Guantanomo Bay

[klein4]

Dunno if I spelt that right - but did anyone see the programme on Channel 4 last nite about the 3 British guys who went to a wedding and ended up there for 3 years. Only caught the end of it but it looked like fairly shocking stuff. prisoners kept in cages and banned from exercising and beaten and having their Korans kicked around. Anyone see the whole thing? did it seem truthful or just propaganda?

[finlma]

I didn't see it but America are breaking all sorts of human rights in Guantanamo Bay and getting away with it. As usual they bully the world and get away with it. If a muslim country was holding Americans like that they'd have the country blown to shít by now.

[Macy]

Saw most of it - was flicking between that and the No Experienced Required later on. Saw it all up to when they were arrested.

It seemed to be truthful, and the lads seemed naive and misguided at worst. However, the treatment they received once arrested was disgusting, and no one, absolutely no one, can tell me that treatment of prisoners is justified (regardless of their guilt or otherwise). This applies to both the Northern Alliance and the US. The British Government must also hang their head in shame, as they could've disproved the yanks accusations straight away about them being at meetings in 2000 with Bin Laden (one was doing community service ffs).

I really hope it's repeated soon, as I'd like to see the full thing again, and get as many people as possible to watch it.

[klein4]

yeah I dont go in for the whole "blame the yanks for everything " lark but it was truely shocking stuff and I just found myself saying "*******s" every few minutes. people involved in that camp should be ****ing ashamed of themselves.

[pete]

I don't know if was based on true events...? I thought just a dramatisation but inspired by events...?

Didn't see it. Will probably be shown on More4 as repeat...

[jebus]

For anyone living in Cork that enjoyed that movie, or for anyone who likes a good documentary, the anti-war movement are screening a docu on the Fallujah massacre of two years ago on Wednesday the 22nd in the Spalpin Fanach

[Macy]

I don't know if was based on true events...? I thought just a dramatisation but inspired by events...?

Didn't see it. Will probably be shown on More4 as repeat...
It was based on their story. Interviews and re-enactments. Shocking stuff.

[Block G Raptor]

The British Government must also hang their head in shame
.
It was the Brittish that invented concentration camps in the first place and we all know there history of Internment without Trial in this country so I'm not surprised that they support the Yanks in this.Would'nt be at all surprised if the Bush administration consulted with the Brits on setting up the camp

[Dodge]

Got this in a work news round up e-mail


More than 250 leading doctors have called on the USA to end the practise of force feeding inmates at its detention camp at Guantanemo Bay. In an open letter published in the British medical journal The Lancet they say prisoners have the right to refuse treatment including feeding. The US has argued that the Geneva Convention does not apply to prisoners at the Camp who say they are enemy combatants.

[The Stars]

watch it last night.....excellent viewing just to see what is going on in the world that we dont even think about.
The treatment they recived was horrible but I couldnt understand why they werent more upset and outraged about being put in Gauntanamo.
When the fella from the Brittish Embassy came they didnt plead their inocence or try to reason with him.I know circumstances might have effected their mental condition but it still seemed strange.
Another thing i wonder about is whether they would be taking action against their inprisonment through the courts.With the way the program ended it would suggest that they wont,which is unbelievable considering all the legal action that goes on these days reguarding mistaken identity.

[Macy]

I don't know about the legal action - could be that they have advice that they couldn't win the case, or the cost of taking the case, or the fact that the US doesn't recognise internation courts.

Did they not question why the British diplomat wasn't helping them, and it was all in front of the "British" Soldier? It might not even have been a British Diplomat considering, the Brit Soldier has since claimed he was from the US pretending.

[The Stars]

But if they had nothing to hide why not tell the truth.
I dont think they were involved with the Taliban but they just werent very convincing.

[Macy]

But if they had nothing to hide why not tell the truth.
I dont think they were involved with the Taliban but they just werent very convincing.
It's irrelevant when it comes to the treatment at the hands of the Northern Alliance and the US. Even if they were best buddies with Bin Laden, doesn't excuse the torture, treatment and conditions they were held in.

[The Stars]

It's irrelevant when it comes to the treatment at the hands of the Northern Alliance and the US. Even if they were best buddies with Bin Laden, doesn't excuse the torture, treatment and conditions they were held in.
oh,I agree 100% with you and the treatment they received was inhuman but I hope you can understand the point I was trying to make.

[strangeirish]

Guantanamo is such a disgrace to the US. Any other Country that would have this set up, their leader would be prosecuted for war crimes. And how does the US circumvent this? They refuse to recognise the Geneva convention! Just recently, the Associated press sued the government under the freedom of information act and won. The US now has to release the names of those that are incarcerated at Guantanamo. Fcuking unbelievable in this day and age.

