Today the leftists around the world are having a “Wear Orange Day” to protest against the forced fattening of terrorists at Guantanamo Bay detention facility. I have plenty of thoughts about Guantanamo Bay but the sheer hypocrisy of the American as well the global left has never been more apparent than with this Wear Orange Day garbage.
The left is willing to protest over the forced fattening of about 300 terrorists at Guatanamo Bay which many of them have been handed over to their home countries over the years while about 200,000 or more North Koreans swelter in Kim Jong-il’s gulags with out a word from the left. When is the left going to have a “Dress as a North Korean Gulag Prisoner Day”?
I’m still waiting for the so called human rights organization Amnesty International to even put up a banner on their front page condemning North Korean human rights abuses instead they now actually have three, yes three anti-Gitmo banners you can click on. One is in their appeal for action section, another one is in their campaign section, and their banner graphic is yet another anti-Gitmo link. The other so called human rights organization Human Rights Watch is a bit better since they don’t have a Gitmo graphic, but their isn’t any links to North Korea human rights abuses on their webpage either.
So when is the left going to care about North Korean human rights abuses? OFK hit on this before, but it won’t happen because President Bush is not the one operating the gulags in North Korea. Additionally I think it fair to say that Asian nationalities as well don’t register much with leftist groups. How else do you explain the lack of outrage from the left over what is going on in Burma and North Korea compared to Darfur? Far more people have died in North Korea than in Darfur yet it still doesn’t even warrant a banner link from Amnesty International at least?
It is not like people on the right have done a whole lot either. People on the right play a lot of lip service to the issue such as with the North Korean Human Rights Act but than only let in 37 refugees over three years? Other than the Christian groups that have done incredible work with North Korean refugees in China, little has been done to advocate for North Korean human rights. The Christian groups with little fan fare have done more for human rights in North Korea then any government, the United Nations, or international organization combined has done.
Also I think it is fair to say there is a big money factor involved with this as well. How much money do people think these leftist and human rights groups raise from protesting Gitmo compared to advocating for North Korean human rights? I’m sure if some millionaire threw hundreds of thousands of dollars at Amnesty International to campaign for North Korean human rights I might actually see my North Korean human rights banner on their front page one day. Unless I win the lottery in the near future I think it is safe to say it is never going to happen and I’m stuck with anti-Gitmo banners and “Wear Orange Days” instead. You would think human rights would be something everyone could agree on, but obviously it is not.
Popularity: 3%
1:37 pm on January 12th, 2008 1
Firstly, FYI, but it seems every time you post a YouTube video, there’s this error message in the box, “An error occurred, please try again later”.
Next, I agree there is more than just apparent hypocrisy involved with the organizations you mention. I’m not condoning it, and I share your outrage. However, as a moderate leftie (which mostly means my opinions are unwanted in either my own Democratic home, or among neo-cons), I do disagree with your conclusions.
Firstly, it’s easier to raise funds for campaigns where western voters can actually do something. At the least people can vote in the US, so Non-profits can influence that. I’ve supported Amnesty since college, but I’m also concerned about its turn from basic to economic and social rights and anti-FTA.
This raises a theoretical IR issue: the west vs. the rest. Smarter people than I, from Barnett, Barber, Fukuyama, to Huntington and Kaplan, and Keohane and Nye have all tried to devise ways of talking about the reasons states, societies, cultures, economies, etc. differ across the globe. They each reach different conclusions and advocate various policies. Some have ideological committments, or as Fukuyama did, criticized his former neo-con colleagues.
Simply put, the solution for Gitmo is probably not the one for the gulags in DPRK. The two totalizing perspectives, complex interdependence and neo-conservatism reach vastly divergent views on DPRK. The others bifurcate the world cleanly. There’s also the unique regional circumstances.
