Full Version: UN Report: US is abusing captives
The LA Times reports on a new UN Report conducted by 5 independent experts to be released shortly. The quick summary of the report is as follows:
However, if you get further into the report in opens up a whole host of other questions such as:
Questions for debate:
1. What impact will this UN report have on US Policy and perception of the US in the international community?
2. The Bush administration has repeatedly claimed it does not torture, yet this report (joining other human rights groups and the European Parliament) paints a different picture. Who is to be believed?
QUOTE
A U.N. inquiry says the treatment of detainees at Guantanamo Bay at times amounts to torture and violates international law.
However, if you get further into the report in opens up a whole host of other questions such as:
QUOTE
The report focuses on the U.S. government's legal basis for the detentions as described in its formal response to the U.N. inquiry: "The law of war allows the United States — and any other country engaged in combat — to hold enemy combatants without charges or access to counsel for the duration of hostilities. Detention is not an act of punishment, but of security and military necessity. It serves the purpose of preventing combatants from continuing to take up arms against the United States."
But the U.N. team concluded that there had been insufficient due process to determine whether the more than 750 people who had been detained at Guantanamo Bay since January 2002 were "enemy combatants," and determined that the primary purpose of their confinement was for interrogation, not to prevent them from taking up arms. The U.S. has released or transferred more than 260 detainees from Guantanamo Bay.
It also rejected the premise that "the war on terrorism" exempted the U.S. from international conventions on torture and civil and political rights.
The report said some of the treatment of detainees met the definition of torture under the U.N. Convention Against Torture: The acts were committed by government officials, with a clear purpose, inflicting severe pain or suffering against victims in a position of powerlessness.
But the U.N. team concluded that there had been insufficient due process to determine whether the more than 750 people who had been detained at Guantanamo Bay since January 2002 were "enemy combatants," and determined that the primary purpose of their confinement was for interrogation, not to prevent them from taking up arms. The U.S. has released or transferred more than 260 detainees from Guantanamo Bay.
It also rejected the premise that "the war on terrorism" exempted the U.S. from international conventions on torture and civil and political rights.
The report said some of the treatment of detainees met the definition of torture under the U.N. Convention Against Torture: The acts were committed by government officials, with a clear purpose, inflicting severe pain or suffering against victims in a position of powerlessness.
Questions for debate:
1. What impact will this UN report have on US Policy and perception of the US in the international community?
2. The Bush administration has repeatedly claimed it does not torture, yet this report (joining other human rights groups and the European Parliament) paints a different picture. Who is to be believed?
QUOTE
1. What impact will this UN report have on US Policy and perception of the US in the international community?
US policy will maintain its course. It's folly to think events, any event, would change the course of US policies, foreign on not. The perception of damaging US reputation overseas is moot since most of the planet are aware of the effects of US foreign policies. We all know about how Americans will (stoop?) wear Canadian pins when travelling abroad. It's not because they like pretending to be Canadian.
QUOTE
2. The Bush administration has repeatedly claimed it does not torture, yet this report (joining other human rights groups and the European Parliament) paints a different picture. Who is to be believed?
It's kind of humerous. I created a thread which posed a similar question but apparently it was too straighforward and uncomfortable for some. Which is fine by the way.
Let's look at it in the same straightforward honest grade 1 way.
Bush says the US doesn't torture. The US has been caught torturing. Ergo: The US does torture. Why is this difficult for the weaker minded people?
"Bush repeatedly says TruthMarch has blond hair. TruthMarch says in fact has black hair and came outside to show everyone he has black hair. Who was lying?".
"Bush says the sun is cold. TruthMarch says the sun is hot. Ice was placed outside and it melted under the sun. Who was lying?".
It's elementary.
1. What impact will this UN report have on US Policy and perception of the US in the international community?
2. The Bush administration has repeatedly claimed it does not torture, yet this report (joining other human rights groups and the European Parliament) paints a different picture. Who is to be believed?
The report will have little impact on US Policy. We follow the Geneva Convention and the UN report is obviously politically driven, at least in part, by those that do not support our action. IMO I believe our people and not “human rights groups”.
This is IMO orchestrated to defray attention away from the growing UN Oil for Food scandal and other glaring UN failures over the past few years, including standing by while genocide progressed in Bosnia (Until the US acted) and allowing 800,000 people to die in Rwanda. The UN is a corrupt and ineffective organization and until they get their hose in order I think we can ignore this political nonsense.
2. The Bush administration has repeatedly claimed it does not torture, yet this report (joining other human rights groups and the European Parliament) paints a different picture. Who is to be believed?
The report will have little impact on US Policy. We follow the Geneva Convention and the UN report is obviously politically driven, at least in part, by those that do not support our action. IMO I believe our people and not “human rights groups”.
This is IMO orchestrated to defray attention away from the growing UN Oil for Food scandal and other glaring UN failures over the past few years, including standing by while genocide progressed in Bosnia (Until the US acted) and allowing 800,000 people to die in Rwanda. The UN is a corrupt and ineffective organization and until they get their hose in order I think we can ignore this political nonsense.
QUOTE
he report will have little impact on US Policy. We follow the Geneva Convention
In all seriousness, can you explain how the geneva convention is followed (by the US) in relation to:
*Guantanamo and no-lawyer-no-trial-no-evidence-no-witnesses etc..?
*Torturing Iraqis in the same prisons Hussein had?
*Bypassing the UN in order to invade a sovereign Iraq? Legality requires a UN resolution. The US bypassed the UN saying the UN is "irrelevant".
*On video, Americans laughing while murdering a wounded on-his-back Iraqi amid US cheers? (not the fallujah mosque clip though that is to be included as a conravention of the Geneva Convention). A CNN clip I must add.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5365.htm
*On US gunship video: "He's wounded. Hit him again". It may seem tame, but it's a definite contravention to the Geneva Accord.
*In Fallujah, the US says "unknowns on the road, should I take them out?"...."Roger, take them out"....A definite contravention to the Geneva Accord.
The list can go on....I am serious in this question.
QUOTE(Ted @ Feb 14 2006, 09:16 AM)
We follow the Geneva Convention and the UN report is obviously politically driven, at least in part, by those that do not support our action. IMO I believe our people and not “human rights groups”.
Ok then, you want to have a look at the photos in this story? Make sure you click this link to view all of them. The aforementioned photos are some of the photos our government doesn't want you to see from Abu Ghraib, published by the Sydney Morning Herald. So do you still want to stick with your statement that we follow the geneva conventions?
Or how about the well documented fact that Alberto Gonzales has worked hard to ensure that the Geneva Conventions don't apply to Afghanistan or terrorists in general. That happened to be the first result returned by Google, you are welcome to follow the links to the original memos.
Or perhaps you might want to examine some of the facts about Guantanamo Bay wherein you'd learn of our government's repeated denial of rights to prisoners and efforts to classify people they stick there in categories that don't fall under the conventions.
Given the mountains of evidence and reports from every respectible human rights group you now believe that the UN is weighing in against the US because of the Oil for Food scandal? That has to be one of the most amazing and unsupported conspiracy theories I've heard in a while.
If you truely believe we are actually living up to Bush's "we don't torture" rhetoric and the rest of the world is not only wrong but engaged in some sort of conspiracy to discredit the US then please cite some sort of evidence to support your position.
QUOTE(Cube Jockey @ Feb 13 2006, 10:31 PM)
Questions for debate:
1. What impact will this UN report have on US Policy and perception of the US in the international community?
2. The Bush administration has repeatedly claimed it does not torture, yet this report (joining other human rights groups and the European Parliament) paints a different picture. Who is to be believed?
1. What impact will this UN report have on US Policy and perception of the US in the international community?
2. The Bush administration has repeatedly claimed it does not torture, yet this report (joining other human rights groups and the European Parliament) paints a different picture. Who is to be believed?
1. With Bush and his friends in power, I would be very suprised if the U.N. resolution would have serious impact on U.S. policy. Maybe he will go onto national television and state again that "the U.S. does not torture", and nobody will believe him, as usual.
What effect this has on the perception of the U.S. in the international community? It will plummed even further down than it already did. Thank Bush, Cheney and all those right-wing follower they surround themselves with. 2. Who is to believed? This seems fairly obvious, the word of a President who is known to twist the truth or pictures taken by U.S. soldiers showing the horrible treatment of human beings in Guantanamo Bay?
