Why does Bush hate Amnesty?

[Couture]

The foreword in a report by Amnesty International describes Guantánamo Bay, Cuba as "the gulag of our times." It points to the US administration’s role in weakening "the absolute ban on torture" as the primary and most significant source of the year’s setbacks on human rights. Let's be clear on that. The *most* significant setback this year wasn't by China, Cuba, or Russia, but the United States. The report also denounced torture practices and policies that were revealed by the photos taken at Abu Ghraib. Attention was also given to this administration's practice of rendering prisoners. Rendering is the practice of illegally handing suspects over to the intelligence services in other countries that are known to practice torture.

Bush had this to say about Amnesty International's report: “It seemed like [Amnesty] based some of their decisions on the word and allegations by people who were held in detention, people who hate America, people had been trained in some instances to disassemble [sic] – that means not tell the truth,” Bush went on. “And so it was an absurd report. It just is.”

Speaking of dessembling, Bush forgot to mention that POW's in Gitmo aren't considered POW's. As a result, they aren't protected by the Geneva Convention. They are also purposefully kept outside US borders, so they aren't covered by Miranda or any other constitutional protection. Open the gates to monitors. Why are we hiding prisoners? Why are we so afraid of showing what goes on there if Amnesty's allegations are so absurd?

 

[Guest]

Speaking of dessembling, Bush forgot to mention that POW's in Gitmo aren't considered POW's. As a result, they aren't protected by the Geneva Convention. They are also purposefully kept outside US borders, so they aren't covered by Miranda or any other constitutional protection. Open the gates to monitors. Why are we hiding prisoners? Why are we so afraid of showing what goes on there if Amnesty's allegations are so absurd?

Because Bush is a weenie.

 

[LadyJeanne]

The torture is the one thing I can't really figure out. How does that further the White House agenda? What's in it for them? What sort of financial or political gain is behind the torture?

 

[BigAndTall]

What was the point to this?

 

[Virtual_Burlesque]

Naturally, the Bush Administration and its supporters are enraged by the latest report from Amnesty International.

They had the temerity to equate Bush Administration backed mindless cruelty to the mindless cruelty of our enemies.

 

[Boxlicker101]

What he objects to is the hyperbole of the report. Comparing the millions of prisoners who were tortured and murdered in the Soviet gulags of a period of sixty or so years to US actions is like comparing the Himalayan Mountains to a row of foothills. There is a similarity but enormous differences in the magnitude of the two things being compared.

I don't know how many prisoners are being held but the numbers are far less than the number of political prisoners held in China, Cuba, Iran, Viet Nam and North Korea, not to mention the suppression of ordinary human rights in those places. There are some abuses but hardly enough to make the American holding and treatment of prisoners "the primary and most significant source of the year’s setbacks on human rights."

Double-you probably also objected to the lack of any semblance of even-handedness in the report. Whatever the US has done to or with prisoners, it is nowhere near as bad as what the Taliban or the terrorists in Iraq do with them. I call them "terrorists" rather than "insurgents", by the way, because their tactics are those of terrorism, blowing up mosques and public buildings, etc. These people basically torture and murder anybody they think might get in their way or that they capture.

I'm not defending anybody here. I'm just answering the question that is being asked. I used to think quite highly of Amnesty International and I know they still do some good work, but this has drastically lowered my opinion of them.

 

[BlackShanglan]

I don't know how many prisoners are being held but the numbers are far less than the number of political prisoners held in China, Cuba, Iran, Viet Nam and North Korea, not to mention the suppression of ordinary human rights in those places. There are some abuses but hardly enough to make the American holding and treatment of prisoners "the primary and most significant source of the year’s setbacks on human rights."

Hmmm. I hear what you're saying, Box, and I think I would agree if the AI report had called the problems "the most severe abuses of the year." But perhaps "most significant source of the year's setbacks" is not as unfair. Might they be saying, not that the US is doing the worst things in the world, but that it's more of a serious setback to see a country that has set itself high standards in the past lapsing in a nod-and-wink acceptance of increasingly routine human rights abuses? Whether or not it's fair for AI to, I personally expected more of the US than I did of China or North Korea, and so it was immensely more depressing to me to see both the abuses at Abu Ghraib - arguably not officially sanctioned - and the renditions and decisions regarding the legal status of the Guantanamo detainees, which appear to have received approval from on high. I recognize that there are worse things happening in the world, but the change in our own society I find very worrying.

Shanglan

 

[LadyJeanne]

Box, my reading of that 'setback' is that America, a nation that heretofore has not tortured prisoners, is now doing so. That a democratic nation would start down that road, is a step in the wrong direction.