Don't get me wrong as I'm sure they have a few bad guys in there, but the mentality of 'Lets round them all up and we'll catch a few' seems like they have their own version of the wild west going on.

[hamish]

Anyone see the More4 programme about it a month ago where they got four blokes to live through a watered down version of what it's like to be in Gitmo.
The pro "coercive interrogation" fellows soon changed their tune.:mad:

Hopefully, if there is any justice, we'll see Chimpy, Cheney, Condi, Rumsfeldt, Rove, Gonzalez, General Miller and the rest of the Crime Family up for war crimes - all we need is some whistleblower to leak evidence from the US administration.

[Dotsy]

oh,I agree 100% with you and the treatment they received was inhuman but I hope you can understand the point I was trying to make.

After the best part of two years been subjected to what amounts to torture in the camp it is hardly surprising if they weren't exactly acting rationally all the time or very trusting that the guy was actually from the embassy in the first place.

[anto1208]

The US now has to release the names of those that are incarcerated at Guantanamo. Fcuking unbelievable in this day and age.
.


did you hear the US responce as to why they didnt want to give out the names , TO PROTECT THE PRISONERS RIGHTS !!!!

[strangeirish]

did you hear the US responce as to why they didnt want to give out the names , TO PROTECT THE PRISONERS RIGHTS !!!!

I guess their idea of prisoners rights are to lock them up for four years and not charge them with anything.

[The Stars]

did you hear the US responce as to why they didnt want to give out the names , TO PROTECT THE PRISONERS RIGHTS !!!!
ah...wasnt that nice of them.And we thought they were inhuman:rolleyes:

[aido_b]

Im meeting one of the guys, Moazzam Begg. He's doing a talk on Monday at the Uni. Looking forward to what he's going to have to say!

[hamish]

Im meeting one of the guys, Moazzam Begg. He's doing a talk on Monday at the Uni. Looking forward to what he's going to have to say!


Way to go aidob/aidoM.

Tell him there are a lot of Irish folk who are disgusted with the current US regime and their nudge-nudge, wink-wink messages the prison guards to circumvent civilised behaviour in the treatment of prisoners.:mad:

Interesting article here on Guantanamo
http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/37/9797

[strangeirish]

Going a little off topic, but Bush just signed a renewal of the Patriot Act. Just to comfirm his willingness to not only abuse the prisoners at gitmo, but also the constitutional and civil rights of his countries own citizens. One thing in the Act that really gets me is that the feds can enter your home and remove items, even when you are not there, without any form of a warrant! You only need to give them a hint of any 'anti-American' behavior for them to justify this intrusion. It amazes me how the American public are not up in arms over this.:mad:

[pete]

The Patriot Act is the greatest marketing of a piece of legislation since.....ever? What politicians could vote against a Patriot Act? Wouldn't that be unpatriotic?

I think Patriot Act 2 contains the dropping of warrant requirement? What could the police services need to do that they can't get judge to approve a warrant? I'm sure in cases of national security judges are already approving warrnats anyway...

:rolleyes:

[strangeirish]

I think Patriot Act 2 contains the dropping of warrant requirement? What could the police services need to do that they can't get judge to approve a warrant? I'm sure in cases of national security judges are already approving warrnats anyway...
:rolleyes:

Well, they claim it saves them time and that is their justification in their so called war on terror. Problem is, the damn thing is so open to abuse by local law enforcement, there is going to come a time when the local cop can just prance into your home when he feels like it because someone at the doughnut shop gave him a 'tip'.

[hamish]

Well, they claim it saves them time and that is their justification in their so called war on terror. Problem is, the damn thing is so open to abuse by local law enforcement, there is going to come a time when the local cop can just prance into your home when he feels like it because someone at the doughnut shop gave him a 'tip'.

I'm trying to find the site where a US person who wrote a cheque for $6,000 had it stopped. He checked with the bank and they told him that any sums of this amount are referred to national security for investigation. Only came across this a few days ago.

I also note that there is a big drive by the White House to stop leaking and that the consequences for anyone doing so will mean jailtime plus any journalist using these leaks and their media organisation will also be prosecuted. This is a clear attempt at Fascist control of the media.

Pity they weren't so moral when Valerie Flame's name was leaked to smear Joe Wilson when he stated that there was no red cake uranium from Niger going to Saddam and told the White House that this was the case yet Bush went ahead and still stated this as fact. Wilson complained furiously and then his wife's name was leaked. :rolleyes:
Wilson, is/WAS a Republican BTW

These scum will not be happy until they manage to have an endless war to keep power.

Notice the drum beating on Iran at the moment - exactly the same as the run up to Iraq.

