to Geneva protections.

Another problem with Box's theory is that lots of people locked up and sent to Gitmo weren't terrorists at all.

 

[Huckleman2000]

Okay, then they have no rights at all. They are not covered by the Constitution because they are not US citizens and have never been in the US. SCOTUS has no jurisdiction either. Actually, their status, no rights at all, is about where they held women for as long as they could. Poetic justice.

They will probably eventually be returned to Afghanistan to face justice there. When I say "justice" I mean hanging or beheading.

The Supreme Court disagrees with you. Actually, your assertion that SCOTUS has no jurisdiction was invalidated last year. The BushCo arguments that you're parroting simply have not withstood court challenge, Box. Rail against the court all you like, but BushCo has to follow the law - they can't just make it up as they go, picking and choosing which laws they want to obey. If you want to educate yourself about these Constitutional issues and how your arguments overreach, start here.

 

[Boxlicker101]

That argument is exactly what the Supreme Court invalidated last week. They said that Bush can't unilaterally decide who is an "enemy combatant" and who isn't, and that under treaty obligations the prisoners are subject to Geneva protections.

Another problem with Box's theory is that lots of people locked up and sent to Gitmo weren't terrorists at all.

I didn't say they were. I believe that most of them were officials of the Taliban government. As such, they should be returned to Afghanistan to face trial and execution for the evil deeds they committed when they were in power.

If they were captured in fighting for the Taliban, they should probably be treated as POW's and repatriated to Afghanistan AFTER the fighting has ended, and it hasn't ended yet. That's what usually happens to POW's.

Personally, I think the Supremes are exceeding their jurisdiction. The GC is an international treaty, not a US law. Gitmo is not a part of the US and the prisoners are not citizens and have never been in the US. The exec. branch, with the advice and consent of the Senate, has jurisdiction in foreign affairs, and that's what this is.

 

[Boxlicker101]

The Supreme Court disagrees with you. Actually, your assertion that SCOTUS has no jurisdiction was invalidated last year. The BushCo arguments that you're parroting simply have not withstood court challenge, Box. Rail against the court all you like, but BushCo has to follow the law - they can't just make it up as they go, picking and choosing which laws they want to obey. If you want to educate yourself about these Constitutional issues and how your arguments overreach, start here.

I do know SCOTUS does not have the authority to declare British or French or Chinese laws contrary to the Constitution. They can say they do but they can't enforce their claim. Likewise, they have no authority over what happens in Cuba, which is where Gitmo is. If they could, they would probably overturn some of the Cuban laws. They may claim different but they have no more jurisdiction in Cuba than the Calif. Supreme Court has in Nevada.

The link you included discusses actions of the exec. branch in the US. It has nothing to do with this instance.

 

[neonlyte]

I would have to wonder at who the respondents were. If they were basically uneducated, I would expect that kind of response. Tabloids and the BBC report very negatively on the US.

I have to wonder about some other things too. The US is not divided by class anywhere near as much as England is. I would not call it a classless society, but it comes closer to it than probably any other major country. We definitely can be pretty vulgar, especially those of us who write smutty stories. We are not all that obsessed by money.

That part about "imperialism" and "world domination" is completely wrong. There was a period of American imperialism but it ended with the Spanish American War in 1898. The attitude was "Manifest Destiny" and it ended when that destiny was achieved. The US may be the only nation in history that was not bent on world domination after becoming a great military power. That point probably occurred after the Spanish war. After WW1 and again after WW2, the US probably could have conquered the entire Western Hemisphere but we didn't.

The respondents may have been thinking of whaty England or any other nation would have done, given the opportunity again. England was the most imperialistic nation in history, bragging "The sun never sets on the British Empire." They were right, too, until quite recently.

Box - YouGov is a reputable organisation so I'm fairly sure the respondants would have been a mix across the age, sex and ethnicity of people living in the UK. Even so they would have sampled at the most 2000 people out of a population of 60million and the answers given would depend a great deal upon the way the questions were framed and what was on television the night before. That's not meant to be flippant, peoples responses vary enormously according to the most recent 'information' they have seen or listened to.

Given the timing of this, it is possible the questions were asked immediately following the Supreme Court decision on GBay detainees, that would certainly cloud the responses.

The biggest thing the Americans and British share is language - it means we Brits get to see US culture closer than we see the culture of our nearer European neighbours. New generations of Brits are growing up as Europeans, we are no longer an island leaning toward a bigger brother/sister across the Atlantic, we are firmly tied to Europe and the nuances of that tie effect perception. The changing world in the last twenty years affects perception. When the world was balanced by two superpowers, Europe, including Britain looked to the West for support. That scenarion has changed. There is a single superpower for the moment, and a singularity brings different concerns including a degree of fear and a modicum of rebellion against the all powerful.

