quote: Former Secretary of State Colin Powell joined top Republican senators to oppose President Bush's request to reinterpret a Geneva Convention rule in order to allow tougher interrogations of terror suspects.
McCain, a former Vietnam POW, and Powell -- along with Sens. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and John Warner of Virginia, chairman of the Armed Services Committee -- oppose any changes to the U.S. interpretation of Article III, arguing that it could adversely affect enemies' treatment of captured U.S. service members harshly.
"The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism," Powell, a retired Army four-star general, wrote in his letter to McCain, whose amendment last year opposed the use of torture.
"It is very important for the American people to understand that in order to protect this country, we must be able to interrogate people who have information about future attacks," Bush said. "I will resist any bill that does not enable this program to go forward with legal clarity."
After negotiations with the White House appeared to have broken down earlier this week, Warner's committee met Thursday morning to begin work on an alternate tribunal bill.
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tennessee, has threatened to circumvent the Armed Services Committee and bring the administration's plan directly to the Senate floor, which could lead to an election-year showdown within Republican ranks.
The House Armed Services Committee passed legislation that authorizes terrorists tribunals that closely adheres to the Bush administration proposal on Wednesday.
Yay Republicans!
(Never thought I'd say that)
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I completely agree with John McCains effort to block these revisions, and I am glad Powell is getting behind it.
I can't help but think in this case the government is trying to get liscense to at best, push the envelope just alittle further, at worst, legitimize immoral treatment of prisoners.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
As far as I can tell, it's a step towards making the trial of prisoners of war into a formality, rather than anything of actual consequence or justice.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I am astounded at the Administration's short-sightedness in dealing with terrorist prisoners. Setting aside the entire debate about 'ticking time bombs', imprisoning suspects in secret CIA foreign prisons with 'tough but humane' interrogation methods...
Honestly, what do we expect our next major enemy to do with our PoWs? Obviously, humane treatment at the hands off terrorists is not something to be expected. But they're not our only enemies. What happens in fifty years if we go to war with the PRC, for example? Or Iran as a state?
These kinds of enemies are those whose human-rights records are grim to say the least, but nonetheless are bound by some international respectibility needs.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I am astounded at the Administration's short-sightedness in dealing with terrorist prisoners. Setting aside the entire debate about 'ticking time bombs', imprisoning suspects in secret CIA foreign prisons with 'tough but humane' interrogation methods...
Honestly, what do we expect our next major enemy to do with our PoWs? Obviously, humane treatment at the hands off terrorists is not something to be expected. But they're not our only enemies. What happens in fifty years if we go to war with the PRC, for example? Or Iran as a state?
These kinds of enemies are those whose human-rights records are grim to say the least, but nonetheless are bound by some international respectibility needs.
Oh what China does to its prisoners is AT least as bad, if not more so then what America does. You just don't get pictures of it in the media because the government controls the media so ridgidly.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I don't always agree with him, but I think that Bob Schieffer was exactly right in this:
quote: Real security begins with remembering who we are. We gain nothing by adopting the methods of our enemies.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Yes, but one of (actually the primary) restraint on treatment of PoWs is what is expected to be done to a state's own PoWs in the hands of the enemy.
Also to be clear, I'm not comparing PRC treatment of PoWs to US treatment, I'm talking about what will happen in the next few decades. Gradually, PRC human rights are improving. It might come down to a very fine line.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I would like to point out that despite varying degrees of "re-education" offered to American and South Korean POWs during the Korean war it is documented that between being a US POW and a PVA POW you were better off as an PVA (People's Volunteer Army) pow. lemme get wiki link.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:POWs were mistreated by all sides. The UN side was ultimately responsible for more deaths and violence than the communist side as there were more prisoners. As pointed out by Britain's former Chief of the Defense Staff, Field Marshal Lord Carver: "The UN prisoners in Chinese hands, although subject to 'reducation' processes of varying intensity...were certainly much better off in every way than any held by the Americans...."
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Yes, but one of (actually the primary) restraint on treatment of PoWs is what is expected to be done to a state's own PoWs in the hands of the enemy.
I would like to think that the primary restraints on our treatment of anyone are our own humanity and our own ideals.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
oh WOW China didnt abuse American's who were fighting mostly against the North Koreans. Had the Chinese mistreated them, there would have been hell to pay, and McArthurs suggestion that America nuke the Chinese would have seemed more sane.
We can see how the Chinese treat their OWN people when they oppose the government. If they treat the CHINESE in such a manner, just wait til its a foreigner.
Go read about The Boxer Rebellion and its abundantly clear what Chinese people are capable of.
If you wan't to argue that thus far China has yet to mistreat America as badly as America has mistreated it, I can agree with that. But (edit:)The Chinese have not been in a position of power YET when it came to any international conflict.
Right NOW I would be willing to bet that in the last 10 years, China has done worse things to its own people then anything America has done to terrorists.