Comparing ourselves to nations who abuse the human rights of their citizens and POWs and saying we're not as bad isn't the right measuring stick. Comparing our torture techniques and magnitude of prisoners involved is also the wrong measuring stick.

We should compare ourselves, at the very least, to ourselves. Are we practicing more torture on prisoners than we did in the past? Are we violating the letter or the spirit of the Geneva Convention? Why the change? Is this the direction we want to be heading?

 

[Edward Teach]

What he objects to is the hyperbole of the report. Comparing the millions of prisoners who were tortured and murdered in the Soviet gulags of a period of sixty or so years to US actions is like comparing the Himalayan Mountains to a row of foothills. There is a similarity but enormous differences in the magnitude of the two things being compared.

I don't know how many prisoners are being held but the numbers are far less than the number of political prisoners held in China, Cuba, Iran, Viet Nam and North Korea, not to mention the suppression of ordinary human rights in those places. There are some abuses but hardly enough to make the American holding and treatment of prisoners "the primary and most significant source of the year’s setbacks on human rights."

Double-you probably also objected to the lack of any semblance of even-handedness in the report. Whatever the US has done to or with prisoners, it is nowhere near as bad as what the Taliban or the terrorists in Iraq do with them. I call them "terrorists" rather than "insurgents", by the way, because their tactics are those of terrorism, blowing up mosques and public buildings, etc. These people basically torture and murder anybody they think might get in their way or that they capture.

I'm not defending anybody here. I'm just answering the question that is being asked. I used to think quite highly of Amnesty International and I know they still do some good work, but this has drastically lowered my opinion of them.

Eat one bite and you are a cannibal.

Ed

.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Eat one bite and you are a cannibal.

Ed

.

Does picking your nose and eating it make you a cannibal? What about biting your fingernails?

 

[Liar]

But perhaps "most significant source of the year's setbacks" is not as unfair. Might they be saying, not that the US is doing the worst things in the world, but that it's more of a serious setback to see a country that has set itself high standards in the past lapsing in a nod-and-wink acceptance of increasingly routine human rights abuses?

Yes.

US = Was pretty good, is less good = setback
North Korea = Was bad, is still bad = status quo
China = Was bad, is marginally better = improvement

I can't for the life o me see how that report can be read as anything other than that.

#L

 

[Liar]

Does picking your nose and eating it make you a cannibal? What about biting your fingernails?

Naturally removable parts are not considered cannibalism worthy tissue, afaik. Like sperm. "Yeah baby, be a good little cannibal and swallow my load." would be kind of a turn-off for me.

 

[mack_the_knife]

POWs are captured uniformed enemy soldiers.

In almost all past wars captured enemy combatants who were ununiformed were shot on the spot as spies and terrorists...oh yeah...terrorists.

Effectively, they waived their Geneva Convention rights when they picked up a gun and hid among the civilian populace to shoot at troops.

If the cowards would grab their set and face their 'unholy enemy' like a trooper, in a recognizable uniform, then when they were captured they would be treated as captured soldiers.

You can't have it both ways...be a sneaky git, then call yourself a captured soldier. Spies and 'insurgents' were shot on sight in the past, a tradition that should be proudly upheld today.

 

[Couture]

POWs are captured uniformed enemy soldiers.

In almost all past wars captured enemy combatants who were ununiformed were shot on the spot as spies and terrorists...oh yeah...terrorists.

Effectively, they waived their Geneva Convention rights when they picked up a gun and hid among the civilian populace to shoot at troops.

If the cowards would grab their set and face their 'unholy enemy' like a trooper, in a recognizable uniform, then when they were captured they would be treated as captured soldiers.

You can't have it both ways...be a sneaky git, then call yourself a captured soldier. Spies and 'insurgents' were shot on sight in the past, a tradition that should be proudly upheld today.

When you take off their uniforms and put them in a naked man pyramid, do they still have rights?

 

[mack_the_knife]

When you take off their uniforms and put them in a naked man pyramid, do they still have rights?

Very nice...IF they were captured in uniforms, yes, if not, no. Once captured, of course you take the uniforms, the naked man pyramid is optional.

However, we're quickly running out of hazing pranks to label as torture, so next we will consider denying them yoghurt or their choice of jell-o flavor as torture as well.

So far as I know, most of the people, if not all, still detained within Iraq were not uniformed soldiers. The POW's from the 'war' have already been reintegrated into the population, for the most part.

