America's Debate > Human Rights and National Security

Full Version: Human Rights and National Security

America's Debate > Archive > In the News Archive > [A] War on Terrorism

Google

Sponsored Links

yehoshua

Sep 1 2004, 04:48 PM

Question 1: Can America successfully fight a war against terrorists (defined, for the purpose of this discussion, as people who will, if able, enter America and kill large amounts of civilians) while violating human rights ourselves?

Human rights meaning? Violating meaning?

I don't mean this as a moral question, it's a tactical one. It seems to me that every person who has reason to hate America (every relative of a tortured Abu Ghraib prisoner, for example) is potentially a link in a chain that will allow a terrorist to get the resources he/she needs to carry out another successful attack in America.

I don't think hatred is a link in a chain to American violations of human rights. By this you mean to say that America in turn hates people who hate America. I see no signs of this.

Meanwhile, I have heard it argued that without violating human rights, we can't stop these attacks because we won't be able to get the information we need.

Welcome to the information age. 9/11 happened because we did not have 'enough' information to stop it. Pearl Harbor happened because we did not have 'enough' information to stop it. Power is in the hands of the person who holds the information.

Question 2: If we can't fight this war successfully without paying attention to human rights, where do human rights belong in our plans? Are they central or secondary, or something else?

Which human rights are being violated? I think a clear understanding of what rights humans in America no longer have as a result of fighting a war on terrorism needs to clearly be address. A blanketed statement that all human rights are being violated by the intelligence gathering community is false. The issue really needs focus in order to debate.

Ultimatejoe

Sep 1 2004, 05:00 PM

QUOTE

Welcome to the information age. 9/11 happened because we did not have 'enough' information to stop it.

Excuse me? Did the FBI not know that the hijackers were in the U.S. studying pilotting (but not landing?) Was there no internal CIA memo identifying the risk that such an attack might happen?

One thing that never fails to amaze me as people line up to hand over other peoples' civil rights is the false assumption that it is NECESSARY for safety. To me that is utter garbage. The attacks on September 11th could have been prevented in any number of ways. If the CIA and FBI had communicated better. If the INS was better able to keep track of people with invalid papers. If the doors on cockpits could, you know, be locked. If airport security was nationalized. If the people on the plabe were willing to piece two and two together. If the Air Force had responded appropriately.

See where I'm going here? September 11th happened because of a tremendous littany of failures; none of which had to do with intelligence gathering. So why then do we need to start throwing our rights out the window to improve the gathering process?

Hobbes

Sep 1 2004, 05:01 PM

QUOTE

Meanwhile, I have heard it argued that without violating human rights, we can't stop these attacks because we won't be able to get the information we need.

I believe this to be a fallacy, created by an overly loose definition of 'human rights'. Allow me to illustrate--say that we instituted a process where the bags of everyone who went into a large public place had their bags searched. Does this violate anyone's rights? I don't think so--they check everyone, you don't get checked if you choose not to go in--only people carrying something they shouldn't be carrying have any reason to feel violated. They did this everywhere when I visited Turkey--it actually makes you feel safer, not violated (ie--would you feel better if they weren't checking everyone's bags?). To me, in no way do policies such as this violate anyone's rights, while they do go a long ways toward combating terrorism. So, I guess my answer to your question is that it reflects a perception I don't feel exists.

QUOTE

See where I'm going here? September 11th happened because of a tremendous littany of failures; none of which had to do with intelligence gathering. So why then do we need to start throwing our rights out the window to improve the gathering process?

Yes, good points. I think we can gather the necessary information without doing so...I just get a little miffed at people objecting to common sense procedures in the absence of such information (such as searching people entering public buildings).

Lesly

Sep 1 2004, 05:15 PM

QUOTE(Hobbes @ Sep 1 2004, 01:01 PM)

Allow me to illustrate--say that we instituted a process where the bags of everyone who went into a large public public had their bags searched. Does this violate anyone's rights? I don't think so--they check everyone, you don't get checked if you choose not to go in--only people carrying something they shouldn't be carrying have any reason to feel violated. They did this everywhere when I visited Turkey--it actually makes you feel safer, not violated (ie--would you feel better if they weren't checking everyone's bags?). To me, in no way do policies such as this violate anyone's rights, while they do go a long ways toward combating terrorism. So, I guess my answer to your question is that it reflects a perception I don't feel exists.

You're getting more at civil rights as opposed to the hypothetical "Should we torture this guy to save a million lives?" Would anyone's civil rights be violated if airport security looked into everyone's bags? Privacy is a pretty weak basis for objection in this scenario. Would someone's civil rights be violated if airport security used racial profiling? Yes—with bonus security fallacies.

yehoshua

Sep 1 2004, 05:23 PM

Excuse me? Did the FBI not know that the hijackers were in the U.S. studying piloting (but not landing?) Was there no internal CIA memo identifying the risk that such an attack might happen?