I share your outrage, but if I had acted on my outrage through various periods in my life, I’d be in prison right now with the rest of those people. There are worse consequences of bad policies, like regional war with NBC and even worse regimes in DPRK. I wouldn’t consider a sensible proposal, like Gordon Chang’s, to cut off even humanitarian aid to DPRK unless there were consensus among the Six Parties about what to do if the Kim Regime fell suddenly. If there were a plan as detailed as the US military’s OPLANs for the post-invasion, I could even support invasion, especially if I knew the prisoners in the gulag could be liberated before Pyongyang got rid of them or just worked them (or used them for shields) into death as quickly and callously as possible in its desperation to defend itself.
If anything Gitmo and Iraq/Afghanistan, as so many diplomats and officials have communicated to former US officials, indicate a fundamental administrative incompetence on the part of the US government to conduct basic foreign policy. It’s not ideology, then, but the general consensus that the US can no longer perform at a high level that its position indicates. Therefore, it’s better to err on the side of caution and restrain the US from starting what it can successfully achieve, no matter what the stakes.
6:08 pm on January 12th, 2008 2
GI,
North Korea can pretty much only put North Koreans into gulags.
The United States government has claimed the right to arbitrarily put ANYBODY into indefinite confinement or turn them over to somebody who will… and torture them in the process.
This includes members of the Global Left who have already found themselves on the No-Fly List and (perhaps rightly) fear this is only a first step.
Their actions are pretty understandable, really.
6:23 pm on January 12th, 2008 3
I’m not saying they shouldn’t have a protest against Gitmo. Like I said I have my own thoughts on Gitmo and I don’t want to make this a Gitmo posting. What I am saying is why aren’t they also protesting against North Korea? Why isn’t their at least one front page featured link on human rights websites to the worst human rights violators today, North Korea?
Fattening terrorists held in Gitmo just doesn’t concern me as much as with what is going on in North Korea. I wish people on the left would show the same concern but they don’t because Bush isn’t involved and there is no money in it. Promoting human rights has become an industry not a movement.
Also the claim that Bush is going to start snatching up people from the left to imprison in Gitmo is totally absurd and with no basis in fact. My wife ended up on a no fly list due to a technicality with her immigration that I had to fix, was this part of the Bushitler-Haliburton conspiracy? I can’t wait for a new president just so I can quit hearing these stupid conspiracy theories.
6:24 pm on January 12th, 2008 4
By the way is anyone else having problems with the YouTube videos because they work fine on both Firefox and Internet Explorer on my computer.
7:38 pm on January 12th, 2008 5
Amnesty International has been complaining about North Korea, and countless other regimes, for decades with little effect. Take East Timor, for example. Amnesty International and the East Timor Action Network complained for decades to no avail.
In high school I was watching TV late at night and ran across a documentary about East Timor on PBS. It rocked my world. The Indonesian occupation of East Timor was so, so wrong, but it was ignored for decades. The next day I confronted everyone I knew with the boatload of newly memorized facts and history, and not only was everyone ignorant but completely indifferent.
Finally, some arcane alignment of international diplomacy put a peacekeeping force there and East Timorese independence came, and they made it into the newspapers for a few weeks.
Amnesty International puts out reports that hardly anyone reads and occasionally gets some press when they find a fashionable cause. Don’t blame them, but try to appreciate the fact that they persist in publishing unread reports on humans rights abuses in unfashionable places as well as their front-page advocacies.
10:05 pm on January 12th, 2008 6
yes and we all know everyone who is under us custody is tortured and they were all so innocent to begin with!!!!
living it up in the best conditions they have ever been exposed to down there in gitmo
GI this is ridiculous and thanks for pointing it out most of these organinzations are all about the political agenda and nothing else
12:43 am on January 13th, 2008 7
Here is AI condemning North Korea, as they have in every report for decades.
http://www.amnesty.org/en/region/asia-and-pacific/east-asia/north-korea
Despite the ‘International’ designation, AI is essentially a western NGO. Most of the organization itself is western, and therefore they show more interest in and agitate more on western concerns. Gitmo is a polarizing and conterversial human rights topic for westerners. North Korea, remote, opaque, and reclusive, is not. It is plausible for public pressure to close Gitmo. It is implausible that public pressure will ever affect the amount of milk in Kim JI’s tea, let alone end his government. So they focus primarily on the ‘doable’, I guess. Thus the difference in coverage.