The question should be: could the U.S. or the international community indict Bush and his friends? I would love to see Bush explain himself before an (inter)national court. Oh, wait didn't Congress sign a bill that every American brought before the International Tribunal should be rescued, even by force?
What a wonderful world we live in. 
1. What impact will this UN report have on US Policy and perception of the US in the international community?
The article in question refers to the torture of prisoners by forced feeding. The US government has admitted already that they have been force feeding prisoners and denying them things in order to end these strikes. Of course, the claim has been that they insert feeding tubes and force them to eat in a humane way, but how really could that be accomplished on a prisoner that doesn't want to be fed. There are two alternatives...One, make them eat or two, permit them to commit suicide. Which would the UN prefer? I don't mean that sarcastically, I'm genuinely curious. I don't think they are feeding these prisoners because they care so much about their lives, but because the international community would say they were allowing prisoners to starve to death.
2. The Bush administration has repeatedly claimed it does not torture, yet this report (joining other human rights groups and the European Parliament) paints a different picture. Who is to be believed?
I haven't read the full UN report. This article almost entirely speaks of forced feedings. Now, if self induced starvation is fine with the UN I agree these prisoners shouldn't be coersively fed. But if permitting self-induced starvation is also viewed as an abusive tactic there really isn't much to be done.
Edited to add: I suppose I should add that the interrogation techniques do go overboard and qualify as abuse, from what I've heard...but there is very little reference to them in this article. I will try to find the actual UN report.
The article in question refers to the torture of prisoners by forced feeding. The US government has admitted already that they have been force feeding prisoners and denying them things in order to end these strikes. Of course, the claim has been that they insert feeding tubes and force them to eat in a humane way, but how really could that be accomplished on a prisoner that doesn't want to be fed. There are two alternatives...One, make them eat or two, permit them to commit suicide. Which would the UN prefer? I don't mean that sarcastically, I'm genuinely curious. I don't think they are feeding these prisoners because they care so much about their lives, but because the international community would say they were allowing prisoners to starve to death.
2. The Bush administration has repeatedly claimed it does not torture, yet this report (joining other human rights groups and the European Parliament) paints a different picture. Who is to be believed?
I haven't read the full UN report. This article almost entirely speaks of forced feedings. Now, if self induced starvation is fine with the UN I agree these prisoners shouldn't be coersively fed. But if permitting self-induced starvation is also viewed as an abusive tactic there really isn't much to be done.
Edited to add: I suppose I should add that the interrogation techniques do go overboard and qualify as abuse, from what I've heard...but there is very little reference to them in this article. I will try to find the actual UN report.
2. The Bush administration has repeatedly claimed it does not torture, yet this report (joining other human rights groups and the European Parliament) paints a different picture. Who is to be believed?
This of course is the $64.00 question. Who is to be believed?
I have no doubt that representatives of our government and military have acted in an unprofessional manner at times, the law of averages would almost dictate that. The problem that I have with this report is twofold.
1. Intelligence from several sources confirmed long ago, the AQ training doctrine of divulging misleading information upon release from US or allied custody in an attempt to discredit the above entities.
2. These independent experts have actually refused to visit the Guantanamo Bay facility, instead relying purely on statements from released detainees. Revisit problem #1.
So if force feeding hunger striking prisoners is cruel treatment, what exactly is letting them starve to death?
This of course is the $64.00 question. Who is to be believed?
I have no doubt that representatives of our government and military have acted in an unprofessional manner at times, the law of averages would almost dictate that. The problem that I have with this report is twofold.
1. Intelligence from several sources confirmed long ago, the AQ training doctrine of divulging misleading information upon release from US or allied custody in an attempt to discredit the above entities.
2. These independent experts have actually refused to visit the Guantanamo Bay facility, instead relying purely on statements from released detainees. Revisit problem #1.
So if force feeding hunger striking prisoners is cruel treatment, what exactly is letting them starve to death?
I find something curious here. There is the suggestion that all of the released prisoners are lying, given that it is a well known tactic of Al Queda. The last time I checked, these prisoners were released because the U.S. government couldn't even muster the flimsiest of pretenses upon which to detain these people, yet they are all considered guilty? Considering the "standards" of proof and the legal mechanisms in place to stifle open inquiry, I find it incredibly unlikely that the people released were in fact "terrorists" or had Al Queda training.
Yet their presumed guilt is used as justification for dismissing these claims.
By the way, here is a link to the report in question. Some of the highlights...
More to the point, the report doesn't just say "they told us people were being tortured." As noted in the original article, the U.S. government did respond to questions directly from the commission. From this the commission reports that:
Regardless of what you may think of the alleged terrorists, the allegations of mistreatment do at least have a whiff of legitimacy, given military practice elsewhere and the apparent lack of oversight. Regardless of whether or not the government feels that these allegations are true, investigation is required.
Here's a charming gem, where they quote directly from an internal order from the U.S. government:
Here is what the article in the Toronto Star described:
Now the charge that "they didn't even visit the prison" is an interesting one. The rapporteurs were told in advance that if they visited they couldn't talk to any of the prisoners or fully inspect the facilities. I'm not quite sure what they could learn given those circumstances, yet they are assigned the blame for it.
Yet their presumed guilt is used as justification for dismissing these claims.
By the way, here is a link to the report in question. Some of the highlights...
More to the point, the report doesn't just say "they told us people were being tortured." As noted in the original article, the U.S. government did respond to questions directly from the commission. From this the commission reports that:
QUOTE
No independent judicial investigation seems to have taken place into any allegations of torture or ill-treatment, a clear violation of international minimum standards.
Regardless of what you may think of the alleged terrorists, the allegations of mistreatment do at least have a whiff of legitimacy, given military practice elsewhere and the apparent lack of oversight. Regardless of whether or not the government feels that these allegations are true, investigation is required.
Here's a charming gem, where they quote directly from an internal order from the U.S. government:
QUOTE
“US Armed Forces shall continue to treat detainees humanely and, to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity, in a manner consistent with the principles of the Geneva Conventions.”
QUOTE
So if force feeding hunger striking prisoners is cruel treatment, what exactly is letting them starve to death?
Here is what the article in the Toronto Star described:
QUOTE
The UN report said photos and testimony from former Guantanamo prisoners revealed many were shackled, chained, hooded and beaten. The use of prolonged isolation, dogs, extreme temperatures and sleep deprivation amounts to torture, said the experts.
Now the charge that "they didn't even visit the prison" is an interesting one. The rapporteurs were told in advance that if they visited they couldn't talk to any of the prisoners or fully inspect the facilities. I'm not quite sure what they could learn given those circumstances, yet they are assigned the blame for it.
1. What impact will this UN report have on US Policy and perception of the US in the international community?
Of course it will make the international community chastise us. But we will not change the path with that preception. President Bush has clearly stated that no matter what anyone thinks, we will not falter from the war on terrorism. And in theory, terrorist are in that prison.
2. The Bush administration has repeatedly claimed it does not torture, yet this report (joining other human rights groups and the European Parliament) paints a different picture. Who is to be believed?
Exactly what is defined as torture? If people were refusing to eat, and force feeding them is defined as torture, then the international community has gone insane. We need these people alive weather they like it or not. I do agree that torture in most cases should not be considered, but if it will achieve the objective, then torture them.
Of course it will make the international community chastise us. But we will not change the path with that preception. President Bush has clearly stated that no matter what anyone thinks, we will not falter from the war on terrorism. And in theory, terrorist are in that prison.
2. The Bush administration has repeatedly claimed it does not torture, yet this report (joining other human rights groups and the European Parliament) paints a different picture. Who is to be believed?
Exactly what is defined as torture? If people were refusing to eat, and force feeding them is defined as torture, then the international community has gone insane. We need these people alive weather they like it or not. I do agree that torture in most cases should not be considered, but if it will achieve the objective, then torture them.
QUOTE(Ted @ Feb 14 2006, 05:16 PM)
The report will have little impact on US Policy. (...) the UN report is obviously politically driven, at least in part, by those that do not support our action.
Out of curiosity, do you have any actual evidence that the report is politically driven, or do you just assume that because they say something you do not agree with? How exactly is it MORE likely that this is politically driven, as opposed to, say, Bush Jr. claiming torture is NOT being use being a politically driven statement?
QUOTE
This is IMO orchestrated to defray attention away from the growing UN Oil for Food scandal and other glaring UN failures over the past few years, including standing by while genocide progressed in Bosnia (Until the US acted) and allowing 800,000 people to die in Rwanda.