Thank heavens there are real men like Jack Murtha who won't take this sh!t. Unlike 99.9% of the Bush Crime Family and its fellow pond life, Murtha is a real war hero.

[strangeirish]

Notice the drum beating on Iran at the moment - exactly the same as the run up to Iraq.
.

It would not suprise me to see the US take action against Iran soon. A big tadoo over here was that six or seven ports were going to be ran by a company from Dubai. Of course, the repubs(well bi-partisan I suppose) managed to get that deal destroyed on the basis that it was a direct threat to national security. Blatent rascism, if you ask me. Strange, considering the Chinese run a large port in California.

I know Dubai is part of the UAE, but isn't it close to Iran? Bush kind of got himself shot in the foot if he wanted to use Dubai as a staging area.:rolleyes:

[hamish]

It would not suprise me to see the US take action against Iran soon. A big tadoo over here was that six or seven ports were going to be ran by a company from Dubai. Of course, the repubs managed to get that deal destroyed on the basis that it was a direct threat to national security. Blatent rascism, if you ask me. Strange, considering the Chinese run a large port in California.

I know Dubai is part of the UAE, but isn't it close to Iran? Bush kind of shot himself in the foot if he wanted to use Dubai as a staging area.:rolleyes:

Another argument there strangeirish was that the Dubai government (rather than a Dubai firm) owned the company (ex P & O) who would administer the ports.

I read a lot about Dubai in The Guardian recently and if you're a Pakistani labourer there, you live in a shack with loads of others, get treated like sh!t and get paid about $150 dollars a month from which is deducted accommodation etc costs.
No one from outside Dubai can own a company in it and it's owned by a family who dispense favours something very like the Saudis do. So, while I agree with you about the racism bit from the Yanks, Dubai itself is no model of democracy even by Middle East standards.
A lot of drug and terrorist money is also flushed through Dubai with the connivance of the government and the UAE was one of three countries to recognise the Taliban regime when the latter was at it's cruelest towards its own people.

[strangeirish]

No one from outside Dubai can own a company in it and it's owned by a family who dispense favours something very like the Saudis do. So, while I agree with you about the racism bit from the Yanks, Dubai itself is no model of democracy even by Middle East standards.
.

Agreed, but it doesn't mind having billions of dollars invested in it's real estate empire by US companies. A certain Donald Trump comes to mind. Double standards all around I guess.

[hamish]

Agreed, but it doesn't mind having billions of dollars invested in it's real estate empire by US companies. A certain Donald Trump comes to mind. Double standards all around I guess.

True strangeirish, very true. I believe a number of Premiership footballers have "pads" there too.:D

It's funny - the topic has split both the Dems and Rethuglians with some for and some against.

The US blogs are awash with this and Al Franken is alsocovering it a lot on Air America.

Newshounds and Crooks & Liars has covered it a lot - here's a sample.
http://www.newshounds.us/2006/03/06/forbes_on_fox_whats_good_for_dubai_is_good_for_ame rica.php

More news on Gitmo

http://www.icecreamheadache.net/gitmo.asp

[Plastic Paddy]

Two words - police state. And this in the "land of the free". WTF are they trying to kid?

:ball: PP

[pete]

Isn't it ironic that the Republicans who always seem to be against big government & extra spending are the ones to bring in Homeland Security (surey just another huge level of bureucracy) & now want extra powers for the states police forces.

I alwasy love the way Bush can have it everyway he wants. Cut taxes like a good Republican but i think he also had highest spending increases of any US President?

Great quote on the Dubai thing was Bush admitting he didn't know anything abiut it until read (i suspect he watched tv as i can't picture him reading) in the media.

Guantanimo is eveil & illegal. Whatever about Al-Queda captives I can't see what basis Taliban or Iraqis are held. They only defended their own countries ever if the Taliban were sheltering Al Queda.

[liam88]

Personally I'd be interested to see how many people campaigning against Guantanomo or who are going along to see and support Moazzam Begg campaigned for the release of Dayna Curry.

[liam88]

Guantanimo is eveil & illegal....I can't see what basis Taliban...are held. They only defended their own countries

So after the fall of Berlin Nazi soldiers should have been left to run wild, and if US/UK troops ever enter Burma (I prey one they they will) we should let the Tatmadaw run wild to kill and rape a few more Karen? .....interesting.

Also one could argue that they wern't defending their country-maybe the Northern Alliance were the ones defending their country and the Taliban militia were defending a regime who beat girls who went out without a male escort (ref. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban_treatment_of_children)

[pete]

How would you continue that logic? What countries citizens should be locked up without trial in a foreign country?

[liam88]

How would you continue that logic? What countries citizens should be locked up without trial in a foreign country?

