Our very own Gulag...

[michaeledward]

Amnesty International. They rank the US "a top offender," according to every news account about the report that came out a few days ago when this topic was news.

first = a top offender

That looks like a falacy to me .... while the first is a top offender, not all top offenders are first.

But, that little logic trap aside, have you read the report?

http://web.amnesty.org/report2005/index-eng

The report does report abuses against human rights by the United States. Are you denying that these abuses took place? or Are you denying that what took place was an 'abuse'?

I have not read the entire report. But in the sections I have reviewed, I did not notice any 'ranking' ....that the U.S. was either a 'top offender' or 'first', as posited in your posts (news reports aside). Here, however is a section of the report that I think comes to bear on your question as to why the United States should be held to a 'standard' - (any standard, whether higher than that of other countries or not).

The USA, as the unrivalled political, military and economic hyper-power, sets the tone for governmental behaviour worldwide. When the most powerful country in the world thumbs its nose at the rule of law and human rights, it grants a licence to others to commit abuse with impunity and audacity. From Israel to Uzbekistan, Egypt to Nepal, governments have openly defied human rights and international humanitarian law in the name of national security and “counter-terrorism”.

By not living up to the standard we have set for ourselves, in law, treaty, and word, we make the world a more dangerous place.

 

[rmcrobertson]

1. That's odd, "Sharp Phil." I'm still working to teach students that invective and italics are poor substitutes for rational thought, clear expression and evidence. For example, it might be useful to consider that if one considers, "the media," hopelessly biased, one had best avoid trusting, "every news account," when the original remains so easily available.

2. Mr. Parsons, I'd appreciate it if you'd cite actual examples. For that matter, I'd appreciate it even more if you'd discuss the questions I've raised rather than indulging yourself in personal attacks. And two other points: a) I prefer "Robert," but if you must be formal, it's, "Dr. Robertson;" b) I'm afraid that in general, I don't raise irrelevant issues. I simply see things differently than you. For example, several months ago I mentioned Freud's "bucket joke;" ("I never borrowed your bucket, I gave it back already, and anyway it had a hole in it when you lent it to me in the first place") far from being irrelevant, it remains an excellent illustration of the defensive structures ("We didn't do this, we fixed the problem already, and anyway everybody else behaves even worse") visible on this thread.

3. I see that we're not dealing with what I conceive to be the issues: the AI report (which as was pointed out, no one has so far been able to contradict with evidence of any sort), and President Bush's explicit statements to the UN about our moral responsibilities as a country:

"The founding documents of the United Nations and the founding documents of America...assert that human beings should never be reduced to objects of power or commerce, because their dignity is inherent. Both require -- both recognize a moral law that stands above men and nations, which must be defended and enforced by men and nations. And both point the way to peace, the peace that comes when all are free. We secure that peace with our courage, and we must show that courage together.

May God bless you all."

Those are great words, the sort of words that I was brought up on, the sorts of words that taught me to believe in this country as something special--a belief I still hold, for all the fantasies about hating America.

I am sorry to see that some Amerians have so little faith in their country, and such willingness to buy into the lies told by cheap hustlers and greedheads over the last forty years.

 

[Cryozombie]

MOD NOTE.

Please keep this conversation polite and respectful.

-Technopunk
-Martial Talk Moderator

 

[sgtmac_46]

Where's the report on how al-Qaeda treats their prisoners?

I didn't know Al-Queda took prisoners.

 

[sgtmac_46]

first = a top offender

That looks like a falacy to me .... while the first is a top offender, not all top offenders are first.

But, that little logic trap aside, have you read the report?

http://web.amnesty.org/report2005/index-eng

I'm glad you noticed some of the logical fallacies, AI hopes most people don't. Though I know that saying so was not your intent, you were more factually correct than you intended. AI hopes to present the perception that the US is the top offender, even though factually saying so would destroy their credibility, insinuation goes a long way toward deniability.

The report does report abuses against human rights by the United States. Are you denying that these abuses took place? or Are you denying that what took place was an 'abuse'?

I'll deny that many of the allegations are accurate portrayals of what occurred. I'll further state that the entire report takes most of what it reports out of context and inserts quite a lot of insinuation in the place of facts.

I have not read the entire report. But in the sections I have reviewed, I did not notice any 'ranking' ....that the U.S. was either a 'top offender' or 'first', as posited in your posts (news reports aside). Here, however is a section of the report that I think comes to bear on your question as to why the United States should be held to a 'standard' - (any standard, whether higher than that of other countries or not).