McNut, your comment “most of these organinzations are all about the political agenda” is unintentionally funny. Yes, AI is about a political agenda. Duh. Have you heard that the Democratic and Republican parties, the NRA and every other NGO are about a political agenda too?
2:20 am on January 13th, 2008 8
First, this post gave me an idea for another You Tube video on NK….
Next, The problem with the political agenda, or perhaps its definition, is when a group that states its primary reason for being is to advocate a certain set of positions but in action finds that one of its primary functions is to support a political party. Inotherwords, the problem of “political agenda” is that it seeks to support either the Democrats or Republicans rather than being a full advocate for its special interest.
Classic example: the feminist orgs in the US during the Clinton Paula Jones and other sex scandals and impeachment. Or the glorification of the ideas and ideals of Kennedy and the demonization of Reagan.
There is no excuse for the human rights organizations and those who lend their ear to them for the lack of activity on the North Korea front.
If Amnesty International gave the word — if it started a campaign, Pyongyang would be the focus of activity on college campuses all over the western world and the media in those same countries would become involved and pop culture icons too.
3:58 am on January 13th, 2008 9
“yes and we all know everyone who is under us custody is tortured”
Well, depending on your view, being deprived of your freedom and left with the impression that it will be forever, and there is nothing you can do about it, is a form of torture. Try it sometime, if you think Gitmo is some sort of resort where you get fattened up while enjoying life on a Caribbean beach.
“and they were all so innocent to begin with!!!!”
Who knows… one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. Keep in mind, we are over there… they are not over “here”… meaning, there have been Saudis, Pakistanis and Iranians involved in terrorist attacks in America… but I don’t recall any Iraqis. Anybody want to give me a good reason why we invaded Iraq (other than Ameri-centric reasons such as maintaining a footprint in the Middle East?)
But this is beside the point.
The real point is that openness is important in every legal proceeding… from court to voting. This protects against abuse. The moment this openness, and a paper trail, ceases to exist, some people start to look at ways to accomplish their goals outside the legal framework.
Examples can be given from USFK to Blackwater.
5:45 am on January 13th, 2008 10
Amnesty International comes up with a report on North Korea every year that is simply buried in their archives. Why doesn’t Amnesty International join ranks with one of the North Korea NGOs such as LINK and hold a protest for NK human rights across the world instead of protesting against the fattening of terrorists at Gitmo?
I have always wondered why they don’t have some kind of list on their front page that gives the world’s top 10 human rights abusers with accompanying links to campaigns that AI is sponsoring against them. Instead as of yesterday there were 3 front page links including a banner about Gitmo.
Also Gitmo would not be as controversial if the media and human rights organizations quit spreading disinformation about the place. I can’t believe how many people still fall for the flushing the Koran down the toilet scam, yet they don’t know how many people are in NK gulags or have died from starvation.
AI’s job should be advocating strongly against the worst human rights abusers not just ones that they can sensationalize to make money from. That is why they are an industry and not a movement.
5:01 pm on January 13th, 2008 11
freedom fighter
hahahahaahaha
i wont go on a tangent of how retarded your post is
dont have time to waste
you are a lost cause
6:33 pm on January 13th, 2008 12
Tsk, tsk, mcnut…
“hahahahaahaha” are the dismissive words of those who emotionally don’t agree with something but are unable to clearly communicate their opinion on the matter.
(I’m still listening if you want to tell me what lofty motivations prompted our invasion of Iraq. Stockpiled WMDs? Saddam’s close relationship with Osama? Most restrictive regime in the world? Largest funder of global terrorism? Peace and stability in the Middle East? Environmentalism? Homeland defense?)
While those who have been detained are painted as members of an “insurgency”, they more closely fit the definition of a “resistance”… hence the “freedom fighter” comment…
…even if the way they want to be “free” to live doesn’t seem appealing to us.