Yes but who said the CIA and FBI are intelligent? The had a computer system and bureaucracy paper work dating back to the 1980s. Who could accomplish intelligent work in office like that?

One thing that never fails to amaze me as people line up to hand over other peoples' civil rights is that it is NECESSARY for safety.

Are there other reasons to hand over civil rights?

If the Air Force had responded appropriately.

What procedure is there for the U.S. Air Force to take down a civilian aircraft assumed to be manned by terrorist? Keep in mind that neither of the planes communicated to the towers requesting permission for air space to fly into the towers so it is unknown wether the civilian aircraft was in the hands of terrorist or pilots.

yehoshua

Sep 1 2004, 05:32 PM

QUOTE(Lesly @ Sep 1 2004, 10:15 AM)

QUOTE(Hobbes @ Sep 1 2004, 01:01 PM)

Would anyone's civil rights be violated if airport security looked into everyone's bags? Privacy is a pretty weak basis for objection in this scenario. Would someone's civil rights be violated if airport security used racial profiling? Yes—with bonus security fallacies.

You're getting more at civil rights as opposed to the hypothetical "Should we torture this guy to save a million lives?"

Okay if it is torture what 'torture' did the prisoners at Abu Ghraib Prison receive that was any different then the 'torture' that prisoners in America Prisons? (NOTE: i emphasize 'prisoner' and 'prison' because both are prisoners held in American prisons) Or better yet, how was the torture different then the torture suffered at a Frat Party?

We throw torture around. Did you happen to see what happened to Iraqi Prisoners in Iraqi Prisons? No hands, feet, eyes. Now that is torture.

countrockula

Sep 1 2004, 05:33 PM

QUOTE

Well, in any war, there are human rights abuses - we could not have invaded Afghanistan without incurring some civilian casualties. Likewise, there were horrible human rights abuses during WWII, but I don't think there's a case to be made for not having fought it. I guess the trick is keeping the violations to a minimum, as heartless and pragmatic as that sounds.

QUOTE

Question 2: If we can't fight this war successfully without paying attention to human rights, where do human rights belong in our plans? Are they central or secondary, or something else?

Ultimately, they should absolutely be central to our plans. Terrorism is fostered in the poorest, most downtrodden and unfree nations and societies. Preventing genocide, providing food and medical supplies, facilitating religious tolerance and education wherever possible; these should be our international goals, as they are the linchpin of preventing terrorism in the future.

quarkhead

Sep 1 2004, 07:06 PM

QUOTE(yehoshua @ Sep 1 2004, 10:32 AM)

Okay if it is rape what 'rape' did the woman in Central Park receive that was any different then the 'rape' that women received across America? Or better yet, how was the rape different then the rape suffered at a Frat Party?

Yeah. But it's still rape. Relativism is all well and good, if one understands it on an intellectual and moral level, but it's a horrible mistake to use it to make excuses for such vile behaviour.

Question 1: Can America successfully fight a war against terrorists (defined, for the purpose of this discussion, as people who will, if able, enter America and kill large amounts of civilians) while violating human rights ourselves?

I don't think we can successfully fight a 'war' against terrorists. And we certainly can't do it while showing a disregard for human rights - particularly if we are to use the rhetoric of freedom and democracy.

Question 2: If we can't fight this war successfully without paying attention to human rights, where do human rights belong in our plans? Are they central or secondary, or something else?

We are fighting the wrong war. Let's not try and mitigate the immorality of that by trying to find some middle ground in which we can continue to act like a rogue state while claiming to stand for freedom, democracy, and sadly, God.

Lesly

Sep 1 2004, 07:21 PM

QUOTE(yehoshua @ Sep 1 2004, 01:32 PM)

You're getting more at civil rights as opposed to the hypothetical "Should we torture this guy to save a million lives?"

Okay if it is torture what 'torture' did the prisoners at Abu Ghraib Prison receive that was any different then the 'torture' that prisoners in America Prisons? (NOTE: I emphasize 'prisoner' and 'prison' because both are prisoners held in American prisons) [snip]

We throw torture around. Did you happen to see what happened to Iraqi Prisoners in Iraqi Prisons? No hands, feet, eyes. Now that is torture.

Sometimes rape in American prisons is a way to flaunt dominance when prisoners shouldn't be allowed to carve out a hierarchy for themselves. Sometimes rape is a weapon of war in armed conflicts. And sometimes rape is another tool in the torture toolbox for extracting information from the victim or the victim's relative as they watch.

I don't condone inmate-inmate rape within our borders when the victim is a rapist himself, and I don't condone using rape for information gathering either. Both applications of rape are wrong. One application is excused in the pretext of security/intelligence interests.

Google

Sponsored Links

yehoshua

Sep 1 2004, 07:40 PM

I see I sent the wrong message out. I was not advocating one over the other, and never am I or will I be an advocate of rape to anyone by anyone.