It is to the US's great credit that it doesn't use its true might to control the political and economic direction of world governments. Where it does exercise a degree of control, it does so in a way perceived to be heavy handed, not because it is intentionally so but because mistakes are made in execution and the propaganda machine no longer is capable of delivering the message with a 'free press' operating in all countries.

Like or not, a kind of 'holy war' is being fought but it is not as most people imagine and see of a war 'we' take to the enemy. We (the West) are not the Crusaders. The crusaders in this war are coming to our shores driven by a mixture of religious, political and economic dogma. It is a situation we have little experience of and less knowledge about how to adequately deal with it. It engenders fear. British Intelligence reported yesterday they have thwarted three serious terrorist attacks in the UK (equivalent to the Metro bombings last July) details of which will not be made available until trials commence in a year or so, and they are currently investigating more than seventy serious terrorist plans in the UK and overseas. This kind of information is destabilising and unrational thought seeks someone to blame, too many point at the US/UK Iraq involvement as the root of the problems - quite forgetting how this business started, and regardless of the rights and wrongs of whether the action was merited.

 

[Huckleman2000]

I do know SCOTUS does not have the authority to declare British or French or Chinese laws contrary to the Constitution. They can say they do but they can't enforce their claim. Likewise, they have no authority over what happens in Cuba, which is where Gitmo is. If they could, they would probably overturn some of the Cuban laws. They may claim different but they have no more jurisdiction in Cuba than the Calif. Supreme Court has in Nevada.

The link you included discusses actions of the exec. branch in the US. It has nothing to do with this instance.

Box, that's just talking out your ass. The Rasul decision "Held: United States courts have jurisdiction to consider challenges to the legality of the detention of foreign nationals captured abroad in connection with hostilities and incarcerated at Guantanamo Bay."

YOU may claim different, but you have no more jurisdiction in this than my left testicle. What makes you think that the President can just make up his own laws and ignore everything else? Your claim was made, heard, and ruled against two years ago.

 

[oggbashan]

Convicted terrorists

We in the UK have made mistakes about 'terrorists' even after due process of normal law. We had to release people we convicted because later evidence showed that the original conviction was wrong and the scientific evidence was badly flawed.

Some of the people held in Gitmo have done nothing against the US. Against their own people perhaps, but then they should be tried by their own courts. What the prisoners have or have not done is irrelevant UNTIL A CASE IS PROVEN. They are innocent until proved guilty - by normal legal process.

What is certain is that Gitmo damages the US throughout the world. As long as prisoners are held there, and long afterwards, the US administration will have difficulty winning hearts and minds of peoples and countries who are neutral, let alone those now hostile. It makes life difficult for foreign administrations who want to co-operate with the US because their country's voters see the US as breaking its own laws.

It is counterproductive in the war against terror because Gitmo and ER breed more 'freedom fighters'.

Og

 

[wazhazhe]

I would have to wonder at who the respondents were. If they were basically uneducated, I would expect that kind of response. Tabloids and the BBC report very negatively on the US.

I have to wonder about some other things too. The US is not divided by class anywhere near as much as England is. I would not call it a classless society, but it comes closer to it than probably any other major country. We definitely can be pretty vulgar, especially those of us who write smutty stories. We are not all that obsessed by money.

That part about "imperialism" and "world domination" is completely wrong. There was a period of American imperialism but it ended with the Spanish American War in 1898. The attitude was "Manifest Destiny" and it ended when that destiny was achieved. The US may be the only nation in history that was not bent on world domination after becoming a great military power. That point probably occurred after the Spanish war. After WW1 and again after WW2, the US probably could have conquered the entire Western Hemisphere but we didn't.

The respondents may have been thinking of whaty England or any other nation would have done, given the opportunity again. England was the most imperialistic nation in history, bragging "The sun never sets on the British Empire." They were right, too, until quite recently.

The US is divided by class as much or more than the UK. The lines between the classes may not be as obvious but they are there, nonetheless. While there are examples of those who do, it is just as difficult to move upward in class in the US.

The imperialism of the US is not designed to conquer the world; only those parts of it the US deems desirable. The US military in Iraq should not be surprising. It guarantees the US a central location in the middle east from which it can insure they can get all the oil they want.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

That's as maybe.
We're all allowed our opinion.
Aren't we, Zeb.