I could be wrong.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
I fully expect china to harvest american POWs organs... just like they do with their own people.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
Does Powell actually have any role in the government anymore? Isn't he just a private citizen now?
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Powell is a citizen, but one a lot of people respect.
When he went to war, he knew what he was doing.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Pixiest they only harvest organs AFAIK and as far as reported of from executed prisoners essentally the murders, serial killers etc. Wouldnt you agree that varvesting their organs would be the bes thing to do?
Erm BB after the PVA crossed the Yalu river and made the US army go through the longest retreat in history it was mostly the PVA fighting. The entire size of the DPRK army was about 120k men at best while the PVA was around 500,000 at any one time as troops were regularily rotated out and in the the theatre.
MacArthurs idea to use nukes everwhere on chinas border is the most insane and inhumane thing I have evenr heard and wouldve ndoutably ended up with a nuclear exchange between the USSR and the USA I know very well hwat the Chinese are capable of I am just saying that their recent record is significantly better then anyone gives credit for.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
This country is going to hell in a hand basket. WTF? A couple buildings get bombed, and everybody jumps on the bandwagon to Big Brother?
It seems to me that the harder the government "fights terrorism", the more the terrorists are winning.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven: Powell is a citizen, but one a lot of people respect.
When he went to war, he knew what he was doing.
True Story
Blayne: Its nice that the 10 year old little boy has no record of trying abuse the bullies older than him.
China is getting older, and it seems to be spending ALOT of time in the gym, as well as making frequent visits to gun stores everytime they get a dollar. The next time (I hope it never happens) that they are in a military conflict with another country, it will be THEN that we can honestly detect the integrity of their people in regards to their treatment of their prisoners.
edit: I agree McArthurs Nuke---->China idea was quite possibly the worse idea ever conceived by the mind of a man.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Go read about The Boxer Rebellion and its abundantly clear what Chinese people are capable of.
Umm... I was with you until this line. The People's Republic of China does not equal "Chinese people," thank you very much.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tarrsk:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Go read about The Boxer Rebellion and its abundantly clear what Chinese people are capable of.
Umm... I was with you until this line. The People's Republic of China does not equal "Chinese people," thank you very much.
Funnily enough I can agree with this statement in a vague way. Which probably means I need to ask you to clarify Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Actually what does the Boxer Rebellion has to do with their treatement of prisoners? The BR was a rebellion to repel foreigners I see no correlation.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I don't know that I'd call it a 'smack-down.' But it's a positive step, I think. Part of the cynical me thinks this is an attempt to make the GOP look more moderate, pending the elections in November, though.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Pixiest they only harvest organs AFAIK and as far as reported of from executed prisoners essentally the murders, serial killers etc. Wouldnt you agree that varvesting their organs would be the bes thing to do?
Amusingly, roughly 1/3 of the crimes on the books in China have a maximum sentence of execution. And the number of crimes on the books have also swelled in a nice, almost expotential curve in the past 20 years. And the number of people getting the maximum sentence (execution) for crimes such as stealing a pig or other petty crimes has a similar curve - especially if you're a healthy young person. Oh, and critizing the Party also can get you the death sentence. And the vast majority of harvested organs go either to Party officals and their families or foreigners paying the Party for the organ. And the families of the executed prisoners rarely get the bodies back, because then people could figure out exactly how many organs are being stolen from bodies, since very few prisoners give consent - or are even asked.
Yeah, we had an Ethics Bowl case on this issue last year. It's pretty damn horrifying.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Blayne, I've never understand your blind enfatuation with the PRC. It's completely insane....
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Tarrsk:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Go read about The Boxer Rebellion and its abundantly clear what Chinese people are capable of.
Umm... I was with you until this line. The People's Republic of China does not equal "Chinese people," thank you very much.
Funnily enough I can agree with this statement in a vague way. Which probably means I need to ask you to clarify
Your statement just comes off as vaguely racist (I'm not saying that you are). Just thought you might like to know that your statement could be badly misconstrued. Even as someone who has read many of your posts and knows that you don't actually think that "Chinese people" are all a bunch of murderous torturers, it gave me pause.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
*shrug* Culturally speaking, would you say that the Chinese culture-insofar as there is such a thing-has as high a degree of respect for individual life as, say, northern European cultures? Northern and southern American cultures? Australian?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tarrsk:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Tarrsk:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Go read about The Boxer Rebellion and its abundantly clear what Chinese people are capable of.
Umm... I was with you until this line. The People's Republic of China does not equal "Chinese people," thank you very much.
Funnily enough I can agree with this statement in a vague way. Which probably means I need to ask you to clarify
Your statement just comes off as vaguely racist (I'm not saying that you are). Just thought you might like to know that your statement could be badly misconstrued. Even as someone who has read many of your posts and knows that you don't actually think that "Chinese people" are all a bunch of murderous torturers, it gave me pause.
I assure you I do not mean that at all.
I was saying that that quote COULD mean. "The People's Republic of China does not equal "Chinese people,"= The government is not representative of the peoples interest because real Chinese people do not run it.