Of course they won't assert that the US is the top offender, they'll merely insinuate that. Fact is, AI still has to maintain some resemblance of credibility, so they won't make a flat out assertion of that sort knowing they can't factually support it. What they WILL do is make insinuations that, coupled with conjecture, support that idea. They'll leave the flat out, baseless accusations to their radical stooges on the internet, being as they are immune from the loss of any credibility, being devoid as they are of it anyway. They, in turn, will recycle the accusations as pure gospel, citing amnesty internation as PROOF positive of the accusations.

By not living up to the standard we have set for ourselves, in law, treaty, and word, we make the world a more dangerous place.

Exactly what standard are we not living up to, the standard we as a people set for ourselves, or the standard that the radical left and other nations wish to apply TO us? I think more the later.

 

[michaeledward]

So, let's see if I can follow this.

Anyone who actually believes the United States ranks first among human rights offenders

rebuttal comment ... blah blah blah

Amnesty International. They rank the US "a top offender," according to every news account about the report

rebuttal comment ... blah blah blah

Of course they won't assert that the US is the top offender, they'll merely insinuate that.

Look how these accusations go from concrete, to something less solid; mere insinuations.

Okay, let's look at Amnesty International's accusations

http://web.amnesty.org/report2005/usa-summary-eng

1 - The United States continues to work to undermine the International Criminal Court.
2 - Greater than 500 detainees are held in Guantanamo Bay Detention (Some under 18). The United States Supreme Court has ruled these detainees do fall under the jurisdiction of the United States Federal Court System. No detainee has had the lawfullness of his detention reviewed under the Federal Court System.
3 - Throughout Afghanistan and Iraq, over 50,000 persons have been detained and were routinely denied access to lawyers and families. The International Committee of the Red Cross has not had access to all of these detainees.
4 - The United States held some detainees at undisclosed locations. There are allegations of 'rendition', transferring prisoners to other countries where they are subjected to torture and other ill-treatment.
5 - The United States is detaining 'enemy combatants' without access to the legal system.
6 - The United States currently is detaining two 'Prisoners-of-Conscience'.
7 - Abuse of immigration detainees in Passaic County Jail, under the Department of Homeland Security.
8 - Use of excessive force by Law Enforcement. More than 40 people died after being struck by Law Enforcement 'Tasers'.
9 - 59 People were executed, including some who were under the age of 18 when the capital crime was committed, and including some with histories of serious mental illness.

These nine items are detailed by the Amnesty International Report.

I'll deny that many of the allegations are accurate portrayals of what occurred.

Which of these items do you believe is inaccurately portrayed?

I am a pretty far-left-kind-of-guy (not, however a stooge). Here is the list of accusations. I am listing these accusations as proof that they are included in the Amnesty International report. I will patiently wait for evidence that these events are somehow inaccurate in their content, or inaccurate in their inclusion in the report.

 

[ginshun]

Okay, let's look at Amnesty International's accusations

http://web.amnesty.org/report2005/usa-summary-eng

1 - The United States continues to work to undermine the International Criminal Court.
2 - Greater than 500 detainees are held in Guantanamo Bay Detention (Some under 18). The United States Supreme Court has ruled these detainees do fall under the jurisdiction of the United States Federal Court System. No detainee has had the lawfullness of his detention reviewed under the Federal Court System.
3 - Throughout Afghanistan and Iraq, over 50,000 persons have been detained and were routinely denied access to lawyers and families. The International Committee of the Red Cross has not had access to all of these detainees.
4 - The United States held some detainees at undisclosed locations. There are allegations of 'rendition', transferring prisoners to other countries where they are subjected to torture and other ill-treatment.
5 - The United States is detaining 'enemy combatants' without access to the legal system.
6 - The United States currently is detaining two 'Prisoners-of-Conscience'.
7 - Abuse of immigration detainees in Passaic County Jail, under the Department of Homeland Security.
8 - Use of excessive force by Law Enforcement. More than 40 people died after being struck by Law Enforcement 'Tasers'.
9 - 59 People were executed, including some who were under the age of 18 when the capital crime was committed, and including some with histories of serious mental illness.

These nine items are detailed by the Amnesty International Report.

Which of these items do you believe is inaccurately portrayed?

None of them I suppose, however:

That is the list of things that everyone is up in arms over?

