quote:Frankly, I would have to be doing SOMETHING pretty stupid to get put in that situation. Can't imagine what that would be that I would be accused in such a way.
Have you ever done business, sat in a class, made a delivery, exchanged an e-mail, or had an on line conversation with someone who might have had terrorist connections? Have you ever donated to a humanitarian group that might have given food or shelter to Islamic persons who are know suspected of terrorism. Are you a member of a Teachers Association or other group that has spoken out against some Bush policy. Have you written any anti-war song or poems? Are you a pacifist? Do you have in Muslim friends?
If you start looking at who is on the Homeland Security suspect list, you will recognize that it doesn't take much to become a suspect.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: By the way, that is the same question Conservatives asked about Clinton.
Oh how difficult it is to NOT snap back at that comment.
quote:newfoundlogic - The fact that the reverse does not appear to be true for Democrats is why maybe, just maybe a third party may come to power before the 2008 election or very soon after and either give the Republicans a virtual monopoly on government offices because of the center/left split, or replace the Democratic party altogether. I would certainly be happy in having that many Republicans in power, but I would ultimately be disappointed in that extreme Republican ideas would ultimately come to frutition. So I am genuinely asking the Democrats to preserve themselves as a useful counterbalance by not alienating everyone with even one right of center view.
I think it's funny that you consider the Republican hold over American politics to be absolute, with Democrats as a useful counterbalance, but seemingly on the downward spiral. The forces of change in America are working against the Republicans. It may be twenty years before those forces finally unseat the Republicans, but it will happen. Newer generations are more in line with a Progressive movement, and the Democratic party is on the verge of picking up that banner. I doubt they will split into two parties, they care too much about the fate of the nation to hand power over to the Republicans so completely.
Republicans at the moment seem to be standing in the way of progress, but I think American history has shown a trend of plowing through barriers like that sooner or later. Hopefully it will be sooner.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:It is important to note that the constitution establishes that ratified treaties and the constitution constitute the highest law of the land. They are the highest law -- not the President or any other individual or body of individuals.
Not quite - it's a little more complicated than that. The Constitution, treaties, and laws passed in pursuance to the Constitution. This has incorrectly been interpreted in the past to mean that treaties do not have to be Constitutional. The following quotes are from FindLaw:
quote:This is seen in the answer which the Court has returned to the question: What happens when a treaty provision and an act of Congress conflict? The answer is, that neither has any intrinsic superiority over the other and that therefore the one of later date will prevail leges posteriores priores contrarias abrogant. In short, the treaty commitments of the United States do not diminish Congress' constitutional powers. To be sure, legislative repeal of a treaty as law of the land may amount to a violation of it as an international contract in the judgment of the other party to it. In such case, as the Court has said: ''Its infraction becomes the subject of international negotiations and reclamations, so far as the injured party chooses to seek redress, which may in the end be enforced by actual war. It is obvious that with all this the judicial courts have nothing to do and can give no redress.''
quote:By the supremacy clause, both statutes and treaties ''are declared . . . to be the supreme law of the land, and no superior efficacy is given to either over the other.'' 328 As statutes may be held void because they contravene the Constitution, it should follow that treaties may be held void, the Constitution being superior to both. And indeed the Court has numerous times so stated.
So while all three are the supreme law of the land, the Constitution is supreme to both statutes and treaties. Much of the confusion comes from the failure of the words "in pursuance of this Constitution" to apply to treaties. However, the common reasoning for that is that the founders did not want to abrogate previously signed treaties.
quote:If the President violates the constitution or breaks ratified treaties, he has broken his oath of office. If those violations are non trivial, he has commited a high crime by breaking the highest law of the land and should be impeached. The president cannot be considered above the law or we are no longer living in a consitutional democracy.
Not necessarily. Much depends on the circumstances surrounding the violation. For example, a police officer who searches as supect not in his home without probable cause has likely not commited an act for which he can be found liable, as long as there is any colorable case he can make that he was acting properly. This is a very low bar. The same type of reasoning likely applies to the President violating a treaty. Every government official has to interpret the law, including treaties. Criminal liability does not attach because the judicial system, which generally has the final say in such interpretations, disagrees with the President's interpretation.
posted
So Dag, are you arguing that setting up concentration camps for suspected terrorists, torture, and lies which have lead to the deaths of over 100,000 people are in some way comparable to a police officer doing a search without a warrant?