Don’t get me wrong, mcnut. I dislike these idiots and what they are trying to do. Many of them likely need to be removed from their society to allow the majority to obtain a better standard of living… and it is certainly correct policy to insure a quick removal from society for convicted terrorists (defined as those who use violence against non-combatants for political or ideological goals).
But torture, secret trials, arbitrary detainment and an erosion of the America legal system are not the correct ways to do it… especially when, just a few years ago, these were some of the reasons given for the overthrow of Saddam.
If it can’t clearly be shown what these prisoners have done wrong in an open and documented proceeding followed by an appropriate and defined punishment, it fosters lagitimate distrust in Brand America… which is starting to get as pushy as an bottom-level Amway distributor… with about the same global reaction.
Most importantly, it weakens the legal protections and precedents we have against the inevitable abuses of authoritarian and unchecked governments… something the framers of the Constitution were more than aware of and repeatedly cautioned against.
The correctness of this war can be hotly debated… with the ratio of good to bad results being the deciding factor. But we aren’t going to “win” if we keep lying to ourselves… and then making decisions based on these intentional misconceptions. And we aren’t going to “win” if we allow our country to lose its integrity in the process.
“i wont go on a tangent of how retarded your post is”
Please do. If you truly believe so, tell me why. The worst I can do is disagree… and, if you are obviously correct in your opinion, you may win me over to your way of thinking.
“dont have time to waste”
Nor, it seems, with proper punctuation. I hope you are not an English “teacher”. Please tell me you are a six year-old.
“you are a lost cause”
I didn’t know I was a “cause”. I’ll have to dust it off and restart the movement. Viva La Cabeza Del Pollo!
mcnut, you are better than than this last post of yours.
7:06 pm on January 13th, 2008 13
It seems like as I suspected we are getting off the subject. It seems like just by mentioning the word Iraq or Gitmo people fall back on their same tired old arguments instead of focusing on the issue at hand which as I posted is that the left should just have more of an interest in NK human rights compared to Gitmo yet don’t because they have quit being a movement and are instead an industry.
10:48 pm on January 13th, 2008 14
Not off-topic by much…
We are discussing the Global Left’s focus on Gitmo instead of North Korea. You say it is because they are an industry and not a movement.
This is probably correct… being that, unless given unlimited government funding, money has to be generated… and that sometimes means focusing on more popular aspects of your movement when soliciting donations.
(Even in the well-funded military, various “industries” develop to get larger budgets or more promotions… and these industries frequently aren’t even in keeping with core values… as they neither benefit America or its miltiary.)
So, here is the deal. Amnesty International, and everyone else, know they can talk until they are blue in the face about North Korea… and it will change nothing. How many donated dollars should be used to kick that dead horse?
On the other hand, constant publicity over Gitmo has brought attention to an administration which has manipulated, ignored and manufactured the law to suit its own agenda. A good case can be made that this publicity has limited their actions… as they are much more sensitive to publicity than North Korea… at least, for now. A good return on donors’ investment for insuring human rights for all global citizens… even criminals who are entitled to a fair trial.
Further, since America has a larger global reach than North Korea in terms of human rights violations, any violations should get immediate and large-scale global attention… as opposed to What Happens in North Korea Stays in North Korea… as unfortunate as it is.
So, what’s the problem? If America conducted its affairs correctly and in accordance with its trumpeted values, issues and accusations such as this would be filed in the same category as the Flat Earth Society instead of invoking sensitivity and indignation.
Do you truly believe the prisoners of Gitmo were treated fairly and honestly in keeping with the American Constitution?
If you think their human rights were violated contrary to the Constitution you have sworn to defend yet you criticize an organization for pointing this out while doing nothing to change it yourself, it is probably best not to draw attention with complaints of industry over movement.
Now, out of curiosity, let’s suppose Britney Spears got squared away and American Idol was canceled and everyone suddenly turned their attention to North Korea. Other than a lot of talking, what would you suggest could be done to improve their human rights record? Further sanctions? An air strike? Invasion? Send Jimmy Carter to be nice to them?
“It seems like just by mentioning the word Iraq or Gitmo people fall back on their same tired old arguments”
I’m curious which “same tired old arguments” you are referring to?