Sure there are local elections but the only way you get anywhere is if one of the hardliners or good old boys decides they like you and promote you to a higher station. Or if your daddy just happens to be high up you can get on the fast track.
I do admit that I come across as anti Chinese sometimes but I try to temper it with balance, usually I am responding to one of Blayne's posts.
The Chinese people are VERY dear to me, and I love their culture.
Blayne: The Boxer Rebellion shows that when the government tells its people "Foreigners need not be treated with the respect due a fellow human being, they are barbarians." And the people go out and actively seek to execute and exterminate all of the foreigners that they (The Chinese) are capable of maltreatment.
Posted by Mig (Member # 9284) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: This country is going to hell in a hand basket. WTF? A couple buildings get bombed, and everybody jumps on the bandwagon to Big Brother?
It seems to me that the harder the government "fights terrorism", the more the terrorists are winning.
A couple of buildings get bombed? How quickly you forget the over three thousand dead, the penatagon attack and the poor people on the hijacked planes.
Just how would you suggest that we challenge the terrorists in a nice way? Have you any particular compromise in mind?
Your's is the attitude that encouraged UBL to continue to escalate the terror against the US. The nice approach didn't stop the WTC attack in 93, Kobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, the emabassy bombings in Africa, and the USS Cole. I've probably forgoten a few.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Your's is the attitude that encouraged UBL to continue to escalate the terror against the US.
Which attitude would have made him do something else?
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Mig, you're assuming an awful lot there that MightyCow didn't say.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Interestingly, there are some researchers who think some of UBL's have been taken to help Bush stay in power, as it gets him more power. For instance, his video about the elections was obvious reverse-psychology.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Mig -
Yours is the attitude of a blind sycophant. MC might have been callous in the way he worded it, but he's right. 3,000 dead was devastating and tragic, but is the price of us losing our heritage and identity really that low?
Blayne -
The longest retreat in history? Korea ain't that big. Maybe you mean the longest retreat in US history.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mig:
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: This country is going to hell in a hand basket. WTF? A couple buildings get bombed, and everybody jumps on the bandwagon to Big Brother?
It seems to me that the harder the government "fights terrorism", the more the terrorists are winning.
A couple of buildings get bombed? How quickly you forget the over three thousand dead, the penatagon attack and the poor people on the hijacked planes.
Just how would you suggest that we challenge the terrorists in a nice way? Have you any particular compromise in mind?
Your's is the attitude that encouraged UBL to continue to escalate the terror against the US. The nice approach didn't stop the WTC attack in 93, Kobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, the emabassy bombings in Africa, and the USS Cole. I've probably forgoten a few.
I agree with MightyCow: it's a standard goal of terrorists/insurgents to force their enemies/occupiers to adapt more and more repressive strategies and tactics. In that sense, Bush and his supporters are, ironically, in reality playing into the terrorists hands by advocating nullification of long-standing treaties and constitutional rights. Abandoning our Constitution and other principles because of vauge fears of potential future attacks is both cowardly and cynically pragmatic, though doomed to fail; yet opponents to this are given the knee-jerk label "appeasers".
General Powell was very right to write "The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism," and without allies we cannot hope to defeat or even contain terrorism.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Your's is the attitude that encouraged UBL to continue to escalate the terror against the US. The nice approach didn't stop the WTC attack in 93, Kobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, the emabassy bombings in Africa, and the USS Cole. I've probably forgoten a few.
Really? You actually believe that, if we were more willing to torture apprehended terrorists, and increase surveillance on our citizens, other terrorists would be less likely to attack us?
Yeah, I'm gonna have to point out that that's a stupid idea, Mig. It's as close to being stupid in fact as an idea can be, honestly. Here's why: terrorists routinely strike-and in the past five years or so, almost exclusively strike-targets within nations whose treatment of prisoners is worse than ours.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Lyth yes I meant to say US military history.
CUlturally Cina has generally had a legalist approach to law, where if you break the law you must be punished to keep you from breaking it again and sometime this means death, but the largest figure Ive seen was what? 10,000 exeutions a year? out of 1.3 billion thats a small number also considering that the USA imprisons 2.5 million people out of 300 million while the PRC only imprisons 1-1.5 million it says alot to how effective it is.
Actually according to a google video I watched a discussion of Hu Jintao by the US ambassador to China, and 2 other china experts their consensus was that the central government was held in good standing by the people as a whole its generally the local government that frustrates people. And also for that matter the PLA is also held in high esteem since they are highly publicized as the ones that act to help people during emergancies like bad weather.
Aside from a lack of western conceived notions of democracy what exactly is the government NOT doing in the people's best interest? Last I checked economic growth, providing jobs, and hundreds of billions of dollars in aid to the poor central provences, the autonomus provecnes and the underdeveloped Manchurian areas where all things that can be considered in the peoples interest.
Even people who I argue vehemently against at school agree that the human rights record is improving.