1- What exactly does that mean? Not letting our soldiers be charged with crimes by some European court? Let the undermining continue I say.

2- 10 of whom have actually claimed to have been mistreated.

3- Basically the same claim as #2 except in the middle of a war zone. Sorry for not shuffling off a team of lawyers to defend the POWs. Maybe if we just beheaded them no body would notice?

4- So maybe the US has secret prisoners, and maybe they are being moved around. Quite a damning claim there.

5- Again, same basic claim as 2 and 3.

6 - Who are they and what exactly did they do? If it is true that they are being held for nothing then let them go. That one I can't make a judgement on without specifics.

7 - Seems to be that the guards say one thing, the prisoners say something else. AI takes the word of the prisoners over the guards. Believe who you want I suppose.

8 - Hmmm people killed with Tasers? I have read other things about this. Doesn't really seem to fit into the catagory of humane rights violations to me. More that there needs to be better training for officers on when and how to use tazers. Also, how many people would have been killed if we didn't use tazers? How many people would have to be stopped with gunfire instead? Tazers are less leathal, not non-leathal. This is probably the weakest claim on the list.

9 - So what? Why should it matter if the guy is 17 when he raped and murdered a bunch of people? And didn't the Supreme Court in its infinite wisdom just remove like 30 or 40 people from death row because of this very thing? Cases should be judged on individual merit IMO. The age of the accused shouldn't matter, wheather or not he knew what he / she was doing is all that should matter.



Honestly, if this is the most damning list of things that AI can come up with to try and claim that the USA is one of the worlds top human rights violators, than I can feel pretty secure in not giving a damn what AI has to say.

To each his own.

 

[Gemini]

Donald Rumsfeld is addressing this right now on all the news channels.

 

[Tgace]

People believe whatever supports their view of the world...or their country. Take the Taser issue. Thats been gone over many times in this forum, there are many sides and issues regarding it. If however you want to believe that the police are abusive jackboots who enjoy killing people with electricity...well I guess you take the one facet that supports your bias.

 

[michaeledward]

Honestly, if this is the most damning list of things that AI can come up with to try and claim that the USA is one of the worlds top human rights violators, than I can feel pretty secure in not giving a damn what AI has to say.

To each his own.

Again, someone claiming that Amnesty International is stating that the U.S. is a 'top human rights violator'.

Can you show me where the Amnsety International Report states that?

The report documents more than 140 countries. I did not see any rankings. But it seems that some people keep wanting to ascribe to Amnesty International rankings, and use these non-existant rankings to discount the accusations.

 

[rmcrobertson]

A lot of what's been written in response is simple nonsense--for example, the claim that AI ranked our country as a, "top offender," followed up by the truly absurd, "well, no, they didn't but then they wouldn't they just insinuated it but no, I don't care to provide any proof of that claim either"--or a refusal to actually deal with the report.

What the report says--and again, I see that there's a refusal to note that AI includes almost every country on earth, not just this one--with regard to the United States boils down to this:

1. The US is the only superpower on the planet, and is currently engaged in at least two wars as part of a war against terrorism.

2. Despite its extended history of acting reasonably well with regard to human rights, at present the country seems to be violating those principles in several basic and serious ways.

3. The country currently has several thousand, "detainees," kept incommunicado in camps around the world, and denies that these people have any of the basic rights (including rights not to be tortured) outlined in a range of treaties and accords to which we are signatory.

4. As a result, people clearly have been beaten, tortured, and in a few cases killed while in U.S custody. The country does not seem interested in a serious investigation, let alone changing its policies.

5. At home, the US continues the death penalty, which AI opposes. We also have currently on Death Row a number of insane or mentally retarded inmates, as well as many who received laughably-bad trials.

That's pretty much it. Now I realize that some have spent the last three pages rolling around in Freud's bucket joke ("We never did any of these things, we corrected the problems, and anyway everybody else is worse") or in completely unsubstantiated claims that AI is somehow biased, but maybe somebody would like to try producing rebutting evidence or at least reasoned comment?

Until that happens, looks to me like denial--at best. At worst, looks to me like an ideologically-driven refusal to consider moral responsibilities.