Ah, the standard 'the UN has problems, therefore nothing they say criticising the US can be true' argument. Even if most of those problems are in the imagination of the right wing...
The UN cannot be blamed for either Bosnia or Rwanda, it does not have a military force, and depends on the force of its constituents. Bosnia was a failure of Europe, and Rwanda was a failure of the world, including the US.
As for the oft-referred-to but rarely evidenced 'Oil for food' scandal, which it trotted out whenever the right wants to summarily discredit France, germany or the UN without actually providing any evidence...
The fact is that the US Senate's Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations determined that individuals and companies in the United States accounted for 52% of all oil-voucher kickbacks paid to Saddam Hussein. US businesses such as BayOil, Exxon Mobil Corp., ChevronTexaco Corp. El Paso Corp and Oilexco. Considering many of these companies made subsequent massive contributions to the Bush jr. election, including the funding of his presidential library, perhaps Americans should not be so quick to throw stones of this scandal 'discrediting' anybody...
In all seriousness, can you explain how the geneva convention is followed (by the US) in relation to:
*Guantanamo and no-lawyer-no-trial-no-evidence-no-witnesses etc..?
*Torturing Iraqis in the same prisons Hussein had?
*Bypassing the UN in order to invade a sovereign Iraq? Legality requires a UN resolution. The US bypassed the UN saying the UN is "irrelevant".
*On video, Americans laughing while murdering a wounded on-his-back Iraqi amid US cheers? (not the fallujah mosque clip though that is to be included as a conravention of the Geneva Convention). A CNN clip I must add.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5365.htm
*On US gunship video: "He's wounded. Hit him again". It may seem tame, but it's a definite contravention to the Geneva Accord.
*In Fallujah, the US says "unknowns on the road, should I take them out?"...."Roger, take them out"....A definite contravention to the Geneva Accord.
The list can go on....I am serious in this question.
While the UN and AMerican liberals have charged US military personnel with torture, where is the evidence, where. You can say the sun is shining, and you don't care if it isn't, and I go outside and the sun is shining, the dam sun is shining. Not one single, solitiary, case of definitive torture has been proven by Ted Kennedy or Kofi Annan. Now maybe Ted Kennedy's definition of torture is skewed, he thinks everything the American military does is torture, unless the troops use the authorized Chappaquidick water torture method he designed in 1968. Abu Ghraib is not torture, making a Moslem eat pork is not torture. Of course if Abu Ghraib is defined as torture, then every US college campus should immediately be charged with torture, and if making a moslem eat pork is torture, well let's just say behind close doors the Moslem resistance to pork disappears as quick as a BLT on rye at the Saudi Royal family reunion.
QUOTE(JeepMan @ Feb 18 2006, 02:12 PM)
While the UN and AMerican liberals have charged US military personnel with torture, where is the evidence, where.
Well, we can start with the pictures and videos, which show a great deal more than Muslims being forced to eat pork. We can continue with the testemony of dozens of people released from Guantanimo prison, which is surprisingly consistent in its claims.
Oh, and if you want further evidence, there is always the over 20 existing or concluded court-martials heard by the US military for soldiers and officers involved in abuse, maltreatment, or illegal deaths of prisoners. We have also been told that further charges are pending, though we have no idea how many. We have testemony from allied soldiers, in specific British, about US soldiers excesses and maltratement of prisoners. Thats all just for a start. How's that for evidence?
QUOTE
Not one single, solitiary, case of definitive torture has been proven by Ted Kennedy or Kofi Annan. Now maybe Ted Kennedy's definition of torture is skewed, he thinks everything the American military does is torture, unless the troops use the authorized Chappaquidick water torture method he designed in 1968.
Ah, the good-ole right-wing "When losing an argument, refer to Ted kennedy's murder conviction in 1969" argument. Oh but wait, there was NO evidence at all of any malfeasance on his part in that road accident, was there? OOps. Oh well, if no guilt exists, make some up, then make reference to it, even if it is entirely off topic, in the hope that this invented irrelevant crime 40 years ago will somehow distract from the issue at hand.
QUOTE
if making a moslem eat pork is torture, well let's just say behind close doors the Moslem resistance to pork disappears as quick as a BLT on rye at the Saudi Royal family reunion.
Firstly, there is a LOT more at issue here than making a muslim eat pork, thank you.
Secondly, If I might ask; what purpose exactly did that utterly inaccurate and blatantly insulting comment serve in the furthering of your argument, such as it is?
QUOTE(Ted @ Feb 14 2006, 07:16 PM)
We follow the Geneva Convention
Wrong!
The Abu Graib photos say that your claim is not true.
QUOTE(Ted @ Feb 14 2006, 07:16 PM)
and the UN report is obviously politically driven, at least in part, by those that do not support our action. IMO I believe our people and not “human rights groups”.
I understand from these words that you did not look at the photos. If you had done that, you could not have said such things. The situation is crystally clear: US troops are mistreating the prisoners.
On or around Feb 16 Sydney Morning Herald posted previously unseen photos of Abu Graib , some of which were picked up by Salon and I link them here because I think its relevant to the topic and also of general interest in the ongoing discussion about if there is prisoner maltreatment or not.
Warning: Some of these photos are graphic.
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/02/.../portfolio.html
http://smh.com.au/ftimages/2006/02/15/1139890768716.html
Warning: Some of these photos are graphic.
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/02/.../portfolio.html
http://smh.com.au/ftimages/2006/02/15/1139890768716.html
QUOTE(Fma @ Feb 19 2006, 06:16 PM)
QUOTE(Ted @ Feb 14 2006, 07:16 PM)
We follow the Geneva Convention
Wrong!
The Abu Graib photos say that your claim is not true.
QUOTE(Ted @ Feb 14 2006, 07:16 PM)
and the UN report is obviously politically driven, at least in part, by those that do not support our action. IMO I believe our people and not “human rights groups”.
I understand from these words that you did not look at the photos. If you had done that, you could not have said such things. The situation is crystally clear: US troops are mistreating the prisoners.
Yes, and they are being exposed and punished for it also. How is that not following the Geneva convention?
You seem very keen to take a hard line against the US troops in Iraq... a little too hard in my opinion. Perhaps you'd like to compare the US soldiers track record in iraq with how prisoners are treated by the Turkish authorities.
An example.
Another example.
Then we'll see how crystal clear the situation is.
QUOTE(moif @ Feb 20 2006, 02:52 PM)
Yes, and they are being exposed and punished for it also. How is that not following the Geneva convention?
Some of them are, others not so much. Furthermore, despite the fact that several soldiers have testified that they received orders permitting such behaviour from higher up, there has been NO investigation of this. Lastly, it has been pointed out that those who made reference to orders rom above universally received much harsher sentences than those who made no statement about orders from above at all. That in itself could be a coincidence, but it is an awfully large one.
Then we have the problem that, even though it has been admitted to have occurred within the US military, there are still members of the US public, and some on this board, who refuse to aknowledge that US soldiers have been torturing prisoners.
QUOTE
You seem very keen to take a hard line against the US troops in Iraq... a little too hard in my opinion. Perhaps you'd like to compare the US soldiers track record in iraq with how prisoners are treated by the Turkish authorities.
Then we'll see how crystal clear the situation is.
Then we'll see how crystal clear the situation is.
Why stop there? I think you will find that the US treats its prisoners VASTLY better than the Mongol emperor Gengis Khan did in the early 1200s. See? With the proper compairason, the actions of the US can appear positively angelic.
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761567...nghis_Khan.html
Oh but wait, perhaps, just perhaps, the US should be held to a slightly higher standard than nations like Turkey?
In fact, in my book, saying 'Oh well, at least we are not as bad as Turkey!' is as powerful an admission of US guilt as I have heard.
QUOTE(Vermillion)
Some of them are, others not so much. Furthermore, despite the fact that several soldiers have testified that they received orders permitting such behaviour from higher up, there has been NO investigation of this. Lastly, it has been pointed out that those who made reference to orders rom above universally received much harsher sentences than those who made no statement about orders from above at all. That in itself could be a coincidence, but it is an awfully large one.
How can it be any surprise that those who were judged with the harshest sentences sought to validate their crimes by claiming they had orders? Your right. Its a coincidence. It proves nothing.