I was only pointing out that the 'torture' at Abu Gharaib (and to remind people no one has claimed, as far as I know, that in Abu Ghraib they were raped, just made to be naked and watch rape videos and hang around on a leash) is equal to the the 'torture' at a Frat Party. Made to be naked and what not. So how can that 'violation of human rights' (if we can call it a violation) be compared to the torture suffered by the prisoners under Saddam?

Lesly

Sep 1 2004, 08:20 PM

QUOTE(yehoshua @ Sep 1 2004, 03:40 PM)

I was only pointing out that the 'torture' at Abu Gharaib (and to remind people no one has claimed, as far as I know, that in Abu Ghraib they were raped, just made to be naked and watch rape videos and hang around on a leash) is equal to the the 'torture' at a Frat Party.

These documents, obtained by The Washington Post, are the offical English translations of previously secret sworn statements by detainees at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. Some of the names have been withheld from these statements by washingtonpost.com because they are alleged victims of sexual assault. These files are in PDF format.

Some of the descriptions in these statements may be disturbing because of their sexually explicit or graphic nature.

Link

Edited to make text black in accordance with forum Rules. Please use color sparingly, for emphasis only.

yehoshua

Sep 1 2004, 08:41 PM

There is only one person who reported RAPE, and that was a women in Egypt named Nadia who's testmony is not found on your link. And if you read the stories it reads "we got into a fight, and then got beat up."

Besides this goes back to the Frat Party stunts. Skulls and Bones, that Kerry and Bush went through put people in coffins and made them do thing not worth repeating. And look at the movie Old School.

Lesly

Sep 1 2004, 09:55 PM

QUOTE(yehoshua @ Sep 1 2004, 04:41 PM)

There is only one person who reported RAPE, and that was a women in Egypt named Nadia who's testmony is not found on your link. And if you read the stories it reads "we got into a fight, and then got beat up."

Besides this goes back to the Frat Party stunts. Skulls and Bones, that Kerry and Bush went through put people in coffins and made them do thing not worth repeating. And look at the movie Old School.

While still illegal I'm not interested in "frat party stunts." Here's some digging for you.

QUOTE

I saw [name blocked] [expletive] a kid, his age would be about 15 - 18 years. The kid was hurting very bad and they covered all the doors with sheets. Then when I heard the screaming I climbed the door because on top it wasn't covered and I saw [name blocked], who was wearing the military uniform putting his [expletive] in the little kid's [expletive]. I couldn't see the face of the kid because his face wasn't in front of the door. And the female soldier was taking pictures. [name blocked], I think he is [name blocked] because of his accent, and he was not skinny or short, and he acted like a homosexual (gay). And tha was in cell #23 as best as I remember.

In the cell that is almost under it, on the North side, and I was right across from it on the other side. They put the sheets again on the doors. Grainer and his helper they cuffed one prisoner in Room #1, named [name blocked], he was Iraqi citizen. They tied him to the bed and they were inserted the phosphoric light in his [expletive] and he was yelling for God's help. [name blocked] used to get hit and punished a lot because I heard him screaming and they prohibited us from standing near the door when they do that. That was Ramadan, around 12 midnight approximately when I saw them putting the stick in his [expletive]. The female soldier was taking pictures.

-- Kasim Mehaddi Hilas

What's next on the List of Requirements?

yehoshua

Sep 1 2004, 09:58 PM

Why are kids at the prison? Where are those pictures?

And this is so off topic. May we should drop the whole issue. I'll accept, for argument sake that civil rights were violated at Abu Ghraib.

Should it be allowed?

No. Not that way.

Ultimatejoe

Sep 1 2004, 10:05 PM

Ok, the questions for debate here are:

1. Can America successfully fight a war against terrorists (defined, for the purpose of this discussion, as people who will, if able, enter America and kill large amounts of civilians) while violating human rights ourselves?

2. If we can't fight this war successfully without paying attention to human rights, where do human rights belong in our plans? Are they central or secondary, or something else?

If this continues to be a debate about rape, or about whether or not abuses have taken place in Iraq or Cuba, it will be closed.

ralou

Sep 2 2004, 12:33 AM

To illustrate my point about human rights, I'll link (for those of you who don't mind lookin at graphic images) you to proof of a specific, clear violation that took place at Abu Ghraib, one I had in mind while coming up with my questions. If you don't want to look and would rather have a description:

A dog was allowed to rip open a prisoner's leg, after which he was held down on the floor while the bite was stitched, by a soldier, not by a doctor (although it does say it is unclear whether the injury was from a dog bite. I suppose a security clearance would be required to find that out. Nevertheless, the Taguba report details incidents including sodomy with a chemical light or possibly a broomstick, here is one of many links repeating this claim: http://breaking.tcm.ie/story.asp?j=6696772...y8&n=6696860&x=

These are not frat boy pranks.

In any case, here are the photos:

Warning, graphic photos:

http://www.antiwar.com/news/?articleid=2444

Eeyore

Sep 2 2004, 01:34 AM

well Ultimate Joe posted a warning fairly clearly. Topic closed.

This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.