2:18 am on January 14th, 2008 15
I don’t think North Korea is under direct attack like the US (9/11).
Difficult times call for difficult decisions.
11:41 am on January 14th, 2008 16
Chickenhead,
I didn’t know that terrorists at Gitmo had rights under the American constitution. Last I checked they were not American citizens and instead enemy combatants. They deserve no access to US courts. This claim is ridiculous. The Moussaoui trial went on for years and served as a platform for him to preach his terrorism views.
So we are going to give 300 terrorists a platform to preach their terrorists beliefs and tie up our courts for years aided by the mob ACLU lawyers who love to help get these terrorists off? This is ridiculous.
When these guys are picked up on the battlefield no one stopped to make a crime scene and take fingerprints that would convict the guy in a civilian court. It is war not CSI.
When I was in Iraq I was involved in an operation that picked up some insurgents including a Syrian. We literally had an entire back of a HMMWV filled with bomb making components from the house this guy and his buddies were in. We didn’t take fingerprints to see if the Syrian’s fingerprints were on the bomb components or not. At that time we did not have the kits to tell if he had explosive material on his hands or not. The evidence against him being part of the IED cell probably would not stand up in court because we were fighting a war not conducting police investigations.
I don’t know what happened to that Syrian after he was sent to the regional detention center but lets say he is in Gitmo right now and goes to a civilian court, do I have to go to his trial and testify against him? So every soldier along with OGA types that were involved in capturing guys at Gitmo will have to go to trial as well? Then when the guy gets off and rejoins his Al Qaeda types he will have the names of everyone that testified against him including under cover OGA types. Some of these OGA types may still be undercover and have to expose their cover to testify. Allowing terrorists civilian trials is utterly ridiculous with ramifications that supporters of these trials never mention.
5:55 pm on January 14th, 2008 17
Again, DPRK just doesn’t vote in the US elections, send SCOTUS judges, or even trade sufficiently with the US for most American voters to care. And, the one constituency that might make a fuss, the South Korean expat community, keeps its money close. I also seriously doubt too many North Koreans emigres will be in a position to lobby, either.
6:03 pm on January 14th, 2008 18
No one in Darfur votes in US elections and for some reason these human rights groups and the left at large can’t get enough of advocating for them. It is obvious these human rights groups are nothing more than a for profit business and not a movement that they were originally supposed to be.
7:23 pm on January 14th, 2008 19
There’s African-American groups and voters very concerned about Africa. And, there’s the new “cold war” with PRC over oil claims, and other minerals. That’s also why there’s now Africom. It’s a marriage made in heaven between votes and stocks.
Again, there’s no reason to care about the North Koreans. But, if they find oil…
Interest group pluralism sucks!
8:31 pm on January 14th, 2008 20
There is a whole lot of oil in Burma and that country has quickly dropped off the human rights radar and no one cares about them either. The human rights groups have a prime opportunity to go after China before the Olympics in order to get them to make human rights improvements in Burma, yet they do nothing.
Shedding crocodile tears for Africans brings in more money for the human rights industry than advocating for Asians. That is why these groups are an industry and not a movement which has cost them their credibility.
8:57 pm on January 14th, 2008 21
Guy, Brownback’s out of the GOP race! If you want a conservative American foreign policy cut solely from a human rights perspective, you’ll have to wait another four years!
You’re all over the globe her, but cherry-picking every crisis where the US has little influence. US human rights groups have pressured companies to divest and the US to load sanctions until now the US has no influence. I guess I should support an Olympic boycott since the idea unites left and right, but there’s Taiwan. The Bush administration has done its best to emasculate Taipei when the Taiwanese are the Chinese people who are democratic. All the US needs to do is renovate the Taiwanese armed forces’ TOE, sponsor Taipei’s admission to the UN and WHO, and extol everyone but the mainland-loving KMT! The Olympics are a lame sideshow, but it’s a lame sideshow they deserve for liberalizing their economy. Now, the political message is: be like our good friends, Taiwan, you autocratic, arrogant relics! The US should also encourage Japan and ROK to ally, not just swap bank account numbers when Seoul needs cash for a subway line or canal.