No Uniform+Combatant=Terrorist=No Rights
Uniform+Combatant=Soldier=Geneva Convention Protection

Interesting that no official UN sanctions have been handed down on the USA for these 'heinous' violations. That is because the hyperbolic crap would not stand up to actual scrutiny of the facts even in that biased and corrupt body.

To eggregiously misquote Jeanine Garofolo in 'Mystery Men' -
"You might want to put on a uniform if you're going to keep Jihading against the infidel today."

And before you shoot back that hazing doesn't result in deaths, please remember that about half a dozen college frat plebes die a year from hazing incidents. I didn't say it was a good idea, but it does not rise to the level of torture. And no - I wouldn't want it done to me, which is why I don't go about shooting at soldiers in my civvies then hiding behind a schoolbus full of kids.

 

[rgraham666]

(Spends a few minutes typing in some commands)

Ah. So that's who mack_the_knife is!

(Spends a few more minutes linking mack's computer to know Islamic blogs and websites)

(Phones Homeland Security)

Have fun, mack.

 

[mack_the_knife]

(Spends a few minutes typing in some commands)

Ah. So that's who mack_the_knife is!

(Spends a few more minutes linking mack's computer to know Islamic blogs and websites)

(Phones Homeland Security)

Have fun, mack.

Nice....so now I'm being threatened and/or framed because I express my view on a subject...Nice one for the Free speech people...thanks. I am finished with the forums now. I'll stick to submitting my stories and forget about interacting with the boobies.
You really think no one has tried to tar and feather others within this homelad security stuff? I'm sure it's been tried, but won't stick, sorry. I have a record as being a pain in the ass, and even as a royal annoyance to my local government, but doubt a terrorist label would stick beyong even a cursory examination of my life and activities.

 

[Couture]

Interesting that no official UN sanctions have been handed down on the USA for these 'heinous' violations. That is because the hyperbolic crap would not stand up to actual scrutiny of the facts even in that biased and corrupt body.

To eggregiously misquote Jeanine Garofolo in 'Mystery Men' -
"You might want to put on a uniform if you're going to keep Jihading against the infidel today."

And before you shoot back that hazing doesn't result in deaths, please remember that about half a dozen college frat plebes die a year from hazing incidents. I didn't say it was a good idea, but it does not rise to the level of torture. And no - I wouldn't want it done to me, which is why I don't go about shooting at soldiers in my civvies then hiding behind a schoolbus full of kids.

First of all, we have a veto in the UN. Everybody in the UN knows we have a veto.

Secondly, I don't know of any college pranks that involve german shepards terrifying prisoners. Keeping men awake for long periods using cold, lights, sounds etc. also qualifies as torture. Killing them. Hooding them and attaching wires to their genitals. Showing prisoners pictures of murdered men - "this can happen to you next". Turning them over to other countries for more extreme torture.

This is not something I want my country doing. You may be okay with it.

 

[rgraham666]

Nice....so now I'm being threatened and/or framed because I express my view on a subject...Nice one for the Free speech people...thanks. I am finished with the forums now. I'll stick to submitting my stories and forget about interacting with the boobies.
You really think no one has tried to tar and feather others within this homelad security stuff? I'm sure it's been tried, but won't stick, sorry. I have a record as being a pain in the ass, and even as a royal annoyance to my local government, but doubt a terrorist label would stick beyong even a cursory examination of my life and activities.

I was just pointing out that 'us' and 'them' is an imaginary line that can easily be moved.

By moving that line, I had hoped to point out that there is no 'them', just us. I had hoped by that by putting your gonads in the vise, even jokingly, and it was a joke, that maybe you would have rethought your position.

Shrugs. I should have realised how unlikely that was. Belief is so much easier than thought.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

I don't know how many prisoners are being held but the numbers are far less than the number of political prisoners held in China, Cuba, Iran, Viet Nam and North Korea, not to mention the suppression of ordinary human rights in those places. There are some abuses but hardly enough to make the American holding and treatment of prisoners "the primary and most significant source of the year’s setbacks on human rights."

You'd think so, wouldn't you?

The truth is, the "Land of the Free" has the highest percentage of its citizen in prison than any other nation in the world, including China, Russia, Korea or Viet Nam, Iran, Saudi Arabia, or Sadam's Iraq for that matter. This has been true for years if not decades.

http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/usa/incarceration/

Whether these are political prisoners or not is open to debate. China considers what we call "political prisoners" to be common criminals. I consider our incarnerated drug users to be political prisoners, in that they're only there for opposing their government's policies, not for damage to people or property. (Most of those incarcertaed in the US now are there for drug charges. Our prison population has quadrupled since 1980, when tough new drug laws wnet into effect.)