Are we on a different wavelength here?

You said:

"I can't see what basis Taliban...are held."

I pointed out the same basis as Nazi soldiers being held when the allies took Berlin or Tatmadaw being held if UK/US/UN forces ever liberate Burma.

You also said that the Taliban

"only defended their own countries "

I pointed out that the question can be asked:

Why is it anymore their country than the Northern Alliance's country?

As for it being a different country (a point which I didn't adress because I was debating other points in your argument) it can be argued that:

a) war criminals throughout the last century have be held in other countries
b) Afghanistan is officially a collapsed state ( ref. Independent-21st Century Politics analysis) it would be totally illogical to hold prisoners there-there would either be freed by Islamic fundemntalists/Taliban or attacked and killed by people angry at Taliban opression/Northern Alliance

I could also bring up Dayna Curry again-how comes so many peopel wern't complaining when she was locked up in a foreign coutnry...although technically she had a "trial" but did that really make it any better?

[liam88]

Two words - police state.


Context point again here-you know as well (or better??) as I do that many states have records a million times worse than the USA; China, Burma, Iran, Zimbabwe, Cuba...

Not justifying anything here but how come Hu Jianto can visit England-the capital be bathed in Red Light as a celebration of his visit and then George Bush's actions re. Guantaomo creaty at least a hundred tiems larger public outcry?

"Police state"? Half the world would love to have the level of democracy and freedom of the USA.

[Plastic Paddy]

I think you deliberately obfuscate my point Liam, so I'll state it again but more clearly. Which of the other nations charged with human rights abuses actually claim to be the "land of the free"/"leader of the free world"?

The arrogance of the United States administration in this regard is simply breathtaking. Even their attempts to control language and steer its meaning smack of Orwellian control-freakery. It is as if by blurring the lines of true meaning in language (and you don't have to think too hard to come up with examples - the PATRIOT Act anyone?) they are setting out to control the force and direction of any counter-arguments that arise. The neocons have worked out that by taking away the true meaning of words they lose their potency and therefore dilute the force of any opposing views. And that's doubleplusungood. :(

Taking this point into practice, commentators in the liberal press that have spoken out against the erosion of civil liberties have been labelled unPATRIOTic - and by extension anti-American - by the ruling administration and by their chums in the rightwing press. (A slight digression, but surely the role of a strong media in a democracy is to challenge the ruling orthodoxy? Show me where such a challenge comes from today...)

The reductionism used by the arch war-criminal Bush ("if you're not for us you're against us") makes the McCarthyite anti-Communist purges of the 1950s look like child's play. It's insidious, cynical and dangerous and to my mind is the biggest single threat to Western liberal democracy today.

Just to ram the point home closer to home, Liam, check out the provisions of the UK Civil Contingencies Act 2004 and the upcoming UK Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill. Where previously checks and balances existed to control the executive's power (i.e. Parliamentary process), these two pieces of legislation abrogate sweeping powers for national security to Ministers and circumvent the elected chamber entirely. How's that for a systematic dismantling of the apparatus of a functioning democracy? And right under our noses too.

As a final point, I wonder how long it took Bliar and co take to dream up these little show-stoppers. My guess is around 45 minutes... ;)

:ball: PP

[liam88]

I think you deliberately obfuscate my point Liam, so I'll state it again but more clearly. Which of the other nations charged with human rights abuses actually claim to be the "land of the free"/"leader of the free world"?

To put i clearly in reply-why does what they call themselves matter? China claims to be civilised.....forced aboritions and shooting of protestors don't seem that civilised to me but the people yelling about Guantanomo Bay haven't been kicking up a fuss about that! USA isn't perfect, neither is the UK or, for that amtter, Irealand (depending on what you think of the Rossport 5 ;) ) but in context the USA is a lot more democratic/free/civilised than most countries in the world. That's right most. I'd say that the USA has more civil liberties, less extra-judicial executions and a lower rate of torture than ever African state and most in Asia in Latin America.

I'd put one to you....who would you rather live under-George Bush and the US Army or the Taliban and their soldiers. Bare in mind you girlfriend would have to wear a bhurka and any future daughters would be beaten if they didn't....and that's just for starters. Your for homosexual rights if I remember correctly? Under the Taliban a gay man would be imprisoned or beheaded. He won't under the US government.



arch war-criminal Bush


I'm not justifying evey one of Bush's actions I'm just not keen on the fact people spend their time complaining and campaigning against him and not the likes of Omar al-Bashir, Kim Jong Il , Than Shwe ,Hu "I met the queen" Jintao, King Abdullah, Muammar al-Qaddafi, Pervez Musharraf, Saparmurat Niyazov, Robert Mugabe or Teodoro Obiang Nguema who are millions of times worse. Get me list of the human rights abuses by Mr. Bush and I could get you a list twice as long from anyone of them!


