dandy
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
BonosSaint said:
Yeah. I'm a cynic. Scratch a cynic and underneath you find a frustrated idealist.
brilliant.
excellent post.
BonosSaint said:
Yeah. I'm a cynic. Scratch a cynic and underneath you find a frustrated idealist.
Headache in a Suitcase said:
i have a hard time not seeing the politics behind AI's slamming the United States 100 times more than any other country, when there are systamatic rapings, beheadings and other atrocities going on throughout other parts of the world.
I'm troubled by the camp at Guantanamo... don't get me wrong. But I just don't see a better solution. If you have one, I'd love to hear it. Complaining about it and not providing a better solution is useless.
whenhiphopdrovethebigcars said:
AI is not slamming the US any more than any other country doing wrong. How you come to that opinion? Look at their site and at their reports of human rights abuses before of making such unbalanced statements, please.
BonosSaint said:I'm not inclined to compare what we do to what someone else does. I would not have made a comparison to a Gulag or to a Nazi concentration camp. We do not reach that level. I think such arguments are simplistic. That being said, I believe as the leader of the free world (for now), our behavior should be above reproach.
I look at what we sometimes do and it is gratuitous to me, for no purpose other than humiliation. I'm not naive, but I want to better than this. What purpose did they really think all this would serve? Was there really much belief that we would get enough information from these people to justify all this? How high level are these prisoners? How much information can they have?
Some of the very first people accused of abuse come from my home. Not only do they represent my country, they represent my part of the country. I've got a dog in this hunt. How do I defend this behavior? How do you? "It's not as bad as...." doesn't cut it for me. That smacks to me of moral relativism.
BonosSaint said:
We are not beyond reproach. But if a country sets itself up as a beacon of freedom, human rights, then it damn well better behave in that manner. I am terribly concerned with what my country does. I would like to proud of it again.
BonosSaint said:
Yeah. I'm a cynic. Scratch a cynic and underneath you find a frustrated idealist
ewen said:Even though I agree with you Pax, regarding AI not being an anti-American organisation, there are reasons why there were no petitions at the U2 shows regarding American cases. It's one of the main rules of being an Amnesty member that you do not take action, in the name of AI, against abuses in your own country. Therefore all the petitions would have been, or should have been, on issues outside of the States. Just want to make that clear although I, again, do strongly agree with you.
btw, i'm not American, I'm Scottish and live in Scotland (UK) so I have no patriotic reason to have to attack this claim that AI is anti-american.
Dreadsox said:
And, finally, if Bill Clinton had done ANYTHING serious to fight terrorism....9/11 would not have happened.
Dreadsox said:
Who has had their civil liberties violated?
Not I. Not any of my friends. I can still speak out agains the governement.
whenhiphopdrovethebigcars said:
But the prisoners had their human rights violated! First, it´s about them, not about you!
If you spoke out against the government, you would be unsure of possible repercussions you would have to face. You fellow countrymen who engage in such suspicious behavior often are unsure if they will have problems in the future. For example, two young Americans who I met in Costa Rica told me they are organizing peace marches. And sure enough they know that probably they´re monitored. Sure enough they know that in 20 years, an asshole can still damage their future careeer. But even if they are afraid, they continue their protest.
Sorry felt compelled to respond to a post about the damage Bush has done to civil liberties in America. I will slink back out.Apart from that, this thread is about Guantanamo, where people are held without trial. Not only their civil liberties (or what we define as such) are violated, also their human rights.
BonoVoxSupastar said:
We don't know that. We can guess, we can hope, but we will never know. We can't rewrite history. I agree he should have done more, but then again so does he. But Bush also could have done a lot more, I mean we do know that there were warnings of 9/11 during his administration.
Dreadsox said:
Are you seriously saying that if Bill Clinton had not gone after Al-Qaeda you believe 9/11 would have happened. I am talking gone after him after the 1st trade center bombing.
Dreadsox said:
They will get their day in court.
echo0001 said:
Wasn't there something in our Constitution about the right to a speedy trial? Somewhere....in there...we do have a Constitution don't we...I didn't just dream that?
ImOuttaControl said:
Does our constitution apply to non-Americans?
BonoVoxSupastar said:
So nothing applies to them and I haven't seen any movement by this administration to define anything that does. Therefore they will probably rot without any protection and those that were merely at the wrong place at the wrong time will die innocently in prison and this adminstration will have to answer, if not in this life definately another.
U2DMfan said:
I quoted you, but it's just a broad general response to the whole thread.
What protection does an individual deserve who can't differentiate himself from a terrorist?
"Wrong place and wrong time" detainees, assumes that our soldiers and intelligent officials are either dumbasses or have evil intent. We have already released, what? 200 of them.
I mean, if I were being held for three years and I wasn't a terrorist supporter or sympathizer, I would be denouncing Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda at the top of my lungs every day, making sure that the American soldiers heard me.
Something tells me they aren't doing that.