QUOTE(Vermillion)
Then we have the problem that, even though it has been admitted to have occurred within the US military, there are still members of the US public, and some on this board, who refuse to aknowledge that US soldiers have been torturing prisoners.
What does that have to do with the Conventions of Geneva? QUOTE(Vermillion)
Why stop there? I think you will find that the US treats its prisoners VASTLY better than the Mongol emperor Gengis Khan did in the early 1200s. See? With the proper compairason, the actions of the US can appear positively angelic.
And which was EXACTLY my point. Context is everything. Seen in context, Abu Graib is nothing. An isolated example against three years of excellent coduct under the most difficult conditions.
QUOTE(Vermillion)
Oh but wait, perhaps, just perhaps, the US should be held to a slightly higher standard than nations like Turkey?
Even if, as Fma is, your a Turk? QUOTE(Vermillion)
In fact, in my book, saying 'Oh well, at least we are not as bad as Turkey!' is as powerful an admission of US guilt as I have heard.
Whats this? Collective guilt but not collective responsibility? And who is 'we' anyway? I'm Danish and your a Canadian are you not?
Am I responsible of the actions of individual Danish soldiers? How can all of America, or even their military be held guilty if they are not also responsible? Fma countered Ted's claim that the USA follows the Geneva conventions.
Clearly they do, even if individual soldiers don't.
QUOTE
1. What impact will this UN report have on US Policy and perception of the US in the international community?
2. The Bush administration has repeatedly claimed it does not torture, yet this report (joining other human rights groups and the European Parliament) paints a different picture. Who is to be believed?
2. The Bush administration has repeatedly claimed it does not torture, yet this report (joining other human rights groups and the European Parliament) paints a different picture. Who is to be believed?
1. I think the report will further unite muslim communities to resist and expel western influence. We are already seeing it in news as far as Indonesia.
2. The report will challenge america's anti torture laws and bring suspicion to those who are responsible for them. Seymour Hersh and Scott Ritter have written many articles detailing the abuse was systemic and not isolated. The report will promote those ideas.
1. What impact will this UN report have on US Policy and perception of the US in the international community?
I believe that it merely refocuses the spotlight onto an area where the United States has already been acknowledged as being culpable of carrying out torture. Whilst we are a heck of lot more discreet about torture now, then we were during Vietnam (where reporters got to watch it), we are still finding ourselves incapable of keeping it hidden.
Those who do not believe we have conducted any torture are ignoring photographic and videographic evidence. Those who don't believe Bush ordered the torture, are ignoring a classified order wrested from him by the ACLU a while ago via Freedom of Information Act, and are ignoring the basic fact that the torture has been too wide spread, to have merely been the result of the concealed acts of a few military wackos.
2. The Bush administration has repeatedly claimed it does not torture, yet this report (joining other human rights groups and the European Parliament) paints a different picture. Who is to be believed?
Those who have nothing to lose by being honest, nothing to gain by being dishonest.
A less easily answered question might be:
Has the torture been morally justified by the aid it has given us, in the War against Terrorists?
That is for a separate thread however.
I believe that it merely refocuses the spotlight onto an area where the United States has already been acknowledged as being culpable of carrying out torture. Whilst we are a heck of lot more discreet about torture now, then we were during Vietnam (where reporters got to watch it), we are still finding ourselves incapable of keeping it hidden.
Those who do not believe we have conducted any torture are ignoring photographic and videographic evidence. Those who don't believe Bush ordered the torture, are ignoring a classified order wrested from him by the ACLU a while ago via Freedom of Information Act, and are ignoring the basic fact that the torture has been too wide spread, to have merely been the result of the concealed acts of a few military wackos.
2. The Bush administration has repeatedly claimed it does not torture, yet this report (joining other human rights groups and the European Parliament) paints a different picture. Who is to be believed?
Those who have nothing to lose by being honest, nothing to gain by being dishonest.
A less easily answered question might be:
Has the torture been morally justified by the aid it has given us, in the War against Terrorists?
That is for a separate thread however.
QUOTE(moif @ Feb 20 2006, 04:05 PM)
How can it be any surprise that those who were judged with the harshest sentences sought to validate their crimes by claiming they had orders?
Your right. Its a coincidence. It proves nothing.
Your right. Its a coincidence. It proves nothing.
It proves nothing, but it is certainly suspicious. Once is a coincidence. Consistently over dozens of cases... and those people who did not blame orders did not necessarily take responsibility either, so there is no justification for lighter sentences there... Regardless, its just unprovable suspicion at the moment...
QUOTE(Vermillion)
Then we have the problem that, even though it has been admitted to have occurred within the US military, there are still members of the US public, and some on this board, who refuse to aknowledge that US soldiers have been torturing prisoners.
What does that have to do with the Conventions of Geneva? QUOTE
And which was EXACTLY my point.
Context is everything. Seen in context, Abu Graib is nothing. An isolated example against three years of excellent coduct under the most difficult conditions.
Context is everything. Seen in context, Abu Graib is nothing. An isolated example against three years of excellent coduct under the most difficult conditions.
Is it? The question of how 'isolated' it is is central. There are dozens of 'suspicious deaths' in captivity under investigation. Former prisoners and allies have cried torture and abuse, and not just at random, but with consistent stories.
All this happening at a time when the White House was bending over backwards to find a way to justify torture, 'just in case'. If it is an isolated case, it needs to be treated as such. But there is evidence that it is not. Not proof, but evidence...
QUOTE(Vermillion)
QUOTE
Oh but wait, perhaps, just perhaps, the US should be held to a slightly higher standard than nations like Turkey?
Even if, as Fma is, your a Turk? No offense to FMA here, but yes.
QUOTE
Am I responsible of the actions of individual Danish soldiers? How can all of America, or even their military be held guilty if they are not also responsible? Fma countered Ted's claim that the USA follows the Geneva conventions.
Clearly they do, even if individual soldiers don't.
Clearly they do, even if individual soldiers don't.
It is not clear at all, in fact the lack of clarity is the central issue. The US has been wiggling around the geneva convention since the start, refusing to treat POWs as such, and inventing a new category, illegal combatants. Torture MAY be widespread, and the primary prison for these people (devoid of all consular and legal representation) is outside the eyes of the world. Those people who have been released (without charge after as long as THREE YEARS) have been presenting consistent claims of torture and abuse.
You know what? None of this is proof that the US is with premediatation violating the geneva convention and torturing prisoners, but one has to be blindly patriotic, or possibly just blind to look at all this and still be able to assert without doubt (and many do) that the US is clearly and without question following the geneva convention.
The truth is there is enormous cause for suspicion... We have proof of some incidents, and evidence of am more widespread, possibly systemic problem.
QUOTE(Vermillion)
It proves nothing, but it is certainly suspicious. Once is a coincidence. Consistently over dozens of cases... and those people who did not blame orders did not necessarily take responsibility either, so there is no justification for lighter sentences there... Regardless, its just unprovable suspicion at the moment...
So your argument is based on suspicions and... QUOTE(Vermillion)
Is it? The question of how 'isolated' it is is central. There are dozens of 'suspicious deaths' in captivity under investigation. Former prisoners and allies have cried torture and abuse, and not just at random, but with consistent stories.
All this happening at a time when the White House was bending over backwards to find a way to justify torture, 'just in case'. If it is an isolated case, it needs to be treated as such. But there is evidence that it is not. Not proof, but evidence...
...evidence. All this happening at a time when the White House was bending over backwards to find a way to justify torture, 'just in case'. If it is an isolated case, it needs to be treated as such. But there is evidence that it is not. Not proof, but evidence...
Okay, so what evidence exactly? You say you suspect abuse is happening 'consistently over dozens of cases' and you talk of evidence... but all we have here is a new set of photographs which stem from the same time frame, the same facility and the same unit as those we've seen before.
My problem is not that I vehemently disagree with you, but rather that I used to have a similar point of view. What gradually changed my mind is the lack of evidence to support such ardent claims of US abuse which are levelled so free and easily against the Americans.
I simply don't believe that if abuse was as wide spread as people make out, we wouldn't have more evidence of it.
I've heard so many accusations against the US military that its reaching the point of abject farce. Now Seymour Hersh I respect and admire. He's an excellent journalist and I believe there is some merit in what he's uncovered. Indeed, I'm sure most of what he says is right. But that doesn't mean to say that 'The situation is crystally clear: US troops are mistreating the prisoners.' and Wrong! The Abu Graib photos say that your claim [Ted: We follow the Geneva Convention] is not true.