And BB during th Boxer rebellions foreigners were very well possibly the cause or perceievd cause of many of the nations misfortunes I see no reason why the people shouldnt resort to whatever means nessasary to force them out.
Posted by GiantReturns (Member # 9349) on :
I'm sorry but I have to actually for once agree with president Bush on this issue. I can't see strappin a terrorist up to a lie detector test and having him tell lies about for example: where were you planning to hit next or where is Osama Bin Laden. Your not going to get those answers by using arm stress technics. If a member of Al-Queda knows some thing to prevent another 9/11 I really dont care what u have to do to get the truth. Because I'd rather see one tortured known terrorist on the news then having to watch the WTC go down hundreds of times while people are jumping to their deaths. Yes I think I could sleep ok.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mig: Just how would you suggest that we challenge the terrorists in a nice way? Have you any particular compromise in mind?
The "non-nice way" currently being tested in Afghanistan and Iraq has had consequences orders of magnitude worse than the September 11th attacks. Thousands upon thousands have already died, and in many ways Iraq in particular is even worse off now than it was under the barbaric American-sponsored regime of Saddam Hussein. I really hope that the "nice way" and the "non-nice way" aren't the only two available options -- which seems to be the dichotomy that you're trying to set up.
Blayne, the U.S. executes an even smaller percentage of its population than China. Does that make it okay? Would you advocate capital punishment here in Canada as long as the government doesn't execute more people than your arbitrary "it's in the interests of deterrent" threshold? If not, why is capital punishment okay in China as a deterrent but not in Canada? Do you think death is a just penalty for stealing a pig?
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:Military lawyers also have raised concerns about the administration bill's restrictions on due-process rights for defendants. Prosecutors would be able to present evidence to the tribunal that would be kept secret from the defense and could use hearsay and coerced confessions against defendants.
From the CNN article on the front page.
Yikes.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I reiterate something I said before, this Administration-some segments of Congress, too- seems to be outright saying, "We want the power to be able to say, 'They're terrorists because we say so, we don't have to prove it, trust us,' and have it stick legally."
That's not a power I'm comfortable granting to anyone. It's a power I would perhaps barely tolerate once in extreme, national-death circumstances but not systemically over a period of years!
Posted by Mig (Member # 9284) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote: Your's is the attitude that encouraged UBL to continue to escalate the terror against the US.
Which attitude would have made him do something else?
The attitude that the Clinton administration refused: Kill him when you can.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
quote:Originally posted by GiantReturns: I'm sorry but I have to actually for once agree with president Bush on this issue. I can't see strappin a terrorist up to a lie detector test and having him tell lies about for example: where were you planning to hit next or where is Osama Bin Laden. Your not going to get those answers by using arm stress technics. If a member of Al-Queda knows some thing to prevent another 9/11 I really dont care what u have to do to get the truth. Because I'd rather see one tortured known terrorist on the news then having to watch the WTC go down hundreds of times while people are jumping to their deaths. Yes I think I could sleep ok.
Yeah, because information given under duress is always so very reliable.
The "alternative interrogation techniques" advocated by this administration are probably doing more harm than good in the War on Terror (er, Global Conflict Against Extremism, er, whatever the hell they're calling it today). By doing these things and then trying to justify them legally, we are turning global opinion against us, and pissing off an entire generation of Muslims in the process. You really think that will make the terrorist problem go down?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
there is an inaccurate impression being portrayed that people are being executed for stealing a pig if the average is around 10k a year then they really arent executing every tom dick and harry are they?
Capitol punishment depends on the circumstances and frankly the pros and cons of capitol punishment dont fit here eahc nation has there own way of doing things inregards to criminals its none of our buisness.
Posted by Mig (Member # 9284) on :
Morbo writes:
quote:General Powell was very right to write "The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism," and without allies we cannot hope to defeat or even contain terrorism.
Mr. Powell, who in the world is doubting the moral basis for fighting terrorism, other that the terrorists themselves? I can't belive that Powell is starting to wonder whether it is immoral to fight terrorism. Terrorists kill innocent people in planes, building in in trains? It's sad when a respected leader of Powell's stature begins to wonder whether we should stop fighting and just give in.
There seems to be a great reluctance on the part of many of you to actually fight the terrorists. Sure you'll deny this, and you'll say that you want to fight them the right way and not the way that this administration is doing it. Every one opposed to Bush's efforts can only offer criticism. What terror fighting options do any of the opponents of Bush actually support. Please name a few because many of us Bush supporters are starting to wonder whether your more committed to scoring partican political points than actually defending us from the islmofascists.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Mig,
quote:The attitude that the Clinton administration refused: Kill him when you can.
The 9-11 Commission has reported something quite different in regards to the events you're no doubt referencing for this statement. But go ahead, keep saying it. It'll turn true one of these days!
quote:Mr. Powell, who in the world is doubting the moral basis for fighting terrorism, other that the terrorists themselves? I can't belive that Powell is starting to wonder whether it is immoral to fight terrorism. Terrorists kill innocent people in planes, building in in trains? It's sad when a respected leader of Powell's stature begins to wonder whether we should stop fighting and just give in.
