(no subject)

[beretta.livejournal.com]

Comments

[beretta.livejournal.com]

No thats not what the cartoon is saying, but morally and factually a few hundred inmates who are in a legal grey area is not the same as millions of people rounded up and murdered in WWII. But there are those who presume they are the same and are trying to make the US the "bad guys" because they might get slapped in the face or have their religious beliefs offended.

[kensson.livejournal.com]

Um... so a cartoon of a man with an Amnesty suitcase saying the quality of the snack food reminds him of the holocaust isn't saying that human rights groups equate bad snack food with the holocaust? Saying that a prison where people are sent without a proper trial and subjected to ill-treatment is like a gulag isn't the same thing as saying the US is as bad as Stalinist USSR or Nazi Germany.

As far as I can make out, the reasoning of people criticising Guantanamo is that, if the US wants to be a global arbiter of good and evil, it should have immaculate human rights standards itself.

[johnraptor.livejournal.com]

Um... so a cartoon of a man with an Amnesty suitcase saying the quality of the snack food reminds him of the holocaust isn't saying that human rights groups equate bad snack food with the holocaust?

Not really. It's just an exaggeration to make a point, and not meant to be taken literally.

[kensson.livejournal.com]

Well, there's exaggeration to make a point, and there's trivialising serious problems in an attempt to undermine widely-respected human rights organisations and to brush those problems under the carpet. But point taken.

[zarq.livejournal.com]

So what if "other people have been worse"? Evil is evil. "At least we're not murdering millions of Jews" isn't a good excuse for torture.

Well said.

[-hiddenwolf-.livejournal.com]

*claps*

[somefantastic10.livejournal.com]

Let me be the third to say that you make a really good point.

"just" a few hundred inmates...

[jlassen.livejournal.com]

A “few hundred inmates” who are deprived of their legal rights, and tortured by the US government is a blot on the reputation of our country, and the Great Shame that we will spend years trying to live down.

These "few hundred people in a grey area" have removed the US from any Moral high ground that had in the post 9/11 global community. We went from having world's sympathy, and a true global coalition willing to fight terrorism to being universal reviled by our former allies. And the torture of people in Gitmo and elsewhere has been a prime contributor to this alienation.

Once you start bending the rules, and applying them selectively, you loose all moral authority. And that is what the current administration has done... destroyed this countries standing in the international community, and destroyed every non-hypocritical American’s ability to stand up and be proud of the actions of his or her country. One DOES NOT spread freedom and democracy by torturing and illegally detaining people – Even relatively small numbers of people.

Violations of the Constitution, International law and the Geneva Convention can not stand, even on a small scale. If they do, the terrorists truly have one.

I have one name for you… and if you have any respect for what our country has once stood for, If you have any respect for our Constitution, you will understand. If all you are is a Republican Party cheer leader, you won’t “get it”.

Jose Padilla. (http://www.chargepadilla.org/) US citizen. Held without charges indefinitely for over 3 years. The Bush regime contiues to make legal arguments that the president has the right to detain anybody he wants, indefinately. THIS is the face of “the war on terrah". And it is nothing to be proud of. This is the fate of all of us, if we do not raise or voices and say "no more".

Re: "just" a few hundred inmates...

[beretta.livejournal.com]

Fuck Jose Padilla and everyone like him :)

We still have moral ground above terrorists, always will!

The constitution does not protecet forieners.

As far as international law goes they are in a grey area and the Geneva convention covers soldiers, not criminals.

Re: "just" a few hundred inmates...

[johnraptor.livejournal.com]

We still have moral ground above terrorists, always will!

Says who? We've already lost the moral high ground in the eyes of some countries. Granted, some of them are terrorist dictatorships looking for any excuse to hate us, so their opinions don't count for much, but my point is that our moral ground is determined by our actions. If we act immoraly, we lose the moral high ground. To say that we'll never lose it no matter what just isn't true.

The constitution does not protect foriegners. ...they are in a grey area and the Geneva convention covers soldiers, not criminals.

And because something is legal (or even not strictly illegal) does that make it morally sound? If we wish to keep the moral high ground and continue to hold our country up as better than the rest, shouldn't we do more and act better than just what is strictly required by international law?

Re: "just" a few hundred inmates...

[beretta.livejournal.com]

Says our allies who are still with us. We may not be as "popular" or well liked as we usually are but our allies would not stay with us if we totally abandonded our morals. And at the end of the day, I'll take the worst American over the best terrorist.

Those who do not agree with the US position on terrorism are playing the morality card, saying we are no good because of some misconduct of a few bad soldiers. But at the end of the day, terror suspects are better in jail than in the streets.

Opponents of such things as Gitmo are looking for a utopian prison where nothing bad ever happens, thats not a realistic goal. I think the US is doing a satisfactory job of handling prisoners with some problems along the way of course. Overall I'd rather be held captive by the US then by a bunch of terrorists.