...as Fma claimed.
What is this based on? Photographs of old crimes? Crimes which have been investigated and tried in a court of law. You wrote that there has been no investigation of testimony regarding the claims that the men and women charged were acting under orders.
How do you know that? Are you privy to the internal investigations of the US military? ...or did you just read it some where? If so, where? ...or are you just suspicious?
QUOTE(Vermillion)
No offense to FMA here, but yes.
Would you care to explain why you believe this? Why should a Turk care more about claims regarding American abuse of prisoners than the claims of Turkish abuse of prisoners?
QUOTE(Vermillion)
It is not clear at all, in fact the lack of clarity is the central issue. The US has been wiggling around the geneva convention since the start, refusing to treat POWs as such, and inventing a new category, illegal combatants. Torture MAY be widespread, and the primary prison for these people (devoid of all consular and legal representation) is outside the eyes of the world. Those people who have been released (without charge after as long as THREE YEARS) have been presenting consistent claims of torture and abuse.
You know what? None of this is proof that the US is with premediatation violating the geneva convention and torturing prisoners, but one has to be blindly patriotic, or possibly just blind to look at all this and still be able to assert without doubt (and many do) that the US is clearly and without question following the geneva convention.
The truth is there is enormous cause for suspicion... We have proof of some incidents, and evidence of am more widespread, possibly systemic problem.
I take it we're now atalking about Guantanamo? You know what? None of this is proof that the US is with premediatation violating the geneva convention and torturing prisoners, but one has to be blindly patriotic, or possibly just blind to look at all this and still be able to assert without doubt (and many do) that the US is clearly and without question following the geneva convention.
The truth is there is enormous cause for suspicion... We have proof of some incidents, and evidence of am more widespread, possibly systemic problem.
Well. I agree with this. Its very suspicious and I don't like it... but for now, I'm prepared to extend a little faith in the USA, because as we all know, the present government isn't going to be around for ever and what is politically expedient now, won't be forever.
If there is wrong doing then it will eventually be dealt with accordingly.
QUOTE(moif @ Feb 21 2006, 12:02 AM)
My problem is not that I vehemently disagree with you, but rather that I used to have a similar point of view. What gradually changed my mind is the lack of evidence to support such ardent claims of US abuse which are levelled so free and easily against the Americans.
I entirely agree with you that the claim of abuse is thrown around very esily now, it is possible it has been 'picked up' by the extreme opponents of the war. You are right there.
But that fact does not affect at all the isue of wheither this abuse is actually going on. We have the films out of Abu Graib, we have the testemony of both British and Polish soldiers, we have complaints of former prisoners, complaints which are consistent with each other I might add, we have the Economist listing more than 25 'suspicious deaths' in custody in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Thats not proof, of systemic torture or abuse of course, buy its enough to raise a lot of eyebrows.
QUOTE
You wrote that there has been no investigation of testimony regarding the claims that the men and women charged were acting under orders.
How do you know that? Are you privy to the internal investigations of the US military? ...or did you just read it some where? If so, where?
How do you know that? Are you privy to the internal investigations of the US military? ...or did you just read it some where? If so, where?
In 2004 the US military declared it was not investigating up the ranks due to accusations leveld in court. I admit that was 1,5 years ago, and I have no knowledge, positive or negative, of anything since...
QUOTE
Well. I agree with this. Its very suspicious and I don't like it... but for now, I'm prepared to extend a little faith in the USA, because as we all know, the present government isn't going to be around for ever and what is politically expedient now, won't be forever.
Fair enough, seems we are on the same path, I'm just a bit further along, my 'good faith' in the Bush Jr. regime has run out.
Why was Bush Jr. promising to VETO McCain's torture bill? He claimed it a dozen times, and only did not do so when faced with a revolt by half his own party if he did. Why was Bush going so far out of his way to prevent the use of torture from being formally condemned in the US government? More evidence without proof, but scary evidence indeed...
QUOTE
Why should a Turk care more about claims regarding American abuse of prisoners than the claims of Turkish abuse of prisoners?
How can you say that I am more concerned about American abuses? Did you bug my computer and were you reading every message I wrote on other forums?
This is exactly what I hoped to avoid on a debate forum: Prejudice based on nationality.
I am not saying my country is angelic. There has been abuses in the past, especially taking place in the eastern parts of Turkey. But that doesn't justify America mistreating their prisoners.
QUOTE
My problem is not that I vehemently disagree with you, but rather that I used to have a similar point of view. What gradually changed my mind is the lack of evidence to support such ardent claims of US abuse which are levelled so free and easily against the Americans.
Having seen the Cold War, I have seen enough American actions that have brought incredible harm to individuals. Maybe bacause of that I am a bit too harsh on the US.
But I have no sympathy for a person who can do the things I saw in those photos.
Nor can I have any sympathy for anyone who tries to excuse them.
I agree that there is not enough evidence to condemn US for doing systematic abuse. But remember, we are talking about events that are taking place in locations restricted to all but US Military personel (and some other few people). Having seen the past I tend to be suspicious than most.
Remember that during WW2 era, it was not until 1941 that the Nazi atrocities were first reported by reliable sources. Moreover, only in 1942 that the Allies acknowledged the fact that Jews were being killed. There are even claims that the truth was not known until the war was over. My fear is that since these prisons are not places open to the public eye, what we see is the tip of the iceberg.
QUOTE(Fma)
How can you say that I am more concerned about American abuses? Did you bug my computer and were you reading every message I wrote on other forums?
This is exactly what I hoped to avoid on a debate forum: Prejudice based on nationality.
I'm sorry but isn't it 'prejudism based on nationality' to counter the claim that the USA does not follow the Geneva Conventions based on a few photographs and a sceptical attitude (see below) towards the USA... This is exactly what I hoped to avoid on a debate forum: Prejudice based on nationality.
No I didn't bug your computer
I wouldn't do such a thing even if I had the knoweldge of how.QUOTE(Fma)
I am not saying my country is angelic. There has been abuses in the past, especially taking place in the eastern parts of Turkey. But that doesn't justify America mistreating their prisoners.
Indeed it doesn't. QUOTE(Fma)
Having seen the Cold War, I have seen enough American actions that have brought incredible harm to individuals. Maybe bacause of that I am a bit too harsh on the US.
But I have no sympathy for a person who can do the things I saw in those photos.
Nor can I have any sympathy for anyone who tries to excuse them.
You can be as critical of the USA as you like, but then you must accept that others will be equally critical of Turkey. Turkey has a far worse reputation in such matters than the USA and this is what I meant when I suggested a comparison of the US soldiers track record in iraq with how prisoners are treated by the Turkish authorities. But I have no sympathy for a person who can do the things I saw in those photos.
Nor can I have any sympathy for anyone who tries to excuse them.
My point is not simply to throw mud at Turkey, but rather to demonstrate that blind criticism of the US is unjustifed. Such criticism (of human rights violations) must be universally applied or they mean nothing.
QUOTE(Fma)
I agree that there is not enough evidence to condemn US for doing systematic abuse. But remember, we are talking about events that are taking place in locations restricted to all but US Military personel (and some other few people). Having seen the past I tend to be suspicious than most.
Remember that during WW2 era, it was not until 1941 that the Nazi atrocities were first reported by reliable sources. Moreover, only in 1942 that the Allies acknowledged the fact that Jews were being killed. There are even claims that the truth was not known until the war was over. My fear is that since these prisons are not places open to the public eye, what we see is the tip of the iceberg.
Its this sort of thing to which I am refering to in my first sentence. Remember that during WW2 era, it was not until 1941 that the Nazi atrocities were first reported by reliable sources. Moreover, only in 1942 that the Allies acknowledged the fact that Jews were being killed. There are even claims that the truth was not known until the war was over. My fear is that since these prisons are not places open to the public eye, what we see is the tip of the iceberg.
You're implying that the USA is engaged in a Holocaust on nothing more substantial than a few photographs and stories which may be no more substantial than rumours or even lies.
Why?
I know this anti American sentiment is such a common theme in the modern Turkish perception of Iraq that the most expensive Turkish film ever made deals with it, but I don't understand where it comes from. Is it an Islamic thing? A nationalist thing? Why are so many Turks so willing to villify the USA? Can you explain it?