I did say violation that were non-trivial and the violation of which Bush is occused are quite serious.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just for the heck of it I did a search for my own posts about Mr. Bush. Here's something I posted on January 5, 2004:
quote:I strongly suspect Bush will win, and it won't be close at all. I don't like this, but here's why:
-- Many people believe that Bush won two wars and brought a despot down. -- Many people believe that Bush is bringing the country back to where it needs to be especially regarding abortions, queers, and those annoying environmentalists. -- Many people respond positively to a person who so obviously includes God in his decisionmaking. -- Many people will remember the tax cuts, and the checks they got. -- Many people will vote for a man with a definite plan in mind, as opposed to a man who's running on the "Bush is wrong" platform. -- Many people do not read the news, do not follow politics, do not look too closely into how bills get passed and who benefits. -- Many people, even those upset with current conditions, do not vote. -- Many people see only Bush's little smile and "everything's going just fine" attitude and dig no deeper. -- Many people admired - still admire - Reagan, and Bush is pushing Reagan's policies through better than Ronnie ever did. -- All of the serious money will be behind Bush, for pretty obvious reasons.
I don't want Bush in office, but for him to lose two things would have to happen.
He would have to screw up big, in a way that couldn't be spun, couldn't be ignored. Right now he's got Saddam, the economy is apparently coming up, and he has plans for the future. The fact that the war in Iraq was ill-planned, badly-timed, suspicious in origin, destructive to our foreign relations, and did little to combat terrorism is a lot tougher to get across than the picture of Saddam being searched for head lice. The fact that rising economy numbers being touted don't really reflect any relief to the bulk of the people out of work and massive deficits are looming in the near future, that's not really something the average American picks up on. The fact that his plans for the future will lead to crushing programs for the poor and disadvantaged, taking off any and all restrictions on corporate behavior, and using the national budget to wrench the country into an oligarchal aristocratic paradise isn't enough.
And his opposition would have to have a strong, easily defined position that was supported by his party. Dean's party is busy backbiting each other into inelectability.
As it happens I was wrong on the "won't be close" call, not because the Dems had a strong candidate but because so many people were disatisfied with Mr. Bush and (IMO) because of the backlash against the gay marriage rush earlier in the election year. A backlash I also predicted, by the way
But I think I was fairly accurate.
[ January 18, 2005, 11:42 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Have you ever done business, sat in a class, made a delivery, exchanged an e-mail, or had an on line conversation with someone who might have had terrorist connections?"
Nope, never happened. Can't think of it ever happening in my lifetime.
"Have you ever donated to a humanitarian group that might have given food or shelter to Islamic persons who are known suspected of terrorism."
Nope, I haven't. Possibly indirectly, but we are talking EXTREMELY indirectly. I don't give to charity organizations. I guess you could say I give to a group that gives to charity organizations, but that is a very small amount. If there was some kind of "crackdown" as you invision it, it would be a MASSIVE one.
"Are you a member of a Teachers Association or other group that has spoken out against some Bush policy."
Nope. If anything, I belong to groups that those who speak out against Bush have also spoken out against.
"Have you written any anti-war song or poems?"
Nope. If anything I have written pro-war stories. At worst they have been nuetral comments about the military.
"Are you a pacifist?"
Nope, I am not.
"Do you have in Muslim friends?"
Nope. In fact, I don't know if I even know any Muslims where I live (and probably don't).
One other thing, because this is sometimes mentioned. I have never been arrested and have gotten one speeding ticket ever in 15 years of driving.
I guess they will have to try harder to get me on that so-called list you are talking about.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Rabbit, are you saying President Bush killed over 100,000 people in a concentration camp? Because that's what it sounds like you are trying to say. Just kindly pointing out the lettuce in your rhetorical teeth.
Posts: 2010 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I guess they will have to try harder to get me on that so-called list you are talking about.
The point of the question wasn't to see if you would be on a suspects list but to get you to think about the charges people have been detained on. Can you see how it would be possible for somebody to do one of these things completely innocently?
Edit: We had a man from my state detained for a long time without being charged or allowed to speak to a lawyer. He was eventually released with no charges. I don't think that is very honest or just. It looks to me like this is the sort of thing that Bush's policies allow, and I think it's a violation of constitutional rights.
