Salon.com News | More coldblooded than Abu Ghraib — Geez.
Is it possible, following this damning report, that the Bush administration will try to block the Red Cross from visiting Guantnamo in the future?
I think the administration could say, “Look, if Geneva law does not apply, then we don’t want the Red Cross there. “
Is that a plausible scenario?
I think it’s very plausible, I do. Four years ago I never would have said that. I think now almost everything’s plausible. I’m sure it’s being discussed right now.
And if the U.S. did deny the Red Cross entre to prison camps, what league would that put us in?
That would put us alongside North Korea.
I think one of the things that’s so upsetting about this is that international law is based on reciprocity. And so when the United States starts undermining the system, it sort of gives a green light to everybody else to start undermining the system.
“I think one of the things thats so upsetting about this is that international law is based on reciprocity”
*cough* … um, the Gitmo and Abu Ghraib prisoners don’t represent any nation, so the word international doesn’t really apply.
Furthermore, these are the a**holes cut from the same cloth as the people who killed 400+ children in Beslan, Russia — the same people who cut off limbs in Afghanistan for such crimes as theft — the type of people who blow up buses with innocents.
Reciprocity? You bet!
They are getting reciprocity. Ivory tower intellectuals tend to not be “real”. Are you being “real”?
Btw, I believe that Yassar Arafat was a “hero” for about half of his life. The Israelis treated the Palestinians like sub-humans, and by hook or by crook, Arafat got the world to care about their plight. I have a great deal of sympathy for the Muslims living in those totalitarian regimes. Osama, regardless of what people think of him, will be recorded in history as the catalyst that brought justice to the Middle East (even if not in the way he thought).
To solve their problem, they need justice and hope brought to them by the sword if need be the case — meaning the cure is democracy; any change in a societal power structure causes pain — consider it surgery to remove a tumor, the body still has to heal, but they’ll be FAR better off in the long run.
Was Argentina better of with Pinochet? Was China better off with Mao? Was Panama better off with Nortiega or Nicaragua with Ortega? Was Spain better off with Franco? Dictators inhibit the natural growth of a society; the Middle East needs them gone.
Pinochet ruled Chile, not Argentina. And, as a Brazillian, I can say that: All the dictatorships in South America were backed by USA. We are better now without our dictators, but not thank to you Americans.
You support the dictators in the Muslin world and that’s why they hate you.
In my life, I’ve confounded the millitary when they tried to draft me; turned those skills to a positive end, counseling draft resisters during the VietNam War; and supported many movements of resistance to colonialism and imperialism — including armed resistance. That doesn’t lessen my respect for soldiers and their officers who fight and die for what they believe in. My collateral interest in military history is shared mostly by friends from the military who know I have always been on the “other side”. Their objectivity and standards are based on more than political loyalties or the Old Testament.
The rules of war absolutely are based on reciprocity and folks who justify torture and battlefield executions for whatever “right” to retaliate — provide justification for civilian terror or mistreatment of our own military and police around the world.
Chickens come home to roost, every time. The history of brutality in war is what prompted civilized nations and cultures to adopt such laws. If you want to take our nation outside the pale of civilization, then, don’t whine about the results. There is no shortage of faith-based fanatics who are equally unconcerned with law.
Those who justify ignoring global law and responsibility — from the international courts to the Geneva Codes — provide the premise for them to expand that base. As usual, the whole world is watching. Americans with principles still rooted in the Dark Ages don’t give a damn. They don’t give a damn about “furriners”. Regardless of lip service, they don’t give a damn about our own soldiers, either.
“An eye for eye only ends up making the whole world blind.”
Mohandas Gandhi
You say the system depends on reciprocity and you are right. The Geneva Convention is implicitly based on this, and you should read it before criticizing the military’s treatment of prisoners. They are acting entirely within the Convention, because the other side has not followed the protocol for a ‘non-state actor’. During World War II, Germans who acted like this were shot on sight.
“Non-State actor” is the predictable jive politician’s excuse for copping out on responsibility and law. Folks with reasonable knowledge of military history, know better. Folks who care for principle, know better.
Trials for war crimes are constituted for thugs who use the same kind of lame rationale, war after war. Pick your war! You want the massacre at Lidice in WW2, My Lai in Viet Nam or maybe ethnic cleansing by the Serbs? Does it sound any different to the folks in Darfur — or ask the Dine folk still living in Canyon de Chelly next to the dessicated stumps of fruit trees leveled by Kit Carson.
History still judges those who refuse to move ahead to the next level of culture and conduct as reactionaries and fools. I can’t recall any who succeeded in being recorded as guitless, either.
Fabio … “You support the dictators in the Muslin world and thats why they hate you.”
— You are correct and I am very well aware of this. It’s got to stop.
An eye for eye only ends up making the whole world blind.
Mohandas Gandhi
Comment by Frustrated Consumer
… and when the terrorists and jihadists get that message the world becomes a better place. The operations in Iraq and Afghanistan are facilitating in the transmission of that message.
Ed, your logic fails me. If Americans do not care about their soldiers, then why do we have so many of them? How is it that thousands of citizens decide to volunteer for the military each year? How is it that the citizenry consistently vote, including this election, for better security and stronger defense? How is it that both candidates in this election needed to show that they were strong on defense to have a chance of getting elected?