I can't be sure if this is a reflection of inadequate reading comprehension or just dishonesty on your part, Mig.
quote:"The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism,"
Is a statement that says something quite different from what you say it did.
quote:Please name a few because many of us Bush supporters are starting to wonder whether your more committed to scoring partican political points than actually defending us from the islmofascists.
Why? You are unwilling or unable to offer an honest or correct response to these criticisms-which, by the way, aren't the only things offered-so why should 'we' waste the time?
As though there were only two parties, pro-Bush and anti-Bush. Please.
Posted by Mig (Member # 9284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Mig,
quote:Please name a few because many of us Bush supporters are starting to wonder whether your more committed to scoring partican political points than actually defending us from the islmofascists.
Why? You are unwilling or unable to offer an honest or correct response to these criticisms-which, by the way, aren't the only things offered-so why should 'we' waste the time?
As though there were only two parties, pro-Bush and anti-Bush. Please.
A perfect example of what I said. Another guy who says he supports fighting the terrorists, but when asked to specify what parts of the war he supports or how it should be done differently, he only avoids the issue.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I've voted for Bush twice now for President, Mig, so kindly shut your trap on that score.
Admit you either lied or were grossly mistaken about what, for instance, Powell wrote for starters. Prove you've got guts at least online.
Edit: Oh, and just for fun because wasting effort is fun sometimes...
Let's see, what I would have done differently. I would not have tied the war in Iraq so inextricably with WMD. Although very important, there were other in my opinion war-worthy reasons to go to war.
What would be doing differently now? For one thing, more troops on the ground within Iraq. Much more resources and money funneled to helping train and equip the Iraq military. In Afghanistan, something aside from essentially yielding much of the nation to enemies and warlords would be nice.
No secret foreign CIA prisons would be great. None of this talk about 'tough but humane' would be peachy. Realistic spending forecasts for war efforts would be honest, instead of 'emergency'-yet predictible-spending bills. Something to remind our people that we're at war that wasn't just, "Trust me, I'm doing things right," such as something like a "Would you like to donate $20.00 to the military spending fund," on taxes, that's an interesting idea.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I reiterate something I said before, this Administration-some segments of Congress, too- seems to be outright saying, "We want the power to be able to say, 'They're terrorists because we say so, we don't have to prove it, trust us,' and have it stick legally."
That's not a power I'm comfortable granting to anyone. It's a power I would perhaps barely tolerate once in extreme, national-death circumstances but not systemically over a period of years!
I couldn't agree more, and something similar is happening in my own country ("security certificates" and the Anti-Terrorism Act). The government has to show their evidence to a judge, but I'm decidedly unconvinced that the ruling of a single judge based on secret evidence should be sufficient to detain suspects indefinitely without charge or trial. I wrote a letter to the previous government about it, but unfortunately the new government has pledged to strengthen the ATA, which in my view is a big step in the wrong direction.
quote:Blayne wrote: there is an inaccurate impression being portrayed that people are being executed for stealing a pig if the average is around 10k a year then they really arent executing every tom dick and harry are they?
All I've got to go on is your hearsay figure. 10,000 people a year is a lot -- roughly triple the number who died in the September 11th attacks, for example. Writing that figure off as a drop in the proverbial bucket is, in my opinion, taking a step onto a very treacherous slope.
quote:Blayne wrote: Capitol punishment depends on the circumstances and frankly the pros and cons of capitol punishment dont fit here eahc nation has there own way of doing things inregards to criminals its none of our buisness.
It isn't a question of pros and cons, it's a question of right and wrong. How else am I to judge actions but with the moral standards I espouse?
If it's nobody else's business what goes on outside their nation's borders, would you support the right of the former Taliban regime in Afghanistan to return to power and continue executing teachers who dare to educate female students? Using your relativistic moral framework, there are very few things that can't be justified. I think you're taking moral relativism much too far, and I think you're only doing it because you like China. I'm not at all convinced you'd apply the same standards to other countries -- the most obvious example is your tendency to point to American wrongs to contrast them with Chinese wrongs, claiming that the Chinese are only about as bad as the Americans and so that makes it okay.
From what I've been reading, the Chinese human rights record, while still abysmal, is improving somewhat. That in no way means that people should stop advocating for China to keep improving its practices -- in fact, it suggests that such advocacy is a good thing to do, as it may actually be modestly effective.
Your constant attempts to deflect criticism of China reveal a powerful bias. I've never seen you criticize China, and I honestly doubt you'd do so even if they invaded Canada tomorrow.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
if they did who'ld you think they'ld install as puppets Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
You mean to say that Canada would become a Blayneocracy? Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Why would anyone invade Canada?
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
1)Chicks 2)Beer
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by mackillian: Why would anyone invade Canada?