What concerns me the most about this apparently widespread attitude in Turkey is how easily other countries could say the same about Turkey! There are in fact some people in Europe who already do, not least amongst the Turkish and Kurdish minorities here.
If you really fear that Abu Graib is the tip of the iceberg, do you understand why so many Europeans feel the same way about Turkeys treatment of the Kurds?
Are these European fears accurate? I honstly don't know.
If they are nothing more than European exagerations, then why do you fear so much about American atrocity's since these are most probably nothing more than your own exagerations?
QUOTE
I know this anti American sentiment is such a common theme in the modern Turkish perception of Iraq that the most expensive Turkish film ever made deals with it, but I don't understand where it comes from. Is it an Islamic thing? A nationalist thing? Why are so many Turks so willing to villify the USA? Can you explain it?
Firstly, a film is a film. Hollywood makes loads of films that villify many nations and people, not only posing them as evil but also unbelievably stupid, charicatures. The better question is why we would think Americans exempt? We had in the past called the USSR the 'Evil Empire' and made plenty of film depictions, we now have 'The Axis of Evil' and we make films about evil Muslims and their evil plots, always with an american super hero that saves the day. Why would it be, in this day and age that Americans would not be depicted as evil in a film?
Secondly, in an item which is not widely known, american troops arrested and hooded some Turkish special forces in Northern Iraq. It has been called in Turkey 'the biggest national humiliation in Turkish history" and is widely known there but received only a blurb on BBC Canada and UK.
Here:
QUOTE
Yusuf Kanli, the editor in chief of the Turkish Daily News, said the film is grounded in a real event known as the “bag incident,” which cemented the movie’s popularity in Turkey.
“Abu Ghraib is a deep wound, but it’s war, and war is never clean,” Kanli said. “But what happened in July 2003 can never be forgotten by any Turk.”
In that incident, U.S. troops arrested 11 Turkish special-forces officers in northern Iraq and walked them from their headquarters with bags over their heads. It was considered a bitter betrayal by a trusted ally. Turkish newspapers dubbed it the “Rambo Crisis.” Recent opinion polls rank it as the most humiliating moment in Turkish history.
http://www.thismodernworld.com/ ( middle of page)“Abu Ghraib is a deep wound, but it’s war, and war is never clean,” Kanli said. “But what happened in July 2003 can never be forgotten by any Turk.”
In that incident, U.S. troops arrested 11 Turkish special-forces officers in northern Iraq and walked them from their headquarters with bags over their heads. It was considered a bitter betrayal by a trusted ally. Turkish newspapers dubbed it the “Rambo Crisis.” Recent opinion polls rank it as the most humiliating moment in Turkish history.
QUOTE
What concerns me the most about this apparently widespread attitude in Turkey is how easily other countries could say the same about Turkey! There are in fact some people in Europe who already do, not least amongst the Turkish and Kurdish minorities here.
If you really fear that Abu Graib is the tip of the iceberg, do you understand why so many Europeans feel the same way about Turkeys treatment of the Kurds?
If you really fear that Abu Graib is the tip of the iceberg, do you understand why so many Europeans feel the same way about Turkeys treatment of the Kurds?
I was in Turkey as a photographer several years before even Gulf War I. The Turks definately have abused and waged a covert war on their Kurds, but the Kurds there are much like the Basques, in wanting their own territory.
The Kurds were begging journalists to get the news out about this. It was dangerous to even report the goings on there by Turkish journalists. I was very worried for the lives of the journalists that took me there, several had been jailed and held for no reason other than reporting the situation.
I just dont really see what that has to do with anything relating to the US abusing prisoners.
QUOTE
Are these European fears accurate? I honstly don't know.
Yes. I believe they are, accurate. Turkey has had a huge problem with rebel Kurds from a governmental point of view, and Turkey has a horrendous record when it comes to human rights abuses. Bulgarian refugees had also been living in tent cities for years there with no end in sight, noone cares. Bush Sr. did not care either when he abandoned the Kurds after Gulf War I. Its amazing that both Turks and Kurds are seen as allies, because the Turks do not want a Kurdish homeland. A parallel conflict after Iraq is settled will be Turkish Kurds wanting their own land in Turkey.
QUOTE
My point is not simply to throw mud at Turkey, but rather to demonstrate that blind criticism of the US is unjustifed. Such criticism (of human rights violations) must be universally applied or they mean nothing.
I dont understand this either. Why are accusations against Turkey justified, even if unproven, yet widely suspected, yet accusations against the US unjustified, if unproven, yet widely suspected. If the principle is to be universally applied, than I think it is, quite equally. Except we in the US recieve no news about the Turkish/Kurdish problem.
What lends YOU to believe that suspicions against the US are only "based on a few photographs and a sceptical attitude (see below) towards the USA... " or that critisizm of the US is 'Blind". ( "but rather to demonstrate that blind criticism of the US is unjustifed.")
Many US citizens are asking questions about the nature of Guantanamo detentions, what is really going on there and if it is just or injust. With a complete black out of information about detainees there it is next to impossible to prove any maltreatment problems, except by reports from the UN or Amnesty Int'ntl. The Red Cross may administer, but risks talking about abuses or may lose the priveledge of access, not only here but around the world.
What was established in the US by our Constitution, not in Turkey, but Here, we happen to be as a society, against illegal or unjust detainments and torture of innocents or anyone but heinous terrorists to exact pertinent information (I presume and supported by Dick Cheney, that we may torture SOME people) as principle.
IF the detainments are justified, then so be it, BUT, as a free people, we expect the detainment and treatment of prisoners to be somewhat legal and above the level of places like Turkey, which as far as I know they have no written protections in that country.
To say, we are just supposed to be better, if we are NOT, if we are just the same, then why are we spreading Freedom and Democracy by war and an alleged 'better way of life' to other nations?
How does one come to the conclusion that the accusations are unjustified, just because? Just because what? We are 'goody-two-shoes' based on our own perfect view of ourselves?
That has been Dis-Proven by the smiling fraternity hi-jinx of our troops while abusing prisoners, and they were not even OGA (other government agency) people, as per document of torture featured in the Abu Graib photo. (see Salon photos posted above)
I say lets prove the accusations to be unjustified by opening up the black out, and getting these prisoners duly processed, not holding them indefinately.
QUOTE(moif @ Feb 21 2006, 08:22 PM)
You can be as critical of the USA as you like, but then you must accept that others will be equally critical of Turkey. Turkey has a far worse reputation in such matters than the USA and this is what I meant when I suggested a comparison of the US soldiers track record in iraq with how prisoners are treated by the Turkish authorities.
Never once in this forum have I defended my countries actions in southeastern parts of Turkey. In fact, I have been critical of the current policy. I would be more than happy to discuss what I think of the whole matter in an appropriate topic. Bu as I said and will keep saying, a atrocity somewhere else does not justify another atrocity.
QUOTE(moif @ Feb 21 2006, 08:22 PM)
Its this sort of thing to which I am refering to in my first sentence.
You're implying that the USA is engaged in a Holocaust on nothing more substantial than a few photographs and stories which may be no more substantial than rumours or even lies.
You're implying that the USA is engaged in a Holocaust on nothing more substantial than a few photographs and stories which may be no more substantial than rumours or even lies.
I am sorry moif, but what we have seen were more than "a few photographs and stories".
First of all we have Abu Graib and Guantanamo.
We have also seen photos of American actions in Fallujah. Also, there is the Bombings of Baghdat that killed many civilians. Most importantly, there are deaths of all the civilians due to the economic sanctions US insisted upon.
When I take all these into account and also consider the actions of the United States in the past several decades (from Vietnam to Chile to the arming of religious fanatics like Osama); I can't help thinking the worst.
QUOTE(moif @ Feb 21 2006, 08:22 PM)
I know this anti American sentiment is such a common theme in the modern Turkish perception of Iraq that the most expensive Turkish film ever made deals with it, but I don't understand where it comes from. Is it an Islamic thing? A nationalist thing? Why are so many Turks so willing to villify the USA? Can you explain it?
The anti-American sentiment in Turkey (and also in countries of the same geography) is not purely religious or nationalistic. It has to do with the American actions of the past few decades.
The first thing has to do with hypocrisy. American actions in the past decades have been very hypocritical.
America claims to bring democracy to the world but we have seen America support dictators like Pinochet and Ngo Dinh Diem.
America also supported religious fanatics like Osama during Afgan War v1.0 and helped them to set up opium operations to fund themselves.