Re: "just" a few hundred inmates...

[johnraptor.livejournal.com]

First of all, I'm not looking to make Gitmo a utopian prison where everyone is happy and no one every gets questioned or their feelings hurt. I'm just not as satisfied as some people are that we're doing the best we can to protect all prisoners basic human rights and especially to protect the rights of those who may be innocent.

As far as our allies still saying we have the high moral ground, that doesn't really mean anything. The terrorists' allies think they have the high ground too, as did the Nazis' allies. (I hesitate to bring up Nazis, because the comparison is WAY overused, but I think it illustrates my point accurately in this case)

I also don't buy the line about "a few bad soldiers," but that's beside the point.

I do agree with you that it's probably still much better in most American run prisons than terrorist run ones, but being better than terrorists isn't saying much.

Re: "just" a few hundred inmates...

[kmilligan.livejournal.com]

The constitution does not protecet forieners.

This is not true. The prisoners are in a legal gray area, this is true, but the constitution does apply to foreigners. The constitution does not grants rights, it restrains the government from intruding upon our pre-existing natural rights, and those kinds of rights don't stop at a national border.

Re: "just" a few hundred inmates...

[goumindong.livejournal.com]

And Amendment XIV extended those rights to include equal protection of the laws.

Re: "just" a few hundred inmates...

[pentha.livejournal.com]

We still have moral ground above terrorists, always will!

Sure, whatever is helping you sleep at night. Even if the vast majority of the world -especially recently- believes that you are as much terrorists as them... :)

Re: "just" a few hundred inmates...

[beretta.livejournal.com]

Well the day you catch me or anyone else in America suicide bombing a movie theater or crowded shop, maybe your statement will have some validity. Until then its pretty pathetically pointless.

Re: "just" a few hundred inmates...

[pentha.livejournal.com]

Yeah, nevermind bombing whole towns and convoys and killing people you claim that you protect like civilians, journalists, embassies, et all-- terrorism is blowing yourself up in theaters or shops ^^

[insidersav.livejournal.com]

because they might get slapped in the face or have their religious beliefs offended.

Im fairly confident that getting slapped in the face and/or having one's religious beliefs be offended is the LEAST of what is being done to those prisoners. Especially the ones who died - its not often that a number of prisoners at ANY american detention facility just suddenly and inexplicably die.

Its also not fair to the ACLU, Red Cross, or Amnesty Int'l to be critized over matters such as this, because without them, who would be out helping the millions of impovershed and displaced and starving and ill and devastated and endangered peoples of the world? Sending money helps, yes, but it doesn't do anything unless these organizations are there to use it in constructive, organized, tangible ways.

[ccnuggie.livejournal.com]

Who has died at Gitmo?

[jlassen.livejournal.com]

No one yet, but several people have in Afganistan, and several people have in Iraq, where the Gitmo Torture polices have been exported to.

[beretta.livejournal.com]

The ACLU needs an ACLUE.

They pick and choose their battles, and I think they are being more political now than humanitarian. The ACLU and Amnesty take on lots of battles, but why is it the only ones that get press releases are the ones that try to make a few isolated incidents of Koran desecration a huge big deal?

[ccnuggie.livejournal.com]

Piss on the bible = good thing.

Piss on the Koran = death to the infidels!

-ACLU

[goumindong.livejournal.com]

Because its not a few isolated incidents of Koran desecration?

Its hanging people by chains, and chaining them in the fetal positon in a freezing room for 24+ hours.

Its not letting people use a bathroom and forcing them to be chained in that freezing or boiling room while on the ground in their own shit and piss.

These are the things that they are raving about. The Koran incedents are in the news because they are part of the issue, a small part.

So, why do we only see the Koran issues?

Because the main stream media is a largly conservative medium, and they continue to be supported by the status quo. They are big corporations and generally do not act in ways contrary to their parent companies best interest.

Back long before the whole big "outsourcing" issue was going on, GE was outsourcing many many jobs. The reason you didnt hear about it before it was a big issue, or when it was a big issue, is that GE owns one of the major media companies. Such, they wouldnt touch it.

Now, the major media benefits from continuing to cooperate with this administration, and is partialy scared of being labeled partisan. Such the "he said, she said" political commentary and analysis.

So you get an amalgamation of issues where this is labeled a partisan political issue, then its passed on into the news, where many people mainly ignore it. At which point it becomes a "he said, she said" issue, and then its whatever is sensational.

"Durbin says we are nazi's!" sounds a lot better than

"Durbin cited a FBI report detaling abuses at Gitmo!"

And of course, once it gets to the pubbies, they will turn it around and make the issue the dumb comment, and not the substance.

So its a combination of non-colluding factors that create the conditions.