And saying, "Well, at least our gulags aren't as big as Stalin's" is not much of a consolation. We're torturing, we're denying basic human rights, we're betraying our principles, and to what end? For what?

And we go around feeling so fucking superior and moral. Land of the Free and Home of the Brave. Like we have any right to consider ourselves the "Good Guys". We're not. Not any more. We're down ther feeding on the bottom with the rest of the scum and showing the world what our values really are and Bush is pissed that someone else is telling it like it is.

He can stand up there and mouth off about Liberty and Freedom and Democracy and anything else he wants to. It's the actions that really do the talking, and our actions should be an outrage to any American who believes in the Constitution.

 

[cantdog]

Everybody's okay with anything done to the 'enemy.' That's the joy of nationalism.

We are hearing an argument from another head space. His rule about the Geneva rights is well taken. The Germans shot the Russian resistance, the French resistance, the Yugoslav resistance, the Finns, the Norwegians, and just about anybody who was resisting occupation. They had no uniforms. He advocates proudly shooting them today.

By the standards now prevailing internationally, there are two legitimate uses of armed force:
1. Self defense as a country.
2. Resistance to occupation. Citizens of a conquered country nearly always mount a resistance to the occupying troops. Masada, for example. Tito, Mao, Chiang, Kenyatta. We would do it, too, if invaded. I don't think we would hold off until someone found uniforms.

Resolutions condemning the occupation have indeed been vetoed. The record is not difficult to look up. Dozen resolutions about the Israeli occupation of areas already ceded by treaty have been vetoed as well. If you don't look, you don't see.

On the other hand, the measures being taken are not only resistance, but also car-bombing. Some are terrorists, some not. The news on the subject is controlled. Almost never do you see news, in this country, of legitimate resistance actions, but they continue.

Supporters of this administration who object to the killing of civilians in a military cause-- well. What can be said without being inflammatory? Let's just drop the hyperbole about busloads of kids. Shock and awe, dude.

As to leaving the board: if you like, of course. You are free. But anywhere on the Web, to join a political discussion is to find closed minds and excessive overblown argument. I don't believe it will be better for you elsewhere, and political discussions here do not happen as frequently as all that. They are avoidable, and I find there are useful features to the AH. Your call.

cantdog

 

[mack_the_knife]

I am leaving due to the implied threat that was delivered by the other poster. His claim that they are jokes fall on deaf ears after all the extreme rhetoric spewed forth against various peoples and institutions declaring that killing and terrorism are acceptable if its to keep down idealogies that they disagree with. Fuck with my ideas all you like, but don't fuck with me or mine. If I were a petty man, I would grow more irate and attempt to exact the kind of retribution that such a threat actually deserves.

"Bush is like Hitler, he kills small children and women and he's a Nazi, we should assassinate him." - oh, hehe, it was just a joke, we don't mean it. Say enough trash like that and some psycho might just decide to up and do 'er.
No all those were not in the same lunatic ravings, but they've all been said.

I'm not going to sit around and have people deliver threats to me, even jokingly, that could be brought about even if not likely.

I mainly came to the forums to discuss writing, and almost none of what gets discussed is about such, so I doubt I will miss out on much, honestly. If I want to cyber some chick, I can spam email my wife at the computer next to mine...

Had the discussion remained impersonal and simply politics, I would not have grown offended, but once MY name was dragged into the argument itself, the line was crossed. I never uttered a word against he posters on the forum, or tried to make them feel unsafe in their own little den.

There is an 'us' and a 'them' out there. There are a whole lot of people who would happily kill me and my wife and children if they could, then praise their god that they gonna get a mess 'o' virgins for blowing themselves up to kill us. Trying to tell me that they wouldn't and that if my defenders, in the body of US soldiers, were not in their country is bullshit. Those people have hated us for generations. I'm frankly tired of the idea of coddling these inhuman bastards that car bomb, skulk, and kidnap and behead (where's there geneva convention rights?). We've been acting in an unbelievably restrained manner since 9-11 in not turning that entire shithole into a massive slab of glass. Yes, there are good people there, or I suppose some of them aren't actively evil, but they seem to have little desire to kick the trash from their midst.

I, myself, have served in the armed forces, and though I was fortunate enough not to have to go to war in the name of my nation and my people, I would have, if I had been asked. No, I'm not idiot enough to go playing stupid games with terrorist prisoners, but then again, I know people who do stupid things every day with or without the involvement of others. Punish the people who broke the rules and regulations, do not tar and feather the entire nation who those people worked for.