In addition, America's support of Israel is very unpopular. Also the American invasion of Iraq ("War for Oil" as most put it) has generated a lot hostility towards US and UK.
As for the film, I see nothing wrong in that. A film is for people to enjoy themselves. After all, it is not a documentary and people know that.
There were many films during the Cold War era that portrayed the Soviets very badly. If you think that the Turkish film is inappropriate, I would like to know your opinion of James Bond.
QUOTE(Artemise)
Firstly, a film is a film. Hollywood makes loads of films that villify many nations and people, not only posing them as evil but also unbelievably stupid, charicatures. The better question is why we would think Americans exempt? We had in the past called the USSR the 'Evil Empire' and made plenty of film depictions, we now have 'The Axis of Evil' and we make films about evil Muslims and their evil plots, always with an american super hero that saves the day. Why would it be, in this day and age that Americans would not be depicted as evil in a film?
Well, because they are not evil. If one puts the USA on a par with the USSR then one is either a fool or a liar and whether thats done in a film or otherwise, makes no difference.
Americans should not be exempt from criticism in art, but there is a point when art is not innocent of ulterior motives and when ethnic minorities, such as blatently Jewish doctors cutting out hearts and other organs, are placed into the context of a critical film regarding the war in Iraq then this no longer a simple political drama or 'James Bond film'.
The Turks have every right to hold their beliefs and put them into films also, but that doesn't mean to say their opinions are not noted.
Art reflects the society that produces it.
QUOTE(Artemise)
Secondly, in an item which is not widely known, american troops arrested and hooded some Turkish special forces in Northern Iraq. It has been called in Turkey 'the biggest national humiliation in Turkish history" and is widely known there but received only a blurb on BBC Canada and UK.
So what? I ask Fma and he makes no mention of this. If this was such a big deal then he could bring it up, but since he hasn't then I don't see why you are offering it as a cause to why so many Turks are so hostile to the USA.
You see, the thing is, I don't, for one moment believe that this hostility is caused by any one incident like this. Indeed, I've seen the anti American trend in Turkey for as far back as I can remember. Turkey is supposed to be a NATO member, thus our ally. Not just of the USA but of all the NATO members. On top of that, Turkey desires membership of the EU.
If Turkey is our ally and even wishes to enter into the EU, then why are they always working against us?
QUOTE(Artemise)
I was in Turkey as a photographer several years before even Gulf War I. The Turks definately have abused and waged a covert war on their Kurds, but the Kurds there are much like the Basques, in wanting their own territory.
The Kurds were begging journalists to get the news out about this. It was dangerous to even report the goings on there by Turkish journalists. I was very worried for the lives of the journalists that took me there, several had been jailed and held for no reason other than reporting the situation.
I just dont really see what that has to do with anything relating to the US abusing prisoners.
It has to do with motives. Specifically the motives behind those who are so quick to turn against their allies. The Kurds were begging journalists to get the news out about this. It was dangerous to even report the goings on there by Turkish journalists. I was very worried for the lives of the journalists that took me there, several had been jailed and held for no reason other than reporting the situation.
I just dont really see what that has to do with anything relating to the US abusing prisoners.
QUOTE(Artemise)
I dont understand this either. Why are accusations against Turkey justified, even if unproven, yet widely suspected, yet accusations against the US unjustified, if unproven, yet widely suspected. If the principle is to be universally applied, than I think it is, quite equally. Except we in the US recieve no news about the Turkish/Kurdish problem.
What lends YOU to believe that suspicions against the US are only "based on a few photographs and a sceptical attitude (see below) towards the USA... " or that critisizm of the US is 'Blind". ( "but rather to demonstrate that blind criticism of the US is unjustifed.")
Well, because for a long time I held those very views. For the last two years my position has been on a line with yours. During that time I've read hundreds of articles and accounts critical of the USA and with each passing document I've had to take notice of the lack of evidence. After a while that absence of evidence just got too big to ignore. What lends YOU to believe that suspicions against the US are only "based on a few photographs and a sceptical attitude (see below) towards the USA... " or that critisizm of the US is 'Blind". ( "but rather to demonstrate that blind criticism of the US is unjustifed.")
Where is the evidence that the USA is 'evil', an 'empire' or just plain 'wrong'?
There is Guantanamo bay, yes... and then there is.. what...?
Nothing.
Abu Graib is nothing. It is the sort of incident that happens in ALL wars. That according to some human rights groups happens almost daily in nations like Turkey.
I call the criticism of America 'blind' because those who pursue that agenda do not care to examine either the context of American actions or the actions of those who oppose, not just the USA, but all western civilisation, including my own country. We're being attacked, almost daily, right across the globe and right here at home by fundamental forces who will destroy us and our democratic society and what are these 'anti-American' voices doing? They are attacking themselves. Their own country. That which stands between them and the tyranny of Islamic extremism.
I'm speaking generally now, not about the specific cases, but for me, to ignore this imminent danger and to expend all one's resources on undermining one's own defence, is a self imposed, politically motivated, blindness and I won't be a party to it.
QUOTE(Artemise)
Many US citizens are asking questions about the nature of Guantanamo detentions, what is really going on there and if it is just or injust. With a complete black out of information about detainees there it is next to impossible to prove any maltreatment problems, except by reports from the UN or Amnesty Int'ntl. The Red Cross may administer, but risks talking about abuses or may lose the priveledge of access, not only here but around the world.
Yes. I agree with you and I grieve for you also. But for me, Guantanamo is by far, the lesser of two evils and I can no longer afford to ignore the greater evil.
QUOTE(Artemise)
To say, we are just supposed to be better, if we are NOT, if we are just the same, then why are we spreading Freedom and Democracy by war and an alleged 'better way of life' to other nations?
Because that is the best method of defence. Would you rather fight this war in your own country?
If you think you can avoid this fight then think again. There is a confrontation here which is inevitable and the forces of moderation which have influence in the west do not in the middle east. There are few, if any, democracies there and the leadership of the various countries is hardly able to control radical Islam with recourse to using the most potent military methods.
The bottom line is, America is better. Even with Abu Graib, Guantanamo bay, Bush & Cheney and all the other 'sins'. America has proven its loyalty in the past and is doing so now again.
I support those who support me.
QUOTE(Artemise)
How does one come to the conclusion that the accusations are unjustified, just because? Just because what? We are 'goody-two-shoes' based on our own perfect view of ourselves?
That has been Dis-Proven by the smiling fraternity hi-jinx of our troops while abusing prisoners, and they were not even OGA (other government agency) people, as per document of torture featured in the Abu Graib photo. (see Salon photos posted above)
I say lets prove the accusations to be unjustified by opening up the black out, and getting these prisoners duly processed, not holding them indefinately.
Sure. Go ahead and do it. I have no problem with any of that. I'm confident that in the USA, the law will prevail, no matter what is done by the guilty parties to cover their tracks. It might take months or years, but eventually the truth will out. That has been Dis-Proven by the smiling fraternity hi-jinx of our troops while abusing prisoners, and they were not even OGA (other government agency) people, as per document of torture featured in the Abu Graib photo. (see Salon photos posted above)
I say lets prove the accusations to be unjustified by opening up the black out, and getting these prisoners duly processed, not holding them indefinately.
In the mean time however I have more pressing concerns.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
QUOTE(Fma)
Never once in this forum have I defended my countries actions in southeastern parts of Turkey. In fact, I have been critical of the current policy. I would be more than happy to discuss what I think of the whole matter in an appropriate topic. Bu as I said and will keep saying, a atrocity somewhere else does not justify another atrocity.
Yes, and I've already agreed with you on that. QUOTE(Fma)
I am sorry moif, but what we have seen were more than "a few photographs and stories".
First of all we have Abu Graib and Guantanamo.
We have also seen photos of American actions in Fallujah. Also, there is the Bombings of Baghdat that killed many civilians. Most importantly, there are deaths of all the civilians due to the economic sanctions US insisted upon.
Fallujah? First of all we have Abu Graib and Guantanamo.
We have also seen photos of American actions in Fallujah. Also, there is the Bombings of Baghdat that killed many civilians. Most importantly, there are deaths of all the civilians due to the economic sanctions US insisted upon.
Fallujah was a battle zone, as were the bombings which occured in Baghdad. If your going to argue that war itself is evidence of an American Holocaust then you need to find a dictionary and look up the word Holocaust.