And still no one replies about Dayna Curry.........

[Plastic Paddy]

To put i clearly in reply-why does what they call themselves matter?

Because of the redefinition of language and meaning that the US administration and their klingon neocons are occasioning right under our noses. I mentioned the following just two posts ago:


The arrogance of the United States administration in this regard is simply breathtaking. Even their attempts to control language and steer its meaning smack of Orwellian control-freakery. It is as if by blurring the lines of true meaning in language (and you don't have to think too hard to come up with examples - the PATRIOT Act anyone?) they are setting out to control the force and direction of any counter-arguments that arise. The neocons have worked out that by taking away the true meaning of words they lose their potency and therefore dilute the force of any opposing views. And that's doubleplusungood. :(

Taking this point into practice, commentators in the liberal press that have spoken out against the erosion of civil liberties have been labelled unPATRIOTic - and by extension anti-American - by the ruling administration and by their chums in the rightwing press.

Noam Chomsky explains it far more eloquently than I ever could - I suggest you look him up over the summer before you head for University.


China claims to be civilised.....forced aboritions and shooting of protestors don't seem that civilised to me but the people yelling about Guantanomo Bay haven't been kicking up a fuss about that!

And you know that how? Who's to say that they weren't out protesting when Hu Jintao was driven down the Mall? Or that they haven't been writing letters continuously to TDs/MPs/world figures/prisoners of conscience like all good Amnesty International members should?

Liam, it's not just individuals but the Western governments and corporations you should be questioning for kow-towing to the Chinese government in the way that they have recently, turning a blind eye to human rights abuses in the process.


I'd say that the USA has more civil liberties, less extra-judicial executions and a lower rate of torture than ever African state and most in Asia in Latin America.

That's a value judgement although I'm inclined to agree with you. But how many states in those three continents/regions have to bear some degree of US state-sponsored meddling in their domestic affairs? I'd struggle to name you a country in Latin/central America where they haven't interfered. Empire-building by another name.


I'd put one to you....who would you rather live under-George Bush and the US Army or the Taliban and their soldiers. Bare in mind you girlfriend would have to wear a bhurka and any future daughters would be beaten if they didn't....and that's just for starters. Your for homosexual rights if I remember correctly? Under the Taliban a gay man would be imprisoned or beheaded. He won't under the US government.

No but if he was an Iraqi man held by US forces in Abu Ghraib, for example, he could well have been brutalised with a bottle or forced to perform sexual acts on other male prisoners. Again, for example. And who knows what's really going on in Gitmo?


EDIT - Did I mention that the CIA provided funding and training to the mujahedeen fighting the Soviet occupiers all those years ago, helping to kickstart the Taliban in the process?


I'm not justifying evey one of Bush's actions I'm just not keen on the fact people spend their time complaining and campaigning against him and not the likes of Omar al-Bashir, Kim Jong Il , Than Shwe ,Hu "I met the queen" Jintao, King Abdullah, Muammar al-Qaddafi, Pervez Musharraf, Saparmurat Niyazov, Robert Mugabe or Teodoro Obiang Nguema who are millions of times worse. Get me list of the human rights abuses by Mr. Bush and I could get you a list twice as long from anyone of them!

This is not a beauty pageant for despots so that won't be necessary. In any case, none of the others threaten world peace the way that Bush does, which is why he attracts such opprobrium from so many quarters.


And still no one replies about Dayna Curry.........

So what are you going to do about it...? ;)

:ball: PP

[CollegeTillIDie]

The Patriot Act is the greatest marketing of a piece of legislation since.....ever? What politicians could vote against a Patriot Act? Wouldn't that be unpatriotic?

I think Patriot Act 2 contains the dropping of warrant requirement? What could the police services need to do that they can't get judge to approve a warrant? I'm sure in cases of national security judges are already approving warrnats anyway...

:rolleyes:
One of the problems with the Patriot Act was most of those who voted for it never even read it!:(

Guantanamo Bay Prison will be closed down and then the bay will be famous only for that song about a woman from there.
" Guantanamera......"

[liam88]

Noam Chomsky explains it far more eloquently than I ever could - I suggest you look him up over the summer before you head for University.



I looked up Noam Chomsky a long time ago....ironically I first heard of him in the lyrics of a left-wing anti-Bush song (which since my younger teenage years I have discovered serious flaws in ;) )



And you know that how? Who's to say that they weren't out protesting when Hu Jintao was driven down the Mall? Or that they haven't been writing letters continuously to TDs/MPs/world figures/prisoners of conscience like all good Amnesty International members should?