 

[Rich Parsons]

2. Mr. Parsons, I'd appreciate it if you'd cite actual examples. For that matter, I'd appreciate it even more if you'd discuss the questions I've raised rather than indulging yourself in personal attacks. And two other points: a) I prefer "Robert," but if you must be formal, it's, "Dr. Robertson;" b) I'm afraid that in general, I don't raise irrelevant issues. I simply see things differently than you. For example, several months ago I mentioned Freud's "bucket joke;" ("I never borrowed your bucket, I gave it back already, and anyway it had a hole in it when you lent it to me in the first place") far from being irrelevant, it remains an excellent illustration of the defensive structures ("We didn't do this, we fixed the problem already, and anyway everybody else behaves even worse") visible on this thread.

Mr. Robertson,

You first issue of citing points, I will take the time later to do so.

Issue a) May I quote you from an e-mail you sent me about, How I must Address you and address you with respect?

Issue b) This arguement if applied to you in this case could be applied to others with you in other cases, but you do not accept such arguements. Why should I accept them from you know?

As to my Bucket, I do not remember you borrowing any bucket, and my issue with you acting like a moderator about staying on topic, but do not care about other threads, as long as your agenda is heard, even if it from a differnt point of view then mine as you state.

More later after work, as I do have a job I must attend too.

:asian:

 

[rmcrobertson]

Was there anything you wanted to say about the topic?

 

[Tgace]

Hmmm which is worse, "personal attacks" (read:criticism I dont appreciate) or whimpy passive aggressive tactics like saying "some people are"..."I notice some posters", "one wants to know why some people" in association with comparisons to Hitler, Fascists, etc. etc. ?

At least "some people" get right to the point.

 

[Gemini]

Robert,

Just want to address a couple of points.

2. Despite its extended history of acting reasonably well with regard to human rights, at present the country seems to be violating those principles in several basic and serious ways..

This may or may not be a true statement. Do you really believe that during the cold war, there wasn't the occasional "interrogation"? I don't believe that we've ever walked on water. We're just able to access information faster than we used to. It's a very real world with very real threats and we, as any other country will do what we have to do to protect ourselves. I don't believe (though no, I can't prove it) that it's ever been any other way.

3. The country currently has several thousand, "detainees," kept incommunicado in camps around the world, and denies that these people have any of the basic rights (including rights not to be tortured) outlined in a range of treaties and accords to which we are signatory.

While no one is arguing that there are detainees, the following strikes me as a "sloppy" representation of facts.

While at least 10 more detainees were transferred to the base from Afghanistan during the year, more than 100 others were transferred to their home countries for continued detention or release.

Detained for an undisclosed period of time and released. If they were transferred home for continued detention, there was probably a good reason for it.

about 50,000 people had been detained during US military and security operations.

Past tense. To what degree were they being detained? hours? weeks? years? Probably a varying degree of lengths, but again, a very general and misleading statement. What were they being detained for? Potential connections to terrorism. Probably not going to get a lot of support given what may have happened if they weren't detained.

A number of detainees, reported to be those considered by the US authorities to have high intelligence value, were alleged to remain in secret detention in undisclosed locations. In some cases, their situation amounted to “disappearance”. Some individuals were believed to have been held in secret locations for as long as three years. The refusal or failure of the US authorities to clarify the whereabouts or status of the detainees, leaving them outside the protection of the law for a prolonged period, clearly violated the standards of the UN Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance.

Allegations that the US authorities were involved in the secret transfer of detainees between countries, exposing detainees to the risk of torture and ill-treatment, continued.

No proof, just allegations. These aren't "leading" statements? Statements written in this fashion don't "lean" in any direction?

You, more than anyone I've read posts from here require solid statements. How then do you justify this type of reporting? I find it shaky at best. How about they stop reporting allegations as fact and stick to issues like Abu Ghraib, that have been substantiated. Even then, maybe acknowledge that we don't condone that behavior and are dealing with it, which of cousre, was a small detail left out. I've read this three times now and am alarmed by the lack of real facts contained.

Regards,

 

[Michael Billings]

Please keep this thread on topic and do not make personal attacks.

Thanks,
-Michael Billings
-Super Moderator--

 

[ginshun]

Just to clarify, I honestly don't catagorically deny any of the claims made by AI. I do however find all the claims to be either based on allegations, very shakey evidence (if any) or I just plain think that what they are alleging isn't all that bad.

And as far as AI not claiming that the US is a top human rights violator, what would you say is implied by comparing GITMO to the Gulag, a system pretty well accepted as one of the top human rights violation areas in history? I love how it is so easy to draw conclutions one way, but absolute stated black and white evidence is required the other way.