[ January 19, 2005, 05:11 AM: Message edited by: Nato ]
Posts: 1592 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It may already have been answered, but quick Q for Occasional -- can you provide evidence for any of Clinton or Herbie's administration hiring journalists to advocate policy, using government money, and having them not reveal said connection?
I'm just asking for one, single instance in those administrations spanning 12 years.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: For me it says that murderers are not going to get a free ride. I am not sure what "cooking the books" means anyway. I don't believe in the Red Cross when it comes to war anyway, so I don't care. I consider it a security issue and not a moral one. The people in those place ARE VERY IMMORAL and BAD ENEMIES of AMERICA and CIVILIZATION! As far as I am concerned (and those who see this as at worst amoral) they are already guilty! I don't give to charity organizations. I don't know if I even know any Muslims where I live (and probably don't).
Hey, other conservatives: does Occasional speak for you, as well? What are your positions on these quotes?
posted
Wait a second... Not trusting the Red Cross? That's bothering me. They are an organization that helps people through disasters and things like that. That doesn't make an ounce of sense.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:So Dag, are you arguing that setting up concentration camps for suspected terrorists, torture, and lies which have lead to the deaths of over 100,000 people are in some way comparable to a police officer doing a search without a warrant?
I did say violation that were non-trivial and the violation of which Bush is occused are quite serious.
First, if you want to have zero credibility, keep bandying the 100,000 number around. The methodology on that study was laughable at best, fraudulent at worst.
Second, I was merely correcting the mistaken impressions your post left. You can characterize things as you wish, but that has no bearing on the facts nor any bearing on whether the interpretation of the Constitution Bush has used to justify his policies is correct or even colorable.
quote: Not trusting the Red Cross? That's bothering me. They are an organization that helps people through disasters and things like that. That doesn't make an ounce of sense.
While I have previously donated money to the Red Cross, they aren't infallible and I don't believe that their job is to say what's right and what's wrong with how we conduct our business. If you listened to the Red Cross during World War II, the Jews in the concentration camps liked being there.
I hope we aren't abusing innocent prisoners, but if there are genuine national security concerns in letting international groups be privy to all of our information then I think the right's of those prisoners is outweighed by our needs. Especially since I doubt a single one is truly innocent. That's not to say we should be abusing them is there are national security concerns, that's to say I don't have a problem with preventing Red Cross checkups to make sure that isn't the case.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
(I can provide many more links, but that one has a nice narrative form)
Essentially, the Red Cross was almost never admitted to concentration camps, and when it was the camps were extensively cleaned up as part of a massive propaganda effort. All the concentration camp members the Red Cross saw were being treated at least semi-humanely, at least for the immediate present.
Distrusting the Red Cross because of that is far worse than, oh, say, distrusting Bush because his administration presented huge swathes of "evidence" for WMD much of which later turned out to be ludicrous.
edit: ooh, and I have to include this quote (from a Nobel lecture):
quote:Yet a further, primary duty is to work for the development of international humanitarian law which protects the human person in the time of war. As early as 1864, the International Committee persuaded governments to conclude the first Geneva Convention4 for - as its title indicates the Amelioration of the Condition of the Sick and Wounded in the Field.
This treaty was strengthened in 1929 by a second Convention, relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. This Convention affected the lives of millions of captives during the Second World War. In order to demonstrate its usefulness, let me say that wherever it was applied the mortality rate did not exceed ten percent!
In the concentration camps for civil prisoners - where the Committee's delegates never penetrated, despite repeated appeals to Hitler himself - the mortality rate was as high as ninety percent!
posted
Of course Hitler's ploy was elaborate, but they were fooled. They didn't come out and say, "Hitler's hiding something from us." They said, "Everything looks good." The point being that the Red Cross will believe what it wants to believe regardless of common sense or evidence.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Your own link without elaborating stated that the Red Cross was criticized in recent years for its positive report. Everyone has biases, its natural that the Red Cross has theirs. They do plenty of good in the world and deserve plenty of private and public money. However, I don't trust them to have an influence on political decision making.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: The point being that the Red Cross will believe what it wants to believe regardless of common sense or evidence.
What I think you need to prove in this sentence -- and what you haven't proven -- is that the Red Cross "wanted to believe" something, and would have seen through the plot if they hadn't wanted to believe it.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
If the Red Cross report said, effectively, "what we saw looked good, but there's a lot we didn't see" they could hardly be faulted to the degree you allege. The worst I can imagine it saying given what I've been able to find is "what we saw looked good" and leaving out how much they couldn't see.