Vast natural resources, most notably oil and water. We supply you with about as much oil as Saudi Arabia does.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Short of the US officially repudiating the GenevaConvention, I fail to see any means by which to legalize Dubya's special"military"tribunals, let alone cruel and unusual interrogation techniques.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Mig, what would we lefties do to run the war better?
1) Listen to disent, not dismiss it. 2) Understand the local politics, not try to bulldoze over it with our own. 3) Sell democracy to the region at a grass roots level instead of wasting resources selling the war to the US. 4) Treat the inhabitants, both those against us and those opposed, with enough respect and tolerance that we can win the war for their hearts and minds. 5) Add levels of transparency and oversite to prove we are as good as our word, so that no amount of Terrorist Propaganda can convince anyone that we are doing things just as bad as they are. 6) Don't try to out terrorize the terrorists. 7) Never, ever, use the phrase "Islamoterrorists". It is an insult to all those who follow Islam, but do not seek violence. Since we want such people to be our allies, our eyes and ears, and our partners in this war, insulting them is not a practical policy.
It seems to me that the neo-cons went into Iraq believing that if you build a better mousetrap, the world would beat a path to your doorstep. Since Democracy is the "best possible" form of government they were expecing the Iraq people to beat a path to that door. Unfortunately they didn't take into account all the other mousetrap manufacturers who beat a path to that door, faster, and with ideas of bribery, destruction, corporate intrigue, and every other tactic imaginable to close down that improved mousetrap design.
Posted by Mig (Member # 9284) on :
Storm Saxon, I couldn't agree more.
Rakeesh, first, most of us try to discuss these issues here with resorting to insults. Second, I think we can both agree on the need to spend more money on defense and sending more troops into Iraq and Afghanistan, but I don't think that military action is enough to combat this threat. Covert intellegence operations are also essential. We may disagree on how to proceed there, but, although I don't think we should legalize torture, I don't think that making thiem listen to th Red Hot Chilli Peppers should count as torture. Nor do I see a great threat to our way of life we don't share our intelliegnce information with high ranking non-combatant captives.
Where am I wrong in what Powell wrote? He writes that the "world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism." The moral basis is that terrosits kill people and threaten our way of life so we should fight them. That seems pretty clear to me, and if some other people think thats wrong, why should we care? Who does he think the rest of the world wants to be doing our fightening, and what does he think their moral basis is? I'm not just parsing his words here. I think the problem is that Powell wasn't very clear in what he wrote. He may have meant that "some are questioning the moral basis for some of the actions we take to fight the terrorsits." But that's not what he wrote, and if that what he meant, then he should have given it more effort.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Mig, given your clearly established record around here of both making false statements about people such as former President Clinton, and your equally established record of ignoring almost all requests and even demands to explain yourself when called on such things...
Yeah, I'll insult you. Your primary means of dealing with criticism is to completely ignore it and act as though it was never made.
Posted by Mig (Member # 9284) on :
Dan_Raven, I believe that we are already doing all of the things that you suggest.
I only quibble with the last one, the use of the term islamo-fascism. Bush has used it, I use it regularly because I think it is accurate. But belive that Bush will, or has already given in to the polically correct police, give up on the phrase.
Mind you I prefer the term used by Oriana Fallaci, who's death was announced today (may she rest in peace): Islamic Nazism.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Rake, don't be so hard on Mig. His posts lead me to believe his sole source of information is Conservative Talk Radio. Since they only allow people who agree with them to have a voice can we truly expect Mig to know what to do when calm, reasonable people disgree with his party line? Esepcially when we use things such as facts, logic, patience and a dirth of fear mongering which such a devotee to the far Right's talking points is unused to handling.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Where am I wrong in what Powell wrote? He writes that the "world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism."
For starters, Powell does not say, "The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis for fighting terrorism." He says our fight against terrorism.
To put it in hyperbolic terms, the world might question the morality of the Soviet fight against Nazi Germany, but not the American or British fight against the same enemy. To call into question the former's morality is not to call into question the latter's, necessarily.
Perhaps if you bent even a fraction as much in searching for meaning in the words of your opponents as you expect your opponents to bend in search of yours...
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Lyth yes I meant to say US military history.
CUlturally Cina has generally had a legalist approach to law, where if you break the law you must be punished to keep you from breaking it again and sometime this means death, but the largest figure Ive seen was what? 10,000 exeutions a year? out of 1.3 billion thats a small number also considering that the USA imprisons 2.5 million people out of 300 million while the PRC only imprisons 1-1.5 million it says alot to how effective it is.
Actually according to a google video I watched a discussion of Hu Jintao by the US ambassador to China, and 2 other china experts their consensus was that the central government was held in good standing by the people as a whole its generally the local government that frustrates people. And also for that matter the PLA is also held in high esteem since they are highly publicized as the ones that act to help people during emergancies like bad weather.