I'm just saying the none of the anti-war protesters I have spoken to were down the Mall with us that day. I think it's naivee to believe that the "human rights" abuses in Guantanomo have recieved the same level of media coverage or support as the far worse human rights abuses across the world.....they have recieved far more.



Liam, it's not just individuals but the Western governments and corporations you should be questioning for kow-towing to the Chinese government in the way that they have recently, turning a blind eye to human rights abuses in the process.


I know, and that's why I proest outside Total (re. Burma), House of Commons etc. I just think it's bizzare and unfair how so many people who-in all fairness-never cared about the human rights abuses comitted under the Taliban, Saddam, Jianto or Shwe are now out going blue in the face of supposed abuses in Guantanomo bay. I could guarantee you if I took the names of every person on the next anti-Guantanomo Bay ralley in London less than 1 or two percent would be at the next ralley against the genocides in Sudan or the Karen region.




That's a value judgement although I'm inclined to agree with you. But how many states in those three continents/regions have to bear some degree of US state-sponsored meddling in their domestic affairs? I'd struggle to name you a country in Latin/central America where they haven't interfered. Empire-building by another name.


I don't think that you can credibly blame the US government for human rights abuses in Latin America....in the past they have actually tried to topple LAtin American rulers! Africa has even less US influence and the USA is openly critical of human rights abuses in Burma, china and North Korea.



No but if he was an Iraqi man held by US forces in Abu Ghraib, for example, he could well have been brutalised with a bottle or forced to perform sexual acts on other male prisoners. Again, for example. And who knows what's really going on in Gitmo?

Yes but the people performing such acts were a minority who were tried and, in fact found guilty. The behaedings and torture of homosexuals under the Taliban was an enforced opressive law.



EDIT - Did I mention that the CIA provided funding and training to the mujahedeen fighting the Soviet occupiers all those years ago, helping to kickstart the Taliban in the process?

That they did-indisputable fact of past actions of the US that were a total disgrace. Similar to the protecting of patents on HIV/AIDS durgs and, further back, the barbaric treatment of black people. Even now the USA bares serious, serious flaws even on it's own territory, I was in Texas a couple of summers back and we drove past a group of men chained together breaking rocks on the side of a road....I thought 21st Century America should be past that.



This is not a beauty pageant for despots so that won't be necessary. In any case, none of the others threaten world peace the way that Bush does, which is why he attracts such opprobrium from so many quarters.

But surely complaints against Guantanomo BAy are of human rights abuses and not a threat to world peace?
This aside:

-Although he may pose a threat Bush has not comitted any acts of genocide...which are already plaguing the 21st century just 6 years in! Surely genocide is a more pressing concern.
-I believe the biggest threat to world peace involves Bush but will be initiated by Jianto's agression (Agaisnt Taiwan). The Israeli's and IRanians pointing missiles at each other isn't comfertable either....maybe you can blame the US for their relationship with Israel? At the end of the day the USA will be involved in any major world conflict because it is the worlds only superpower-similarly Palau is likely not to play any part because it is one of the worlds smallest powers. But this is all for another thread......



So what are you going to do about it...? ;)


Raise it till I get a decent answer:

-How many of you campaigning against Guantanomo campaigned for Dyna Curry's release?
-Why?

Also just to remind you that some Iraqi people have acted as barbarians since the war: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4809228.stm

[pete]

I don't think that you can credibly blame the US government for human rights abuses in Latin America....in the past they have actually tried to topple LAtin American rulers!


Yes they do have a good track record of toppling democratically elected governments (Chiles), assassinating Presidents (Chile) & supporting coups (Chile, Venuzuala)...

[Plastic Paddy]

I looked up Noam Chomsky a long time ago....ironically I first heard of him in the lyrics of a left-wing anti-Bush song (which since my younger teenage years I have discovered serious flaws in ;) )

I'm not convinced you stopped long enough to read and learn anything though. I suggest Chomsky as I'm not sure that you quite grasp the subtlety of the arguments I put forward and his clearer rationale might do the trick. You've certainly not attempted to address them in any way if you have got my gist, so to speak.


I'm just saying the none of the anti-war protesters I have spoken to were down the Mall with us that day.

So what? Their cause is no less legitimate for the lesser amount of time that they have ascribed to it. Your attitude suggests you believe otherwise, but then that's the kind of superiority complex I expect from the moral minority. ;)


I think it's naivee to believe that the "human rights" abuses in Guantanomo have recieved the same level of media coverage or support as the far worse human rights abuses across the world.....they have recieved far more.

And so it should. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? - Who shall keep watch over the guardians? In Western liberal democracies it falls to the media to scrutinise the actions of governments and we should place this first if we should expect to be taken seriously. End of story.