To label the US as a oppresive state is utter fucking bullshit of the highest magnitude. I am a white trash bloody truck driver, and I live better than 90% of the world. Im so fucking opressed that I own a home, two cars and more electronics than I can shake my stick at. My ass if wide because I'm starving, and my kids are healthy, happy, and blissfully ignorant of the fact that there are people trying to kill them in the world, and still other people who would give away everything their father earned to make their life better in the name of 'levelling the playing field' for less fortunate people. If the other governments and nations of the world can't get their shit together enough to allow their people to prosper like we do in the USA, tough shit, change the government. If you cannot prosper in the USA, you're fucking not trying.

Don't whine about outsourcing, find a damn job that cannot be outsourced, if they want to hire a bunch of out-of-country truckers to come in and drive, let them...by the way they tried that, the momo's from lands time forgot wrecked the equipment, got into tons of accidents, violated driving rules and laws, and the whole stupid idea was scrapped about 4 years ago. You don't stick a $250,000 piece of equipment in the hands of a man who has never even owned a vcr. NO ONE IS GUARANTEED A FUCKING JOB, you earn them, by hard work and making yourself useful.

And yay, I'm not a friggin 'virgin' no more.

 

[BlackShanglan]

No Uniform+Combatant=Terrorist=No Rights
Uniform+Combatant=Soldier=Geneva Convention Protection

Hmm. Intriguing. Some quick Google results:

When Sadaam Hussein came to power in 1980, however, GDP stood at almost $130 billion and Iraq profited from one of the most advanced economies in the Middle East. Average income fell from $3,600 per person in 1980 to between $770 and $1,020 by 2001 and will be just $450-610 by the end of 2003, according to World Bank figures.

And of Afghanistan ...

... the average income is only 150 US Dollars per cap-ita per year.

So you're saying that before anyone in those countries chooses to contest the United States presence, they must first design, fabricate, and distribute uniforms to all involved. Using what money, precisely? And are you suggesting that if, for example, the United States was invaded by hostile forces tomorrow, anyone who couldn't lay hands on an official US armed forces uniform must either surrender the second amendment right to bear arms and form a militia, or face being shot on the spot when seen by enemy troops?

Uniforms are a very helpful thing in warfare, especially in one's own country; they spare civilians the dangerous results of having civilians and combatants look like each other, and they do help to clarify who gets what Geneva Convention rights. However, reality does sometimes intrude at times when those wishing to fight do not have a stack of uniforms conveniently close at hand.

Shanglan

 

[rgraham666]

Bye mack. Don't let the door hit you on the ass on the way out.

 

[Boxlicker101]

You'd think so, wouldn't you?

The truth is, the "Land of the Free" has the highest percentage of its citizen in prison than any other nation in the world, including China, Russia, Korea or Viet Nam, Iran, Saudi Arabia, or Sadam's Iraq for that matter. This has been true for years if not decades.

http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/usa/incarceration/

Whether these are political prisoners or not is open to debate. China considers what we call "political prisoners" to be common criminals. I consider our incarnerated drug users to be political prisoners, in that they're only there for opposing their government's policies, not for damage to people or property. (Most of those incarcertaed in the US now are there for drug charges. Our prison population has quadrupled since 1980, when tough new drug laws wnet into effect.)

And saying, "Well, at least our gulags aren't as big as Stalin's" is not much of a consolation. We're torturing, we're denying basic human rights, we're betraying our principles, and to what end? For what?

And we go around feeling so fucking superior and moral. Land of the Free and Home of the Brave. Like we have any right to consider ourselves the "Good Guys". We're not. Not any more. We're down ther feeding on the bottom with the rest of the scum and showing the world what our values really are and Bush is pissed that someone else is telling it like it is.

He can stand up there and mouth off about Liberty and Freedom and Democracy and anything else he wants to. It's the actions that really do the talking, and our actions should be an outrage to any American who believes in the Constitution.

Hi, Doc.

I agree that the "War on Drugs" is a disaster. It's mostly a war on drug users. Even so, drug dealers are out to make money and drug users are trying to feel good. There is no political motivation there. They are opposed to the policies of the government, and so am I, but the difference is that the people in jail are not there for expressing an opinion; they are there for breaking the laws. Many of them are dumb laws and should never have been passed but they are the law.

A "political prisoner" is a person in prison for expressing opposition to government policies, just like you and I are doing. I'm not worried about being arrested for writing this post. I an pribably more likely to be arrested some day for writing smut.

As for "a gulag", I merely say that the few hundred persons held in camps or prisons in Gitmo or other places cam't be compared to the millons held in Soviet prisons for decades. That is the subject of the thread.