Aside from a lack of western conceived notions of democracy what exactly is the government NOT doing in the people's best interest? Last I checked economic growth, providing jobs, and hundreds of billions of dollars in aid to the poor central provences, the autonomus provecnes and the underdeveloped Manchurian areas where all things that can be considered in the peoples interest.
Even people who I argue vehemently against at school agree that the human rights record is improving.
And BB during th Boxer rebellions foreigners were very well possibly the cause or perceievd cause of many of the nations misfortunes I see no reason why the people shouldnt resort to whatever means nessasary to force them out.
"I see no reason why people shouldn't resort to whatever means neccesary to force them out."
Its THIS attitude that bothers me about the Chinese Government. They often IGNORE very valid means and simply go with the one that is MOST effective. Tanks and soldiers shooting indescriminately was probably the fastest way to clear tian a men square.
I won't once condone what the foreigners did to China, it was deplorable and its a blot on us that most people do not realize exists. But allowing and even encouraging the common folk to execute and mutilate foreigners as well as laying seige to their embassy rather then say simply forcing them on to ships and deporting them clearly was not right IMO.
Its so strange to me Blayne that I find you playing defence attorney for the likes of Mao Ze Dong, Deng Xiao Ping, and most strangly The Emperess Dowager Ci Xi, its seriously like trying to defend Senator Joseph McCarthy.
The people are more or less happy with their government? How can ANYONE know that, you can't go out and take a poll, unless you did it in secret. AND EVEN THEN! Most people in China do NOT answer honestly when it comes to political opinions. They have learned through TERRIBLE events that anything you say can be brought against you when you LEAST expect it.
Its much SAFER to simply say "I approve of the job the government is doing." Because no ill can come of it. When I hear a Chinese person from China discussing politics freely, they invariably turn out to be from Hong Kong or Taiwan.
We already agree that human rights are doing better in China, why not simply admit the situation is STILL unacceptable. In the US its unacceptable, and MOST people will tell you that there is plenty of room for imporvement. Do you really think the standard of living and the freedoms a Chinese person enjoys are equal to the US, or are you operating on the premise that Americans expect too much?
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Mig, I do not believe that they are, or more importantly, that they were.
1) Listen to disent, not dismiss it.: This administration from day one has announced that "You are either with us or against us" in more than the war on terror. Conformity, loyalty, and adherence to party line has proven a more accurate measure of whom the administration listens too than any measure of competance. WMD and lack there of is a measure of what happens when you label dissenting voices as unworthy to be listened too.
2) Understand the local politics, not try to bulldoze over it with our own.: The President admited that as the invasion took place he was unsure of the difference between Sunni and Shi'ite. The decision to remove from jobs anyone with a Ba'athist connection means, despite warnings from local experts such as the Iraq CIA station cheif, that thousands of Iraqi men now had no future in an Americanized Iraq. They had little choice but to become insurgents.
3) Sell democracy to the region at a grass roots level instead of wasting resources selling the war to the US: What are we doing to sell the idea? What ever it is, it is not enough because poorly financed men who happen to know the language, the culture, and the people are convincing them to throw thier lives away, live in harsh conditions, and deny their futures in order to fight us.
4) Treat the inhabitants, both those against us and those opposed, with enough respect and tolerance that we can win the war for their hearts and minds: Abu Graib, Torture of Prisoners, The holding cells of Gitmo are not signs of respoect. There has been little leadership in how our troops should react to and with the inhabitants of Iraq except to Awe and Fear them into submission.
5) Add levels of transparency and oversite to prove we are as good as our word, so that no amount of Terrorist Propaganda can convince anyone that we are doing things just as bad as they are. Where do you see this happening? All I see is the administration saying, "We can't let you see what we are doing. You have to trust us. We can't let the legislature see what we are doing. You have to trust us. We can't let the Judiciary see what we are doing. YOu have to trust us." Having multiple levels of the administration overseeing what may be a breach of the law is not the same as having independent oversight.
6) Don't try to out terrorize the terrorists. What is "Alternative forms of persuasion" other than trying to fear people into giving us information. Its terrorizing the terrorists.
7) Never, ever, use the phrase "Islamoterrorists". This isn't PC. This is working to make our allies less scared of us. You say, "If all the bad terrorists are Islamic, then we should focus our attention on the threat that any Islamic may pose." They say, "If the only people the US attacks, bombs, conquers, and tortures are Islamic, then we have to defend ourselves from everything that is connected to the US."
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky:
quote:Originally posted by mackillian: Why would anyone invade Canada?
Vast natural resources, most notably oil and water. We supply you with about as much oil as Saudi Arabia does.
Don't forget the superior chocolate bars. Heck, I'd invade just for that.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Another great post, Dan.
quote: 1) Listen to disent, not dismiss it.: This administration from day one has announced that "You are either with us or against us" in more than the war on terror. Conformity, loyalty, and adherence to party line has proven a more accurate measure of whom the administration listens too than any measure of competance. WMD and lack there of is a measure of what happens when you label dissenting voices as unworthy to be listened too.