You guys can decide for yourselves as to how much you value this report. I know I have.

 

[rmcrobertson]

1. "Gemini," has a point or two--with which I disagree, but so what?

2. I'd say that AI was being very careful to distinguish between what they can document, what they've had reports of and can substantiate, and what they have had reports of but cannot altogether verify.

3. Is anything in the AI report inconsistent with a) the Bush government's explicit theories of, "preventative detention," and, "illegal non-combatants," b) what we have good documentation of having occurred in Afghanistan, Iraq and Cuba; c) statements by posters on this very thread that they don't care what happens to accused terrorists because you can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs?

4. Our Constitution, our laws, and our international agreements say explicitly that some official's, "having a good reason," to want people grabbed is not nearly enough. At the very least, officials must speedily justify their actions, allow accused access to counsel, begin a legal proceeding of some sort--and our government has explicitly and repeatedly refused to explain their actions (or even exactly who they grabbed), denied the right to counsel of any sort whatsoever, and refused to allow any legal proceedings.

5. Have you read about Maher Arar? a few months after 9/11. he was grabbed changing planes in NYC--he's a Canadian citizen originally from Syria--who'd been placed on a watch list for reasons that have never been explained, was kept incommunicado (an unnamed official quoted in the NYT remarked, "We wanted more information...the only way we wouldn't get it is if we let him go"), subsequently shipped to Syria, not Canada (Rep. Markey of Massachusetts is quoted as saying, "The reason the US government sent Mr. Arar to Syria and not Canada is that Syria tortures people and Canada doesn't"), kept in a cell for ten months and beaten, "with a steel cable," and has never been charged, let alone convicted, of a damned thing. Syrian officals are quoted as saying, "There was nothing there." Apparently at his mosque, he'd met the brother of a wanted Al Quaida suspect once; and once, while trying to get cheap ink-jet cartridges for his businesses, he'd talked to somebody who'd later been suspected, got grabbed, was shipped to Syria, and got tortured.

OK, watch the man if necessary. Hell, tap his phone after you get a warrant. Maybe he needs to be on a watch list for plane flight--he wasn't, apparently; he took a flight with a few stops to use frequent-flyer miles, landed in Tunisia, and that's why he got grabbed. Question him if there's a reason; why not? Arrest his butt if you've got--sorry to mention technical details and the law--something resembling probable cause.

We yanked him off an airplane, locked him up for two weeks, shipped him to Syria where we knew he'd be tortured, and eventually dumped him back on the street. Because some unnamed government official thought it might be a good idea. No crime, no warrant, no evidence, no nothing. And--minor detail--no apparent intelligence gathered at all.

OK, show of hands--why is this OK?

One other minor point: philosophically (and historically) speaking, the reason we protect EVERYBODY'S rights is that this is the only way to protect YOUR rights. That way, YOU don't have to worry about the government grabbing YOU some dark and stormy night because, say, some "unnamed official," who was embarassed about his department's recent screwups got a report that you'd been seen at a gun club talking to some guy in the next booth whose cousin was suspected of being an Al Quaida member.

 

[ginshun]

Nobody is going to tell you its OK, because its not. That was a valid case of wrong doing. To somehow imply, if that is what you are doing, that this type of thing is the norm rather than the exception would require some evidence, like you are so fond of asking for. I don't think that there is evidence of this.

Am I sorry it happened? Sure. What exactly are we supposed to do though, let all the people being detained go free, because of it? I dont think so.

I also think that you misrepresented Democratic Representative Markey's quote. I believe that his statement was an accusation toward the administation rather than a statement of a fact that he actually had evidence of.

Really, what this whole argument comes down to is that some people tend to trust the government and some people tend not to. Thats fine, the country is better off having both kinds of people. While nobody is 100% either way in their thinking (at least nobody with a brain), people definitly tend to favor one or the other. No problem, that is what makes things interesting.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Uh...the point of the AI report is that this was not, unfortunately, an isolated incident. Additionally, this sort of thing has been all over the news for three years now. And--as I mentioned--the Bush administration has been very clear that this is exactly what they're doing.

Since you mention trusting your government or not, let me ask this: since we have all sorts of well-established, open, public, clear and legal procedures for handling this stuff, why don't you trust them to work? Why do we need secret, illegal, un-Constitutional actions?

Or to put it another way: why don't YOU have any faith in the establishment of rights and the system of laws essential to a democratic society?