I just think it's bizzare and unfair how so many people who-in all fairness-never cared about the human rights abuses comitted under the Taliban, Saddam, Jianto or Shwe are now out going blue in the face of supposed abuses in Guantanomo bay.

I could guarantee you if I took the names of every person on the next anti-Guantanomo Bay ralley in London less than 1 or two percent would be at the next ralley against the genocides in Sudan or the Karen region.

Granted but then those causes don't concern them in the way that this article from today's UK Independent should:

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article351561.ece

I don't think I need add any more here.


I don't think that you can credibly blame the US government for human rights abuses in Latin America....in the past they have actually tried to topple LAtin American rulers!

That's right. Even democratically elected ones (cf. Chile, Nicaragua) in order to instal their own military puppets. They're also nice to Parvez Musharraf in Pakistan for much the same reason - in fairness, he's one junta overlord I'd quite like to see stay as the alternatives are too awful to contemplate.


Africa has even less US influence and the USA is openly critical of human rights abuses in Burma, china and North Korea.

Such moral certitude from Bush and co. is laughable when they operate Guantanamo. It's the duplicity underpinning their message and their methods that I can't stomach. I thought I'd made that clear.


But surely complaints against Guantanomo BAy are of human rights abuses and not a threat to world peace?

Perpetrated by an administration whose actions directly influence the course of peace in the Middle East, the wider Arab world, central Asia and that's just for starters. How many more times do I have to spell out why the US government faces such opposition?

On another note, you can't out-pedant a pedant.


I believe the biggest threat to world peace involves Bush but will be initiated by Jianto's agression (Agaisnt Taiwan). The Israeli's and IRanians pointing missiles at each other isn't comfertable either....maybe you can blame the US for their relationship with Israel?

Well, successive US administrations certainly could have played a more balanced role in shaping relations between Israel, Palestine and the wider Arab world policy but then that is to overlook the prominent and influential role enjoyed by the Jewish lobby in US politics and the brave attempts by Clinton and others to bring the parties together.

Being anti-this American administration doesn't make us anti-American bigots, y'know.


At the end of the day the USA will be involved in any major world conflict because it is the worlds only superpower

...and because its government insists on having an expansionist and irredentist foreign policy. See this and other threads.


Also just to remind you that some Iraqi people have acted as barbarians since the war: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4809228.stm

Thanks for that Liam. Once again you seem confused; still, you're not the only one as George and his cronies seem equally blinded. Don't mistake those who are against the war for Sunni, Shiite or Kurdish apologists or al-Qaeda propagandists. These murders and all other barbaric actions in this regrettable conflict cannot be condoned in any form; a point that the vast majority of anti-war protesters will make only too clearly given the chance. But don't let that dissuade you from your own prejudices.

:ball: PP

[Student Mullet]

Yes but the people performing such acts were a minority who were tried and, in fact found guilty.I never bought that argument myself. The abuse took place in corridors and other public areas and was extensively photographed. This says to me that the people doing it weren't afraid of their superior finding them and punishing them because if they were, they'd have done it in a quiet room and not posed for photos. They were clearly acting with the permission of their superior officers.

[liam88]

Ok PP I was considering goin for another post quoting and replying to each of your arguments....and I may well do if this one doesn't make my point clearly enough-but I really need to get something clear.

I'm not condoning every aspect of this US administration (including Camp Delta) nor am I denying the arguably unjust use of language in today's politics. My issue is with the fact that Hu Jianto can horse-and-cart it down the mall and people will sit half a mile away in a pub, or walk past going "cor look at all those flags!" and then as soon as Camp Delta makes the front pages they leg it round going "Human rights! Bush is the second (/third depending on religious persuasion) ati-christ! Look at the poor innocent people being tortured!!".
Now I'm not saying that human rights in China/Tibet matter above all else-that would be like saying we should never raise money for fighting Cancer because AIDS costs more lives. But my point is-that these people never cared about Dyna Curry, the Taliban etc. and are now so opposed to Bush mabye...just maybe the whole anti-Camp Delta movement is about something a little more than human rights. I am not saying that nobody campaigning against Camp Delta and what may or may not go on there cares a jot about the human rights or the people in there but the whole thing to me smacks of bandwagon jumping. It's like schools/6th form colleges all around the UK (I can't talk for Ireland)-there were so many sit-ins and walk-outs when the war started and so many people scribbling "stop the war" on the walls-but how many really cared and how many just wanted to get out of lessons or cause a bit of damage?
I wouldn't say I'm cynical because all the anti-camp Delta pople I've met (and let's be hinest we can only base our opinions on our own experience) didn't seem that bothered about any of the human rights abuses until it was Bush doing it.