Of course, it’s an industry. it’s the same non-profit industry in which the NRA, AIPAC, and NARAL buy politicians. The alternative is European-style corporatism.
11:52 pm on January 14th, 2008 22
“I didn’t know that terrorists at Gitmo had rights under the American constitution. Last I checked they were not American citizens and instead enemy combatants. They deserve no access to US courts. This claim is ridiculous”
You’re on legal and logical shaky ground here.
Anyone on American soil is subject to American laws and protected by the American constitution. The end run around this was to place the prisoners in American-occupied Cuba. The United States Supreme court has itself ruled against the argument that they have no legal rights.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3867067.stm
So, the Supremes don’t agree with you, GIK.
“Enemy combatants” is an airy-fairy name that never existed until some Bush admin flack dreamed it up. Up until then, you were a prisoner of war, with agreed-on rights.
What do you call a place the king has his guards throw you in, and you stare at the wall until you die with no hope of release, where law does not exist? It’s called a dungeon, gentlemen. A goddamn medieval dungeon. Some of us feel the America of Lincoln, both Roosevelts, Kennedy, Truman, Jefferson and Washington can and should do better than divine-right-of-Bush dungeons. Good night.
3:38 am on January 15th, 2008 23
“American-occupied Cuba”?
5:35 am on January 15th, 2008 24
That is why Moussaoui was tried in a US court was because he was captured on US soil. It was agreed to bring the terrorists to Gitmo because it was not considered US soil.
This is the problem with declaring them POWs. If they are POWs they can be held until the end of hostilities, since Al Qaeda and the Taliban are never going to surrender because they are a movement not a nation you can physically occupy like Japan and Germany and declare an end to hostilities. Because of this you end up in the same boat we are in now holding these guys indefinitely. The same leftists complaining now would be complaining if they were POWs as well because of this.
What I think should have been done is that if you pick up a foreigner in Afghanistan then leave him detained in Afghanistan and try him by a joint US-Afghan military tribunal. Same thing for Iraq. If the foreigner is picked up by the British for example than the tribunal would be a joint British-Afghan Tribunal. After a military tribunal they are imprisoned in a military prison in the country they were picked up in.
The guys handed over to the US from a third country like Khalid Sheik Mohhamed the US should leave detained as a POW and only tried when a trial isn’t a security risk. This system would greatly reduce the amount of people in Gitmo and also limit the number who could go through a US trial.
This is of course hindsight which is always 20/20.
Now that these terrorists are out of the country at Gitmo it is unlikely the countries they were picked up in would want them back to imprison them. So the US is stuck with them which means the only way to try them is with a military tribunal because I have already stated the ridiculousness of giving all these guys civilian trials.
Also notice that my criticism of how things were handled is driven by a desire to improve the system instead of simple Bush hatred that a lot of the criticism of Gitmo is centered around.
5:57 am on January 15th, 2008 25
Baltimoron,
From the very first sentence of the Amnesty Internationals Who We Are page:
“Amnesty International is a worldwide movement of people who campaign for internationally recognized human rights for all.”
http://www.amnesty.org/en/who-we-are
This also from their FAQ page:
“The overwhelming majority of our income comes from individuals the world over. These personal and unaffiliated donations allow AI to maintain full independence from any and all governments, political ideologies, economic interests or religions.”
http://www.amnesty.org/en/who-we-are/faq
“Human rights for all” & “independence from any and all governments, political ideologies, economic interests or religions” is clearly not the case and disingenuous.
As far as the Beijing Olympics I don’t think they should be canceled but remember that South Korea was threatened to have the 88 Olympics moved to LA if free and fair elections were held and South Korea agreed. I don’t China is at the stage of its development to hold elections yet without political turmoil.
However, Amnesty International could organize a protest during the Olympics and coordinate with their media allies to give them maximum publicity like they have done with the Gitmo protests. The Olympics is a great opportunity for Amnesty to bring a lot of attention to human rights abuses but how come I think they rather have another “Wear Orange Day” instead?