But lets break some stuff down here:
The International Committee of the Red Cross, one of the most highly respected international aid organizations anywhere, which published a report on Nazi treatment of prisoners in WW2 which accurately depicted what they saw, and because of whose supervision deaths in camps they were allowed normal access to prevented about an order of magnitude in deaths compared to those they were not allowed normal access to, is being considered a liar because of that report, while the Bush administration, with many people who demonstrably stated evidence which their best experts had told them was not just controversial but ludicrous was instead rock solid and incontrovertible (on the subject of WMD), and which as far as I know (on this bit I could be wrong) has not even denied the Red Cross's statements is being assumed to be pure as the driven snow (excepting, of course, the large numbers of other instances of people being held for extended periods of time without access to legal counsel or family that we've known about for a while)?
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Red Cross essentially gave Hitler a seal of approval after seeing only obviously beautified camps. Now they're criticizing Bush because he might hvae prisoners that they haven't seen? Why don't I trust their judgement?
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Can you demonstrate they "essentially gave Hitler their seal of approval"? I fail to see where you've even cited a source to support your interpretation of events.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"The Red Cross essentially gave Hitler a seal of approval after seeing only obviously beautified camps."
Again, I'm waiting to hear evidence demonstrating that the camps were "obviously" beautified in a way that would make it clear to any visitors that they weren't the "real" camps. Because, y'know, if the Nazis were halfway competent, they would have realized that obviously beautifying the camps would have tipped off the Red Cross, while unobviously beautifying the camps might have had the desired effect. In fact, I'll go out on a limb here and suggest that the Nazis tried -- and I'm aware, BTW, that this whole digression beats Godwin around the neck and shoulders with a dead horse -- as hard as they could to beautify the camps in a way that did not suggest that they were obviously doing so.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are some interesting aspects the ICRC's statements about Afghanistan and Iraqi secret detentions:
1) It is not on their website in any easily identifiable way. They have a statement regarding the practice of "disappearing" people that is general to all, not just the US. It's a global problem that hits right where the Red Cross lives -- detention of people without any 3rd party access.
2) They have a simple statement in a report on their website that says they have had "discussions" with the Bush administration about the issue. This document is NOT explicit, but it clearly implies that the Red Cross has a suspicion that the US government is responsible for the disappearance of some people who are now believed to be held in captivity somewhere in Iraq or Afghanistan. What their proof is, they don't say. And the report falls far short of a public accusation.
3) They have a very clear statement in their FAQ that talks about why they do not, generally, make public announcements of any of their findings or suspictions. Their primary role is to enforce agreements and handle communication between those in custody and their families. It's not just a wartime duty, but that's where they are most known and most effective. And it's pretty clear that if they were in the habit of making negative statements in the press, or in any way going behind the backs of heads of state, their ability to perform their duties would be instantly and forever curtailed. What leader/ruler/dictator, benevolent or otherwise, would allow them to look at anything if he knew that the negative things would be press fodder?
So...the thing about secret detention centers is, I believer, more than a rumor, but less than a fact at this point.
If it turns out to be true, and it turns out that the US is involved, I believe that it would be a violation of more than one international agreement that we hope others will honor when it's our men and women in their hands.
That, by the way, is the #1 primary motivation for adhering to things like the Geneva convention -- that we know that someday our people will be the clutches of an enemy and we want them treated according to the agreement.
It's also why, even if the enemy turns out to be a shadowy organization that adheres to NONE of the rules, that we should still do so. Because it's not just about THIS conflict and this enemy, but about what the standards will be in the future, when some of our people will be captured.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
If their accusations are as shallow as that then even if they're true I can't find fault with what Bush is doing.
Tom, I never did care about Godwin and I still don't now. When analogies and examples are relevant I don't hesitate in using them. The only people who weren't aware of the extent of the Nazi Final Solution were those who didn't want to know/believe. If I were touring one of those camps my first request would be to inspect the ovens. Since the ovens obviously weren't there, there had to be other camps where the dirty work was actually being carried out.
Fugu, read your own link where the Red Cross is all but gushing over Nazi cooperation.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I see nothing at all in that which is gushing; in fact, I see considerable self-admonition on the subject. Perhaps you could provide one or two quotes which show this "gushing"?