Summary -how can you expect me to believe all these pople are campaigning against Camp Delta on a human rights basis when they were more than happy to let Jianto (one of the worst human rights abusers of our time) to pass by just down the road and when they didn't lift a finger when Dyna Curry was imprisoned by the Taliban on the basis of being a Christian?

[liam88]

I never bought that argument myself. The abuse took place in corridors and other public areas and was extensively photographed. This says to me that the people doing it weren't afraid of their superior finding them and punishing them because if they were, they'd have done it in a quiet room and not posed for photos. They were clearly acting with the permission of their superior officers.
Very interesting thought-but surely England and the rest of them would have come out and said that either when it was obvious they were going to be found guilt or when they were found guilty. Surely if they were going down for it they'd want to bring down the people who organised/condoned it. That none of them (to my knowledge, mentioned anything about senior involvment in the court case or afterwards implies that ideas of superior officers running the show is little more than a conspiracy theory.

[Student Mullet]

Very interesting thought-but surely England and the rest of them would have come out and said that either when it was obvious they were going to be found guilt or when they were found guilty. Surely if they were going down for it they'd want to bring down the people who organised/condoned it. That none of them (to my knowledge, mentioned anything about senior involvment in the court case or afterwards implies that ideas of superior officers running the show is little more than a conspiracy theory.I know and I agree to a certain extent with what you're saying but my basic impression of the situation is that everything doesn't add up. The soilders cannot possibly have been as stupid as the official line makes them out to be.

[liam88]

I don't know SM-firstly it was a minority; the few of them could have been very stupid. Secondly they are out there in the desert seeing their friends killed and having morters lobbed at them-now I'm not saying this justifies what they did but i'm saying it could well have messed them up enough to do it. It wouldn't be the worst things soldiers have been known to do. I don't know if anybody could ref. the incident i'm reffering to but I read in a book on the troubles about a childrens home in a loyalist area that allowed British troops to itnerfere with the children then used it as blackmail to hold a whole regiment to account. As I said I can't ref. that and I'll happily remove the example and find another one if I can't find the reference but I distinctly remember reading about it and it just shows how troops in conflict zones can do/ be driven to do the bost barbaric depraved acts without thinking of the consequences.

Another point of clarity on my ealier argument-let me emphasise I am a human rights campaigner-I spend most of my free time campaigning with Amnesty Internation, the Burma Campaign, the Free Tibet Campaign or CAFOD-i'm also off to work with the burma Campaign UK in Summer. I fully respect human rights concerns about Camp Delta and if this was the genuine reasoning behind all the lobbying then fair play....but lets be honest-it's not. It's become trendy and left-wing; jsut take a look on the poster in the anti-war thread (which has a picture of a Camp Delta Internee on it) and look at the organisations supporting it:

Sinn Feing (left wing party)
Green Party (left wing party)
Socialist workers party (left wing party)
Labour Party (left wing party)
Federation of student Islamic societies (Islamic)
Irish Palestine Solidarity Campaign (Palestine (/Left wing?) )

I ahven't had time to look up the others but from those ones-Left wing groups, Islamic groups and Palestine solidarity groups.

No Amnesty International, no Human Rights Watch, no Medical Foundation.

Now I know Amnesty have criticised Camp Delta but they also criticse Jianto/the Burmese regime etc. The reason Camp Delta gets so much publicity and criticism is the left wing movement (including students going with the trend-after all left wing is 'cool' ) and it's this left wing bandwagon that is detracting from the worse, more widespread, more in-need of attention human rights abuses in the world.

And that's my criticism.

[Plastic Paddy]

Ok PP I was considering goin for another post quoting and replying to each of your arguments....and I may well do if this one doesn't make my point clearly enough-but I really need to get something clear... how can you expect me to believe all these pople are campaigning against Camp Delta on a human rights basis when they were more than happy to let Jianto (one of the worst human rights abusers of our time) to pass by just down the road and when they didn't lift a finger when Dyna Curry was imprisoned by the Taliban on the basis of being a Christian?

You make your point well and I accept it (it is only fair to admit this fact to you as if the rest of your critical reasoning is this good it will see you to 3 or 4 As this summer ;) ) but I don't think anyone concerned with drawing attention to human rights abuses can afford to be selective or snooty about the motives of others doing the same. This is where I stand on Michael Moore - I don't always agree with what he says or how he says it but the fact that he's making at all is something that I consider to be a good thing. For your part, you have the ear of these people that you accuse of having less worthy motives - why aren't you convincing them to campaign for Dayna Curry's release instead of wasting your energy throwing brickbats at them? You may win over a few more voices to what are undoubtedly vital and worthy causes.

:ball: PP