QUOTE(Fma)
When I take all these into account and also consider the actions of the United States in the past several decades (from Vietnam to Chile to the arming of religious fanatics like Osama); I can't help thinking the worst.
And this is exactly my point. You can't help thinking the worst. Yes you can! You can help it, because these examples you quote were all actions undertaken to safeguard the United States and its allies and that includes your country!
Turkey benefitted from the protection of the United States against the very real tyranny of the USSR. If the USA had not fought Vietnam, had not armed the Islamic militia's of Afghanistan against the USSR and had not given, amongst many other nations, Turkey its alliance, then your nation would not exist today.
Without American military aid, equipment and backing, Turkey woud not have stood a chance against the Soviet Union. Its just too bad that when the time came for Turkey to repay the favour, they didn't.
I'm not holding you personally responsible for all this. I'm merely telling you how I feel about your criticism of the actions undertaken by the USA during the cold war.
QUOTE(Fma)
The anti-American sentiment in Turkey (and also in countries of the same geography) is not purely religious or nationalistic. It has to do with the American actions of the past few decades.
The first thing has to do with hypocrisy. American actions in the past decades have been very hypocritical.
America claims to bring democracy to the world but we have seen America support dictators like Pinochet and Ngo Dinh Diem.
Yeah, and the dubious leadership of Turkey also. How was what Pincohet did any worse than what Ankara has been doing to the Kurds for decades? The first thing has to do with hypocrisy. American actions in the past decades have been very hypocritical.
America claims to bring democracy to the world but we have seen America support dictators like Pinochet and Ngo Dinh Diem.
QUOTE(Fma)
In addition, America's support of Israel is very unpopular. Also the American invasion of Iraq ("War for Oil" as most put it) has generated a lot hostility towards US and UK.
Yeah? So how about Turkey's own support of Israel? QUOTE(Fma)
As for the film, I see nothing wrong in that. A film is for people to enjoy themselves. After all, it is not a documentary and people know that.
There were many films during the Cold War era that portrayed the Soviets very badly. If you think that the Turkish film is inappropriate, I would like to know your opinion of James Bond.
Some are good others are bad.There were many films during the Cold War era that portrayed the Soviets very badly. If you think that the Turkish film is inappropriate, I would like to know your opinion of James Bond.
So what?
I don't see how you can justify comparing the USA with the Soviet Union.
Its as if you don't understand what the Soviet Union actually was.
QUOTE(moif @ Feb 24 2006, 01:28 AM)
Fallujah?
Fallujah was a battle zone, as were the bombings which occured in Baghdad. If your going to argue that war itself is evidence of an American Holocaust then you need to find a dictionary and look up the word Holocaust.
Fallujah was a battle zone, as were the bombings which occured in Baghdad. If your going to argue that war itself is evidence of an American Holocaust then you need to find a dictionary and look up the word Holocaust.
First of all, I am not arguing that America is engaged in an act of murder just for the sake of violence.
What I argue is that America is acting on purely selfish intrests (Oil, free market for American products, a base in a strategic part of the world...) and disregards any damage this has over innocent civilians.
Fallujah was a battlezone, you are right about that. But let us think from the perspective of an Iraqi citizen who has his house blasted into pieces because of "collateral damage". What has he done to deserve such a thing? What wrong did the victims of America in Bagdat or Fallujah commit? Just because someone lives in a "battle-zone", does that mean killing them is justified?
QUOTE(moif @ Feb 24 2006, 01:28 AM)
And this is exactly my point. You can't help thinking the worst.
Yes you can! You can help it, because these examples you quote were all actions undertaken to safeguard the United States and its allies and that includes your country!
Turkey benefitted from the protection of the United States against the very real tyranny of the USSR. If the USA had not fought Vietnam, had not armed the Islamic militia's of Afghanistan against the USSR and had not given, amongst many other nations, Turkey its alliance, then your nation would not exist today.
Without American military aid, equipment and backing, Turkey woud not have stood a chance against the Soviet Union. Its just too bad that when the time came for Turkey to repay the favour, they didn't.
I'm not holding you personally responsible for all this. I'm merely telling you how I feel about your criticism of the actions undertaken by the USA during the cold war.
Yes you can! You can help it, because these examples you quote were all actions undertaken to safeguard the United States and its allies and that includes your country!
Turkey benefitted from the protection of the United States against the very real tyranny of the USSR. If the USA had not fought Vietnam, had not armed the Islamic militia's of Afghanistan against the USSR and had not given, amongst many other nations, Turkey its alliance, then your nation would not exist today.
Without American military aid, equipment and backing, Turkey woud not have stood a chance against the Soviet Union. Its just too bad that when the time came for Turkey to repay the favour, they didn't.
I'm not holding you personally responsible for all this. I'm merely telling you how I feel about your criticism of the actions undertaken by the USA during the cold war.
I fail to see how American actions in Vietnam made the world and my country a safer place. But it surely made life hell for the Vietnamiese.
Installing Pinochet might have protected the intrests (Copper) of America and the NATO world but it surely made life a lot worse for the people who actually live there.
And what did the arming of religious fanatics achieve? It delivered Afganistan from the hands of "commies" to the hands of opium dealers and fanatics.
The Soviets were a threat but I do not believe that such cruel actions are justified ways of "fighting" them. By employing such methods, America and NATO world (This includes my country as well) has shown that they are not better from them, except that they keep a much better public relations department.
What I disagree with your arguaments moif is that you say America's wars in the past decades are justified without taking into account its consequences for the people who live where the bombs were dropped.
QUOTE
1. What impact will this UN report have on US Policy and perception of the US in the international community?
2. The Bush administration has repeatedly claimed it does not torture, yet this report (joining other human rights groups and the European Parliament) paints a different picture. Who is to be believed?
2. The Bush administration has repeatedly claimed it does not torture, yet this report (joining other human rights groups and the European Parliament) paints a different picture. Who is to be believed?
1) I have a feeling the NSA will intensify a counter information campaign restating they do not torture. They may even do another PR tour just to drive home the point through repetition.
2. Obviously any allegations will weaken support for the admin. I think this is just the tip of the iceberg. There have been reports that even guantanamo is not the worst of the detention facilities. If these rumours prove to be even remotely true, a complete withdrawl of all american occupied installations will be called for.
When people say the US follows the Geneva Convention, that's fine, but they must be prepared to answer some tough questions. Such as the following:
If some soldiers are standing around laughing while some of them murder an unarmed lying-on-the-ground-all-tied-up wounded civilian, is that not a war crime which contradicts the Geneva Convention? Yes. If those soldiers happen to be American soldiers, does that not mean American soldiers break the Geneva Convention? Yes.
What I'm saying is this: how can anyone argue that the US does not commit war crimes in contradiction of the Geneva Convention when they have to admit the US does at times commit war crimes in contradiction of the Geneva Convention?
If some soldiers are standing around laughing while some of them murder an unarmed lying-on-the-ground-all-tied-up wounded civilian, is that not a war crime which contradicts the Geneva Convention? Yes. If those soldiers happen to be American soldiers, does that not mean American soldiers break the Geneva Convention? Yes.
What I'm saying is this: how can anyone argue that the US does not commit war crimes in contradiction of the Geneva Convention when they have to admit the US does at times commit war crimes in contradiction of the Geneva Convention?
When people say the US follows the Geneva Convention, that's fine, but they must be prepared to answer some tough questions. Such as the following:
If some soldiers are standing around laughing while some of them murder an unarmed lying-on-the-ground-all-tied-up wounded civilian, is that not a war crime which contradicts the Geneva Convention? Yes. If those soldiers happen to be American soldiers, does that not mean American soldiers break the Geneva Convention? Yes.
What I'm saying is this: how can anyone argue that the US does not commit war crimes in contradiction of the Geneva Convention when they have to admit the US does at times commit war crimes in contradiction of the Geneva Convention?
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5365.htm
If some soldiers are standing around laughing while some of them murder an unarmed lying-on-the-ground-all-tied-up wounded civilian, is that not a war crime which contradicts the Geneva Convention? Yes. If those soldiers happen to be American soldiers, does that not mean American soldiers break the Geneva Convention? Yes.
What I'm saying is this: how can anyone argue that the US does not commit war crimes in contradiction of the Geneva Convention when they have to admit the US does at times commit war crimes in contradiction of the Geneva Convention?
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5365.htm
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.