Also the non-profits you list are national groups whose mission is to focus on their specific issues, Amnesty is a supposed international group who promotes “human rights for all” which isn’t the case. Notice my criticism is on Amnesty because I find Human Rights Watch no where as bad and thus having more creditability.
1:09 pm on January 15th, 2008 26
Hmmm…
“I didn’t know that terrorists at Gitmo had rights under the American constitution.”
Well, they do… and the majority of the Supreme Court agrees with me (or, more accurately, I agree with them)… but that has been covered in a previous post.
…and, speaking of previous posts, I second everything that Hugh said about dungeons. I’m glad to see someone can see the bigger picture.
America is much, much better than this regressive and dangerous policy… and it has to be if it wants the world to willingly embrace American global dominance… well, unless we plan to force it on them with superior military power and larger confinement facilities for those who resist.
(And, Pete, Gitmo is in Cuba and it is occupied by Americans. “American occupied Cuba” doesn’t seem like it needs a question mark.)
When the War on Terror started, legal dilemmas such as this were (or should have been) foreseen. Executive imprisonment is, at best, a cobbled-together cheap fix for a problem that should (could) have been solved through proper planning and legal mechanisms consistent with our current system of laws and our constitution.
It is a dangerous step into weakening the power of the Constitution, eroding the foundations of our legal system and removing very-intentionally created checks on executive power… as well as upsetting the balance between the government and the citizens.
Conspiracy theorists make a good point that it is an intentional precedent… as the Bush administration has done as much as possible to weaken habeas corpus… and has had no inhibitions in broadening narrow provisions of the Patriot Act, abusing/misusing current laws, conducting illegal surveillance, setting up “Free Speech Zones”, removing oversight and paper trails, etc, Etc, ETC.
Accusations of Bush-bashing are used to distract from honest appraisals of the administration’s actions.
This all goes back to the original topic of why global focus is on the actions of the remaining superpower as it attempts to project its influence across the globe (and internally) while using rewritten/reinterpreted laws as an unpredictable tool to do it… as opposed to a globally powerless North Korea.
It all seems pretty clear.
6:07 pm on January 15th, 2008 27
yeah they live in dungeons thats an accurate portrayal and you reference distraction from the facts above
nice
almost as funny as “American occupied Cuba”
“Enemy combatants†is an airy-fairy name that never existed until some Bush admin flack dreamed it up. Up until then, you were a prisoner of war, with agreed-on rights. ”
What rights have the islamic loons agreed upon? The Geneva conventions? haha
the term enemy combatants was developed to fight a new kind of war the kind the left has no clue how to engage and sure as hell not win.
Yeah its a airy-fairy name I guess people’s heads getting cut off is airy fairy to
these people represent no country they represent no standing conventional military force and thus do not deserve the rights of the geneva conventions
in addition to that why are you so concerned about these guys being tried in the US justice system? why not the justice systems of where they come from
is it that the ACLU cant come to their defense if they are tried in Bagdhad or Kabul
so no its not so clear as someone said earlier
3:24 pm on January 16th, 2008 28
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080115/ap_on_re_as/afghanistan
your freedom fighters guys the same ones you think have rights under the geneva conventions
3:30 pm on January 16th, 2008 29
oh but thats all media creation
nevermind
8:24 pm on March 7th, 2008 30
[...] I actually thought Amnesty International had found time a way from doing things like their "Wear Orange Day" in solidarity with Gitmo terrorists to get around to condeming the executions of 15 North [...]
2:15 pm on April 1st, 2008 31
10:37 pm on June 25th, 2008 32
12:53 pm on July 24th, 2008 33
[...] I will be proven wrong but I expect these reports to only become further evidence what a joke and a sham international human rights groups have really [...]
3:43 am on October 25th, 2008 34
[...] front page of the site however has a picture from Amnesty’s Wear Orange Day nonsense and a link to their site promoting the closing of the Guatanamo Bay Prison Facility. Once [...]