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:The Red Cross essentially gave Hitler a seal of approval after seeing only obviously beautified camps. Now they're criticizing Bush because he might hvae prisoners that they haven't seen? Why don't I trust their judgement?
First Off, I doubt that there is one single person in the Red Cross today that was involved in the inspection of prison camps under Hitler. The past 60 years have changed alot of things. To equate question the integrity of the current Red Cross based on something they failed to do 60 years ago is illogical.
Second, the concentration camps run by the Nazi's were never within the jurisdiction of the Red Cross because they did not hold prisoners of war. The Red Cross has never had any jurisdiction over civil prisons, the Geneva convention only gave it authority to monitor military prison camps.
Third, the Red Cross was hardly the only organization that failed to see the extent of Hitlers crimes. Virtually no one believed the rumors coming out of the German occupied territories. The horrors that took place in the concentration camps were unbelievable until the camps were liberated and first hand evidence was available of what was going on. On several occasions, US leaders were given information regarding the death camps and were asked to bomb the death camps to slow the genocide. We could have done this, but we did not. Does this mean that the US gave its seal of approval to Hitler? Hardly. Does it make every action of the US before and after that time suspect? No
Fourth, You are guilty of a classic logical error. Evidence of bias or incompetence of a source, does not prove that the data is incorrect. If you sincerely doubt the integrity of the Red Cross, the logical response is to withhold judgement until you are able to either verify or disprove their claims with evidence from additional sources.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:If their accusations are as shallow as that then even if they're true I can't find fault with what Bush is doing.
I'm surprised you haven't gone to look it up yourself. It'll take a little while, but you'll eventually find it. Then judge for yourself.
I find it chilling, but I'm also careful to preface that with "if it's true."
There are news agencies that have picked up the story of a German car salesman of Arab descent who claims to have been "disappeared" while on vacation outside the Middle East. He eventually ended up in the hands of Americans (according to his account, again) and experienced things that are in violation of the Geneva Convention agreements.
Now, the German government is investigating.
There ARE reports of undisclosed detention locations -- Saddam is in one for obvious reasons. One of his high-up lieutenants has also been taken to parts unknown.
So...there are secret locations and there are people we know are in them.
What we don't know is how many more there are, or who they are, and whether the US is putting people in secret prisons who are like the ones at Gitmo -- a mix of true terrorists and entirely innocent people just swept up in a net and presumed guilty by virtue of where they were standing when the truck rolled up to the curb.
But, since we have shown ourselves capable of holding people for indefinite periods without evidence (as has been shown in at least two cases I read about among the Gitmo folks) and who had zero intelligence value, and who for MOST of the time they spent as our prisoners had no access to counsel, could not confront the evidence against them, and were held incommunicado, the charges swirling around in the press seem to have some basis for belief.
I find your instant dismissal of the Red Cross thing to be a bit shallow itself. I suggest you read up a little bit more.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
One last point. The discoveries made in the concentration camps at the end of WWII really did change the way the whole world sees these things. We take rumors of genocide in places like Sudan, Congo, and Kosovo seriously because millions of people died when we failed to listen to such rumors in WWII. We are not alone in this. The Red Cross takes inspection of camps more seriously now because of the things they missed in WWII. The liberation of the Nazi death camps really is an event that changed the world. To suggest that any modern organization current practices should be suspect solely based on how they behaved prior to WWII is illogical.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've seen this anti-NGO and anti-international organisation bias quite frequently on Hatrack.
Personally, I find it really sad.
Sad because I firmly believe that the only way to a sustainable future is through global cooperation, and such global cooperation can only be administered through an supra-national organisation (for such reasons as fairness to all nations, not just the US/Europe, effectiveness, lack of duplication and others).
Sad because in most cases, the people making these statements do not give the impression they actually know much about these organisations, but are content to adopt such biases from other sources wholesale.
Sad because sometimes such biases seem to reflect an underlying "Screw the rest of the world, I only care about what's best for my country" atttitude.
And I find that dreadful.
[Edit: I should say, I've seen it here in Australia too. It is most evident when UN panels that were are part of criticise our treatment of refugees. In our hypocrisy, we ignore and demean such findings, while patting ourselves on the back for being involved in the UN in other aspects]
posted
The Red Cross is not the sole source for the accusations. Here are some examples.