I remember when some 300,000 of us (millions around the world) were dismissed as a "focus group". Had they listened at all, they would have know things like the difference between Shi'ite and Sunni, that this was an occupation, and that it would be far more costly in both money and lives than any of them thought. These were all things that your average guy in the street (and I mean in the street) knew four years ago.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy:
quote:Originally posted by twinky:
quote:Originally posted by mackillian: Why would anyone invade Canada?
Vast natural resources, most notably oil and water. We supply you with about as much oil as Saudi Arabia does.
Don't forget the superior chocolate bars.
Not to mention its vibrant indie music scene.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky:
quote:Originally posted by mackillian: Why would anyone invade Canada?
Vast natural resources, most notably oil and water. We supply you with about as much oil as Saudi Arabia does.
Yes. But you have to import women.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Yes, but Canada exports comedians, sci-fi TV series, and snow. Actually, we really don't need the snow.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mig: Morbo writes:
quote:General Powell was very right to write "The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism," and without allies we cannot hope to defeat or even contain terrorism.
Mr. Powell, who in the world is doubting the moral basis for fighting terrorism, other that the terrorists themselves? I can't belive that Powell is starting to wonder whether it is immoral to fight terrorism. Terrorists kill innocent people in planes, building in in trains? It's sad when a respected leader of Powell's stature begins to wonder whether we should stop fighting and just give in.
Mig, as was pointed out later in the thread, you neglected the importance of the word "our" in General Powell's quote. Also, Powell has nowhere said or implied that "we should stop fighting and just give in." That is putting words in his mouth that he never said. Nor is Powell "starting to wonder whether it is immoral to fight terrorism." He's questioning the tactics of the Bush administration, as are many US citizens, including Republicans, and other people around the world.
quote: There seems to be a great reluctance on the part of many of you to actually fight the terrorists. Sure you'll deny this, and you'll say that you want to fight them the right way and not the way that this administration is doing it. Every one opposed to Bush's efforts can only offer criticism. What terror fighting options do any of the opponents of Bush actually support. Please name a few because many of us Bush supporters are starting to wonder whether your more committed to scoring partican political points than actually defending us from the islmofascists.
quote: The president called a Rose Garden news conference to confront a Republican rebellion led by Sens. John Warner of Virginia, John McCain of Arizona, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Susan Collins of Maine. To the administration's dismay, Colin Powell, Bush's former secretary of state, has joined with the lawmakers. Powell said Bush's plan to redefine the Geneva Conventions would cause the world "to doubt the moral basis" of the fight against terror and "put our own troops at risk." [...] Warner, a former Navy secretary, is chairman of the Armed Services Committee. McCain is a former Navy pilot who spent more than five years in enemy captivity during the Vietnam War. Graham is a former Air Force Reserve judge. Powell, a retired general, is a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
http://apnews.myway.com//article/20060915/D8K5J7R80.html edit:Also, two other former Chiefs of Staff are against the president's bill redefining Article 3 protections for soldiers, Generals John Shalikashvili and Jack Vessey. Vessey was Chief under Reagan, Shalikashvili under the current President a few years ago. Vessey wrote his own letter to McCain, and Shalikashvili signed one along with 28 other admirals and generals addressed to members of the Senate Armed Services Committee. http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=72524
Sure, I know that all of these leaders opposed to specific Bush anti-terrorism tactics, Republicans all (except for possibly a few of the generals), 32 former military men, 4 conservative Republican senators and 3 former chairmans of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (all under Republican presidents) and Bush's former highest ranking cabinet officer are all "more committed to scoring partican political points than actually defending us from the islmofascists."
They're all really al-Queda sleeper agents, right?
And to address your other point, all 4 senators are backing McCain's alternative bill concerning military tribunals and interrogation methods. They are not partisan hacks droning on without offering meaningful plans as alternatives.
[ September 15, 2006, 09:17 PM: Message edited by: Morbo ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Terrorists kill innocent people in planes, building in in trains? It's sad when a respected leader of Powell's stature begins to wonder whether we should stop fighting and just give in.
Wow, man. Is it really so hard to understand Powell's actual position that you invent positions for him?
By the way, I'd be quite interested in whether or not you can demonstrate a correct interpretation of Powell's contention!
Odds are 4:1 that you just simply ignore the brazen hollowness of your presently established position and just keep blazing on.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by twinky:
quote:Originally posted by mackillian: Why would anyone invade Canada?
Vast natural resources, most notably oil and water. We supply you with about as much oil as Saudi Arabia does.
Yes. But you have to import women.
Just because some men have such extrordinarily high standards. They only recruit the best. Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Mig, can I take your lack of response to mean that you think 32 generals and admirals, 3 former Joint Chiefs of Staff, a former Secretary of State and 4 Republican Senators are all more interested in scoring on Bush than informing policy?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
All I can take it as is that he is as good at cutting and running as he doubtless routinely accuses liberals of being.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)