Something tells me that a good honest American soldier, would hear that and try to get that person at least heard, if not some sort of interview or "trial". Are we to assume that these cries are being ignored? I am not buying it.
Maybe it's just not happening because these detainees actually do sympathize with Al Qaeda. And if that's the case then they gave up any protection or rights they had long ago.
Oh, I am all for basic human rights for anyone who doesn't cowardly and actively participate or at least attempt mass murder of innocent people. I am all for the Geneva code for proud men who wear uniforms and even if they try to kill me, they have the dignity to kill opposing soldiers and not innocent men, women and children.
Somehow the sympathy inside me is vacant for these Gitmo detainees. And it doesn't take some video footage of smoldering twin towers to remind me that the only difference between the terrorists in the camp and the terrorists on the plane was sheer opportunity.
I think about human rights violations in Sudan, and I think we are bogged down in Iraq when we could be helping them. That is something that rings true to me. Not sympathy for terrorists. I don't beleive that our American soldiers knowingly detain innocent people and defy the basic will and rights of an individual. I think they have basically figured out that these guys are bad bad people. If not, you explain to me why we would detain someone knowingly and willfully when it is not just. We've made mistakes, I think they have been admitted, we have released detainees already and there may be more.
While I think Bush and his cabinet are more or less incompetent idealistic fools, I don't think there is some evil dark hand telling them to torture innocent people down in Cuba. I think there are evil men down at Gitmo, that the rules simply don't and shouldn't apply to. Charge them with a crime, give them a trial, let them rot in a cell, all the same to me. Because at some point and time you have to choose to beleive that the American soldiers are doing what needs to be done down there. And if you don't, you probably choose to believe they are up to bad things, ill-intentioned mechanisms of torture against innocent people.
Do you really beleive any good person, much less well trained American soldiers, but just a good person with a good soul, would do this? Or would it be a lot easier to beleive that maybe it happens, but it is happening to the fucking scum of the earth?
A_Wanderer said:They are not entitled to the same rights as US citizens or POW's, the simple reason being that they were violating the rules of war and they are often associated with terrorist organisations.
A_Wanderer said:
No quarter for Jihadists.
They have not found them guilty, they have not gone to trial yet and their guilt or innocence in regards to fighting against the US and it's allies without uniforms and with concealed arms or their association to Islamist terrorist networks is not yet ascertained.BonoVoxSupastar said:
See but you are blinded. Without evidence how are we to prove that these individuals were apprehended under the fact that they did anything that violated rules of war or that they were associated with a terrorist group? See it's the same shit over and over, I ask this question, they pocess no membership card, yet since the US administration found them guilty then they are. It's BULLSHIT!
You nor the government has given any reason as to why these individuals are being held.
And after almost 4 years that's just sad and pathetic for a developed country that feels privelaged enough to spread democracy.A_Wanderer said:They have not found them guilty, they have not gone to trial yet and their guilt or innocence in regards to fighting against the US and it's allies without uniforms and with concealed arms or their association to Islamist terrorist networks is not yet ascertained.
Why speak in idiotic presumptions? They were presumed guilty from the beginning. You only inprison someone based on evidence. Why hasn't this evidence shown up in a court? Because of idealogy, if that's the case half of this planet needs to imprisoned. Where do you suggest we start?A_Wanderer said:
Of course they could be presumed innocent until proven guilty and let go, but is that the best course of action considering the ideology of the groups that they may have been associating with and the documented history of Afghanistan as a base for Al Qaeda operatives.
How is it that you capture them with arms(improper) without documentation? Please tell me how the US army of today can do that, please.A_Wanderer said:
What of those who were captured during operations while bearing arms? if their actions in Afghanistan prior to capture cannot be properly reconstructed should they be let go?
BonoVoxSupastar said:
And after almost 4 years that's just sad and pathetic for a developed country that feels privelaged enough to spread democracy.
Why speak in idiotic presumptions? They were presumed guilty from the beginning. You only inprison someone based on evidence. Why hasn't this evidence shown up in a court? Because of idealogy, if that's the case half of this planet needs to imprisoned. Where do you suggest we start?
How is it that you capture them with arms(improper) without documentation? Please tell me how the US army of today can do that, please.
If there actions prior to capture are in question then there needs to be evidence of that behavior. Obviously you had enough to tip you off then get enough to put on trial. It seems pretty easy to me.
whenhiphopdrovethebigcars said:
Very well thought and said, Bono Supastar.
A_Wanderer: think logically. You can´t presume someone is terrorist if you have no evidence. If you have evidence or can prove it, you go in front of a court. It´s very simple - they are not, so there is no public evidence. That´s also what AI is lobbying for. Tell me everyone in Guantanamo is a top terrorist - no problem. But the US administation and army don´t give any specific information.
Anyway, since Rumsfeld, Bush and Blair LIED about the EVIDENCE re: nuclear arms in Iraq, no one with HALF a brain trusts that group of governmental gangsters.