Americans care a great deal about foreigners, especially ones that are trying to fly the next 747 into a building or planning to strap c4 to their chest to blow up a bus of school children. Terrorists have committed far worse atrocities than we. They have been the ones to kidnap innocents and decapitate them publically. They are the ones that tried to take down the Twin Towers twice. They are the ones that took that British lady, who supported their side, and killed her. Specifically, they have intentionally killed innocents for political gain. Enough is enough. The middle-east has had sufficient time to fix these problems on their own and has failed miserably.
Thomas, I don’t mean to demean your capacity for reason; but, you honestly haven’t advanced beyond Debate 101. Submitting Strawman arguments may be effective at, say, an American Legion bar on a Friday night. Otherwise, it’s only a useful tactic to say to anyone who looks or listens — “here is what I believe” — regardless of how out of touch with reality those beliefs may be.
Someday or other, if John decides to add a forum to his multiple websites, I’d gladly discuss the invalidity of your premises about [1] why many young people enlist in the military? Hint — it usually has a lot to do with lousy employment/education opportunities where they live. [2] Better security and defense? Take a peek, sometime, at the growing numbers of those who hate the United States enough to sacrifice their lives while attacking us. Do you honestly think it’s on the decline? [3] Both candidates were militarists of one flavor or another? It’s called opportunism. One might question Bush the Little’s commitment to his Crusade [if he wasn’t such an obvious faith-based demagogue] and simply lay it off to Rove’s bombast.
As for your litany of crimes against the US, all too sadly our military and foreign policy has been dedicated to a 20th Century flavor of imperialism that has been profitable enough to satisfy parochial and small-minded voters. Is there something new about that process? Nations with a populace that resisted that siren call are the exception, not the rule. Say, for example, workingclass opposition in 19th Century England to their government’s support for the Confederacy.
At the end of WW2, you and I could look across the borders of our land and see a world of respect and admiration for what the United States had done in that war. Of course, if you look at an accurate history of that war — as taught at our military academies — you’d learn it wasn’t Douglas McArthur, John Wayne and the American Way that won that war.
The Brits learned quickly their colonial way of life was about to end. The French took a bit longer. They both stood back and dropped the White Man’s Burden in the lap of Uncle Sugar — and our nation spent the next half-century pouring all that good will down the toilet of history.
The Ugly American isn’t any less a reality under George Bush than it was under Richard Nixon — or any other president who maintained various Israeli governments as hired hand, from the Middle East to South Africa. Do you think most Latin American citizens would vent less spittle on George W’s limo, than they did on Richard Nixon’s — if they were allowed to get close enough?
Yeah, you got a whole lotta love out there! Chickens are still coming home to roost.
Ed, I wasnt attacking you personally, so I fail to see how that qualifies as a straw man argument. That would imply that you failed Debate 101 in recognizing a straw man argument. Many of your comments would qualify however (e.g. imperialism that has been profitable enough to satisfy parochial and small-minded voters as an example of attacking the quality of the voters instead of their reasons behind their voting pattern.). My comment about security relates to Americans who feel that those topics are important (i.e. that they care about). That there are many people in the world that hate us is not in and of itself evidence that Americans do not care. Likewise, that there are many people in the world that appreciate us is not evidence that Americans do care. While you ranted a bit at the end of your post, I still argue that the vast majority of Americans do care about their military personnel. They do care about foreigners, however where you and they (and I) appear to differ is in the methods of expression of that care.
*cough* um, the Gitmo and Abu Ghraib prisoners dont represent any nation, so the word international doesnt really apply.
Americans are taking people from Afganistan and Iraq and shipping them to holding-pens in Cuba. How does that not qualify as “international”?? 🙁
We are expected to believe that all the people being held at Gitmo and Abu Ghraib are murderous scum – but several people have been released from Gitmo, when it was found they were not really “enemy combatants”. And, after the Abu Gharab scandal was publicized, we started releasing people from that prison – by the truckload. How long would we have kept them imprisoned, if the scandal hadn’t caused an examination of that prison’s operations??
We (the US of A) claim to be the leader of the free world – but we seem ready to chuck our principles out the window when it suits us. Is that our public stance: “We’ll try to act civilized – but if you act like sh*#heads, then we’ll act like sh*#heads, too!”
Don’t hold your breath, waiting for me to rally-’round that banner.
Mike, you can try to split atoms with your logic but it’s a waste of time. It’s not a perfect world out there and only fools believe it is. The US makes mistakes just like everyone else.
Alternate points of view are valuable, in fact they are imperative and are worthy of consideration.
Everyone doesn’t have to agree, just enough people to win an election and that election is over so whether or not you rally around a banner isn’t really material, is it?
The US makes mistakes just like everyone else.
I don’t mind that mistakes are made, as it is only human to make them.
I dislike the attempts at rationalization for our mistakes, along your lines of “… these are the a**holes cut from the same cloth as the people who…”.
If we are intentionally treating these people harshly – because they are murderous scum – then we should have the sack to admit it.
(I’ve long supported the death penalty for muderous scum in US prisons, why would I recoil from harsh treatment of foreign murderous scum?).
If the treatment of these people is not “approved procedure”, or the harsh treatment is being inflicted on those who are not murdeous scum – then we should admit our mistake and take actions to prevent it from happening in the future – not rationalize it away.
“… so whether or not you rally around a banner isnt really material, is it?”
Oh, Hell no! 🙂
Since when has anything I do or say had any effect on how the world actually works? (I got used to that a long time ago.) Makes it hard to keep voting in elections – knowing that – but I still do.
“… and that election is over …”
But the war isn’t, and the possibility of making mistakes never will be – and those facts of life don’t depend on who won the election, do they?