Sure, opinions are a dime a dozen. Also, freedom of speech is the primary tenent of American freedoms, which we extent to anyone who visits our shores. (and the middle regions too)

 

[wazhazhe]

In any event, if the prisoners were captured on the battlefield, they are POW's, and are being properly held, as long as they are not mistreated. Normally, POW's are held until the fighting has ended. Since it is still going on, they should not be released. On the other hand, if they are criminal suspects, they should be turned over to the Afghan government, once that entity is stable, for prosecution. Knowing what they have done, and would do if they had a chance, I have absolutely no sympathy for them.

The problem is many of the Guantonamo prisoners captured in Afghanistan were turned over to the US by Afghanis. We don’t really know if they were captured on the battlefield, taken while walking down the street or dragged from their homes in the middle of the night.

At this point, we don’t know if the prisoners are terrorists, criminals or neither. We don’t know what they have done or might possibly do and neither do you. Only a handful have actually been charged with a crime. The rest should be charged with a crime or designated POWs and receive their do rights.

 

[Katyusha]

As for Abu Gharib: That didn't help the US stance as liberators. I don't believe that what happened was a deliberate policy of the US administration. Many, and not only the US's enemies but some of its friends, DO think that abuse of prisoners was intentional and the only unintentional thing was that the pictures got out.

Og

There was a study done here in the U.S. regarding treatment of prisoners awhile back, and in every case where the prison guards were given broad, vague orders about how to handle prisoners, the prisoners ended up being severely abused. In the cases where the prison guards' orders were specific, prisoners were very rarely abused.

What happened at Abu Ghraib was a tragedy. I don't know whether or not they were told to humiliate and abuse the prisoners, or if it was simply due to a lack of orders on how to treat them. I do believe that it was intentional, at the very least, on the part of the prison guards. I don't know about their commanders. I do think that the commanders of that unit should also have been court-martialed though; in the end, one way or another, the commanders allowed it to happen.

It doesn't surprise me that anti-U.S. sentiment is on the rise anywhere. How we're handling Iraq, how we're handling Gitmo, and how Bush has no problem thumbing his nose at international law but gets riled up when anybody else does do not help our image.

 

[wazhazhe]

I didn't say they were. I believe that most of them were officials of the Taliban government. As such, they should be returned to Afghanistan to face trial and execution for the evil deeds they committed when they were in power.

If they were captured in fighting for the Taliban, they should probably be treated as POW's and repatriated to Afghanistan AFTER the fighting has ended, and it hasn't ended yet. That's what usually happens to POW's.

Personally, I think the Supremes are exceeding their jurisdiction. The GC is an international treaty, not a US law. Gitmo is not a part of the US and the prisoners are not citizens and have never been in the US. The exec. branch, with the advice and consent of the Senate, has jurisdiction in foreign affairs, and that's what this is.

The prisoners at Guantanamo are supposed to be suspected terrorists, not Taliban officials. The Taliban may not have been nice but they weren't, as a whole, terrorists. The Taliban allowed terrorists to reside safely in Afghanistan. The main goal of the US was to capture or kill the terrorists. Overthrowing the Taliban was the way the US chose to accomplish that goal.

In what way is the Supreme Court exceeding its jurisdiction?

 

[wazhazhe]

I do know SCOTUS does not have the authority to declare British or French or Chinese laws contrary to the Constitution. They can say they do but they can't enforce their claim. Likewise, they have no authority over what happens in Cuba, which is where Gitmo is. If they could, they would probably overturn some of the Cuban laws. They may claim different but they have no more jurisdiction in Cuba than the Calif. Supreme Court has in Nevada.

The link you included discusses actions of the exec. branch in the US. It has nothing to do with this instance.

US military bases overseas are not run according to the laws of the home country but under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). The ruling in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld is, in part, that the President violated the UCMJ, which is entirely within the authority of the SCOTUS.

 

[rgraham666]

The US is divided by class as much or more than the UK. The lines between the classes may not be as obvious but they are there, nonetheless. While there are examples of those who do, it is just as difficult to move upward in class in the US.

The imperialism of the US is not designed to conquer the world; only those parts of it the US deems desirable. The US military in Iraq should not be surprising. It guarantees the US a central location in the middle east from which it can insure they can get all the oil they want.

There have been several studies done on the lack of social mobility in the U.S. Although certainly there are some people who do move upwards, it's rarer than in other parts of the West. Most of the movement for the last generation has been downward.

I'll disagree about the last sentence. The oil and strategic location were simply nice bonuses. The real reason for the invasion of Iraq was to tell the rest of the world, "We're not playing by the rules anymore. And this is what happens to people that defy us."