Ahmed Abu Ali, a US citizen who was studying in Saudia Arabia was arrested under the direction of the US and taken to a Saudi prison where he has been interogated by the CIA and tortured. He has been held for 20 months without being charged. His family sued in US courts and the judge (a Bush appointee) ruled in their favor. In the court memorandum it says
quote:Petitioners have provided evidence, of varying degrees of competence and persuasiveness, that: (i) the United States initiated the arrest of Abu Ali in Saudi Arabia; (ii) the United States has interrogated Abu Ali in the Saudi prison; (iii) the United States is controlling his detention in Saudi Arabia; (iv) the United States is keeping Abu Ali in Saudi Arabia to avoid constitutional scrutiny by United States courts; (v) Saudi Arabia would immediately release Abu Ali to United -2- States officials upon a request by the United States government; and (vi) Abu Ali has been subjected to torture while in the Saudi prison. The United States does not offer any facts in rebuttal. Instead, it insists that a federal district court has no jurisdiction to consider the habeas petition of a United States citizen if he is in the hands of a foreign state, and it asks this Court to dismiss the petition forthwith. The position advanced by the United States is sweeping. The authority sought would permit the executive, at his discretion, to deliver a United States citizen to a foreign country to avoid constitutional scrutiny, or, as is alleged and to some degree substantiated here, work through the intermediary of a foreign country to detain a United States citizen abroad.
State department officials have announced that they are building permanent prisons so that they can hold the Gitmo detanees permanantly
quote:The United States is preparing to hold terrorism suspects indefinitely without trial, replacing the Guantanamo Bay prison camp with permanent prisons in the Cuban enclave and elsewhere, it was reported yesterday.
quote:The plans have emerged at a time when the US is under increasing scrutiny for the interrogation methods used on the roughly 550 "enemy combatants" at the Guantanamo Bay base, who do not have the same rights as traditional prisoners of war.
Of the 550 being held, 525 have had their cases reviewed. Only 4 have been charged.
posted
My only point is that Red Cross does not in my opinion have anything near a perfect track record when it comes to its assessments.
quote: Fourth, You are guilty of a classic logical error. Evidence of bias or incompetence of a source, does not prove that the data is incorrect. If you sincerely doubt the integrity of the Red Cross, the logical response is to withhold judgement until you are able to either verify or disprove their claims with evidence from additional sources.
I never said that the Red Cross had to be lying. I just said I don't trust an organization to be affecting political policy when it possesses biases. I've certainly seen a lot of of judging of President Bush's administration without evidence to the contrary of what he's said. The only real reason before the Iraq war of why Hussein wouldn't have WMD is because Bush couldn't be trusted. Since in the Red Cross's case they have nothing but suspicions and alleged rumors, I'd rather not err in favor of them.
Imogen, I'm not being anti-Red Cross. Like I've said I've even given money to them and I support their disaster relief efforts. However, an aid group should remain politically neutral and so when one doesn't I tend to not trust their judgement. If they went to a camp and saw widepread malnutrition and abuse that would be one thing, but they have no need to comment on anything other than that. Some international organizations are better than others. The UN was originally useful and I credit it largely with preventing a Third World War, but now it has fallen under the control of the anti-Americans. When Libya is appointed to lead the human rights commission or when Syria is on the Security Council... I think either the UN must be replaced or seriously reformed.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Acutally, you've provided one instance of a flawed assessment, which was purely negatively flawed (that is, it left out information, in this case because the Red Cross didn't have access to it).
If its only one instance, that is near a perfect track record.
Second, you're asserting a positive flaw in this case -- that is, the Red Cross is making stuff up. Do you have evidence they have a track record of it?
Reading back over the posts, the most egregious offender (in many ways) is Occasional in what he said about the Red Cross; your position, while I strongly disagree with it, is at least theoretically tenable (though you haven't elaborated much on it).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: My only point is that Red Cross does not in my opinion have anything near a perfect track record when it comes to its assessments.
quote: I just said I don't trust an organization to be affecting political policy when it possesses biases.
But what you're saying is that because the Red Cross was not able to verify the conditions in concentration camps that the Nazis took steps to conceal over sixty years ago, it must be too biased nowadays to make legitimate assessments of any political situation?
