Prosecute the torture.

September 26, 2007

How's This for Hypocrisy?

From the McClatchy papers:

President Bush implored the United Nations on Tuesday to recommit itself to restoring human decency by liberating oppressed people and ending famine and disease.

Speaking before the United Nations General Assembly, the president called for renewed efforts to enforce the U.N.'s Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a striking point of emphasis for a leader who's widely accused of violating human rights in waging war against terrorism.

Bush didn't mention the U.S. prisons in Afghanistan or at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay, the U.S. practice of holding detainees for years without legal charges or access to lawyers, or the CIA's "rendition" kidnappings of suspects abroad, all issues of concern to human rights activists around the world.

For those of you who don't (or won't) remember, here are some reminders.

At Gitmo, it took a decision by the Supreme Court to change dubya's policy of imprisoning terror suspects indefinitely - without trial or access to lawyers. And that was only a year ago.

The Bush administration has agreed to apply the Geneva Conventions to all terrorism suspects in U.S. custody, bowing to the Supreme Court's recent rejection of policies that have imprisoned hundreds for years without trials.

The Pentagon announced yesterday that it has called on military officials to adhere to the conventions in dealing with al-Qaeda detainees. The administration also has decided that even prisoners held by the CIA in secret prisons abroad must be treated in accordance with international standards, an interpretation that would prohibit prisoners from being subjected to harsh treatment in interrogations, several U.S. officials said.

At Abu Ghraib, well we all know about Abu Ghraib.



And dubya's lecturing the world about human rights?

15 comments:

Anonymous said...

John K. says: I guess the lefties of this blog missed the speech Ahmadinajad gave at the UN. Typical.

Whigsboy said...

So, DTOFJ, you see Bush and Ahmadinejad as somehow morally equivalent? Isn't the U.S. supposed to be the vanguard of "freedom" and "liberty"? See, those words actually are supposed to mean something. So when the president of the United States uses them, he shouldn't have to worry about numerous examples of U.S. behavior that contradicts that very idea, all allegedly in the name of "fightin' terra."

Lemmings like you, though, don't get it. You just say, "Oh, those lefties, hate America, hate our freedoms." No, see, I, for one, love what our country is supposed to be about, love those freedoms, and believe we can maintain them AND protect ourselves - and others - from the "evildoers."

Oh, and about my question about you and the military. Any answers any time soon? I'll even buy you some lotion for the basket in your basement dungeon if you'll respond.

Heir to the Throne said...

I am still wondering why those who do not follow the Geneva Conventions are entitled to the protects of the Geneva Conventions? The only answer I get is "we are better than the terrorists!!!"

As for Abu Ghraib, you will overlook that the US military did prosecuted those who committed the "torture".

As for the "torture" of Abu Ghraib I am guess that captured US soldiers would prefer the Abu Ghraib "torture" to their current treatment if captured by Al-Qaeda.

Unless you think naked twister and standing on a box with a hood and wires and the other "tortures are worst than having your head sawed off and your body mutilated and booby-trapped.

Anonymous said...

John K. says: Well I will answer the question about the military. Maybe I was and Maybe I wasn't. Be real careful on your assumptions. And what the heck does that have to do with anything. You got the hots for me? LOL LOL LOL You dufus

Anonymous said...

John K. says: Yep you folks missed it. Ahmadinajad pledged to bring on the 12th iman. To destroy the nation of Israel and put the jews into concentration camps and you focused on Bush. The Daily Kos and Olbermouth have determined that Bush is the fulcrum of evil in the world and whatever Ahmadinajad does is okay. Ahmadinajad and Bin laden (Dem-Pakistan) plays you folks for fools.

Sherry said...

http://commonsense.ourfuture.org/bet_wetter_nation


check this out please, anon.

this is the difference between balls and class and the whiney nation we were being frightened into.

you might not remember Nikita Khrushchev but i was a kid and watched him on t.v.

we let him speak. we judged him by his speech and as the article points out, the soviet union DID have the capablity of blowing up entite cites and more. yet we piss and moan and whine about letting some 3 rate guy come here and make the case against himself.

grow up.

and go read spork's take on it.

http://sporkinthedrawer.typepad.com/blog/


or are you scared to?

Sherry said...

as to torture of any kind, we should be well above that.

this is america!!!

Whigsboy said...

Well, dtofj, what it has to do with anything is that you are just so gung-ho about this war and its importance. It's just a question: If it's that important, why aren't your boots on the ground? If you're too old, that's fine. But if not, get over there.

Also, it's readily apparent that Ahmadinejad is a nut job. His statements sort of speak for themselves, don't they?

And, Heir, either we, as a nation, believe in liberty and freedom and abide by international conventions or we don't. A big part of the larger war on terror is about - and I hate to be trite - winning hearts and minds.

Thus, when you engage in the same tactics of a dictator you just deposed, you lose hearts and minds.

When you throw a bunch of people who may or may not be terrorists in a prison halfway across the world and don't give them adequate access to legal representation and due process, you lose hearts and minds.

When you hire a private army that goes around an allegedly sovereign nation shooting up civilians, you lose hearts and minds.

When you lose hearts and minds, you create terrorists and make this country less safe, and you make the soldiers you have put in harms way far less safe should they be captured.

It's fairly easy.

Anonymous said...

John K. says: It strikes me as amusing that there are some people whose entire point of debate is based on whether someone was in the military or not. That is as stupid as it gets. And clearly shows the lefty lack of any intelligence. Did moveon.org tell you folks to ask that question. LOL LOL LOL Are you lefties lame or what?

Whigsboy said...

DTOFJ, it strikes me as amusing that people like you crave this war in Iraq, as long as it's not you getting shot up. You don't seem to care that these soldiers are getting killed. To you, all of this death and destruction and loss of hundreds of billions of dollars doesn't seem to mean anything. It's just the price to be paid to save face. Gosh it's sad.

Sherry said...

i'm begining to think some people here have gotten the reality of war and death confused with video and board games.

Anonymous said...

John K. says: Wrong again. Its the price to be paid to preserve freedom. The price we have paid since 1775 to keep the idea of Govt of the People alive. Even media matters and moveon.org benefit. As a sidebar LOL LOL LOL you lefties tried to use Olbermouth and media matters to label O'Reilly with the racist tag. And this is funny, Sharpton appeared on O'Reilly thereby dismissing that claim. LMAO. Like I said it is too easy, way too easy. You lefties don't have the talent to do that stuff, except to get Imus but he was a lefty.

xranger said...

As I sit by and watch this string, I gotta say that John K is cleaning your collective liberal clocks.

Where's John Schmuck when you need him?

Sherry said...

i don't think so x, and i don't believe that you really think it either. you are brighter, i would think than that.

no matter how many times he types lol, it's his only defense against reason.

Whigsboy said...

"The price WE paid"? What price are you paying, dtofj? You laugh at our dead soldiers and claim "you win," as if this is a game. I'm not quite sure what launching a war based on lies has to do with protecting our freedoms, but, hey, we've already established that most of the right is more interested in distraction and obfuscation than having an honest discussion about the war. Thus, every time somebody on this blog brings up a point about the war, you say, "But what about..." MoveOn or the Sheriff of Allegheny County (that was a classic) or Media Matters, and on and on.

And X, until now I had respect for you. But if you honestly believe that somebody who has not once shown any regard for the very real sacrifice American soldiers are making right now - who basically told a mother of two who was distraught about going back for her 3rd rotation in Iraq to 'suck it up' - is "cleaning our clocks" with his LOLs and his predictable inability to ever directly address any points anybody makes, then you are clearly not the person I thought you were.

Again, sad.