And that the AMERICAN GOVERNMENT, by comparison, has historically been both more accurate and less biased in our own assessments of similar situations, to the point that you would trust them over the Red Cross?
Look, I don't mind if you just say something like, "My gut tells me that Bush is telling the truth and the Red Cross is blinded by its bias against torture," but trying to bring the Nazis into this in an attempt to make your objection logical is actually anything but.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:The only real reason before the Iraq war of why Hussein wouldn't have WMD is because Bush couldn't be trusted.
Well actually there was evidence from weapons inspectors, CIA reports, MI reports, and a large assortment of experts which contradicted Bush's evidence. In fact every source of information except that coming directly from the Bush administration (and there were many), indicated that Hussein did not have any significant WMDs. It was known that the documents the US submitted to the UN security council about Iraqi nuclear programs were forgeries before the invasion began. Many people supported Bush becauese they believed he had more information than he was giving. They believed he would not speak with such certainty if there were not stronger evidence than the evidence he gave. There were many sources of information available that showed he was lying. I researched it at the time. I was not simply basing my assessment on a distrust of Bush.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Or then there's the pre-war Energy dept scientists' consensus that the only non-circumstantial evidence we asserted for Iraq having a nuclear weapons program (and they refuted a lot of the circumstantial stuff, too) was not just in doubt, but openly ludicrous.
The only people holding up the nuclear weaponry theory for that evidence were not nuclear scientists at all. One had been a nuclear engineer. In the distant past. Working with some vaguely related equipment.
And there is documentary evidence that Cheney, Powell, Rice and others knew about this opinion, and knew about it before they said, in absolute terms (in the case of Cheney and Rice) that it showed Iraq was making a nuclear weapons program, or dismissed it as minority disagreement (in the case of Powell), when in fact it was the only expert opinion on the subject the administration had.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Many people supported Bush becauese they believed he had more information than he was giving.
In fact, we had many threads on Hatrack in which people voiced this exact opinion. To date, at least one Hatracker from among this number has publicly retracted his support of Bush following the discovery that he did not apparently have better "secret" information.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Have you ever done business, sat in a class, made a delivery, exchanged an e-mail, or had an on line conversation with someone who might have had terrorist connections?" Nope, never happened. Can't think of it ever happening in my lifetime.
Can you be sure of that? After 9/11 there were people who had been neighbors and class mates of some of the hijackers who said they seemed like normal nice guys.
How do you know that no one here at Hatrack is affiliated with a terrorist group? How do you KNOW that no one your work with, live with, or associate with has terrorist connection? Unless you've done a detailed background check on everyone you've ever associated with, you can't KNOW.
That is just the point. Some of the people who have been recently released from Gitmo, simply had the misfortune of selling food or medical supplies to suspected members of Al Qaida. They were released because it was finally determined that they didn't know anything valuable. They didn't even know they had been doing business with terrorists, yet they were inprisoned and tortured for nearly two years. If they were associating with suspected terrorists without knowing, how can you be certain that you are not doing the same thing?
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:And there is documentary evidence that Cheney, Powell, Rice and others knew about this opinion, and knew about it before they said, in absolute terms (in the case of Cheney and Rice) that it showed Iraq was making a nuclear weapons program, or dismissed it as minority disagreement (in the case of Powell), when in fact it was the only expert opinion on the subject the administration had.
What's more, all this information was publically available before the war. If you went looking for independent information to either confirm or refute Bush's claims, you soon found mounds of evidence that contradict what the Bush administration was saying. The past 2 years have proved those other sources were correct.
Which illustrates the point I was trying to make. If you believe a source to be unreliable, the appropriate response is to do some research and find out what information is available from independent sources.
In the case of Bush's WMDs claims I did that and found that Bush claims were highly improbable. If you don't think that the Red Cross is a reliable source, do some research and tell us what other sources are saying.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here's an interesting question. What if the information came from the Red Crescent -- the Arab World's equivalent organization and affiliated with the ICRC?
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
If the information came from Red Crescent, I would give exactly the same advice. Do the research and find out what other sources are saying.
I would be more suspicious of evidence coming from the Red Crescent than I am evidence from the Red Cross but bias in a source, alone, is not evidence that the data is incorrect.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Occasional, have you ever replied to any of my posts on Hatrack, ever? I think you have, but I might be wrong.
Posts: 281 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
