Have your say! "Free Speech" or Muslim bashing? Do you support Iraq troop withdrawal? Iran invasion?
  • Please read our posting policy before adding a comment
  • Target areas: Operation "Anyone But Labour" 2006
  • Tuesday, December 28, 2004

    US military redefines the word "humane"

    Following serious charges of abuse and torture by detainees, the US military has issued a denial that abuses have occurred, despite all the evidence to the contrary. And not only have they blatently lied about that, they have also insisted that detainees have been treated humanely. There must be a different definition of the word humane in the dictionary than the one I have read.

    9 Comments:

    At 12/28/2004 03:03:00 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

    I have my doubts that you have "read" the definition of too many things or you wouldn't be so magically concerned about the meaning of humane now, instead of being concerned about it when Saddam was filling up those mass graves. Didn't have any problems with it then, did you? Have a drink of tea, and find something to do other than hate Americans....hey, maybe you could try being humane with the Scots and the Irish like you Brits were for so many centuries.

     
    At 12/28/2004 04:26:00 pm, Blogger Voice 1 said...

    Point 1 - I think you'll notice i've expressed an interest in human rights for a long time. Therefore, the fact I should know the meaning of the word humane isn't such a "magical" occurrence.

    Point 2 - The only excuse left now for the illegal invasion of Iraq is the "humanitarian" excuse. The world now knows exactly what the rogue regime really think about human rights.

    Point 3 - I have, and will continue to condemn my own government for any crimes, or misdemeanors it has committed as well as the crimes of the torturer in chief's regime.

     
    At 12/28/2004 04:54:00 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

    Well I am amazed to hear how our holier than thou European brethren can admit that attempting to do something in the world comes with some difficulty and not everything will go as planned. I just wish I could hear someone speak out to "human rights" against TRULY oppressive regimes but instead people are too busy blaming Coke Cola and Ford Motor Company as the root of all evil.

    Listen man...Americans do NOT want Americans torturing anyone. That is the will of the people, whether or not the press reflects it. If people break laws, they go to jail. That is the way it works here and that is what will happen to anyone who participated in these things. In Iraq, people got to fill mass graves for decades and the world stood against anyone that would attempt to say or do anything about it. I find the sudden interest in human rights, not specifically yours but the world's, to be a joke. The World's record on human rights is a joke....all one needs to do is look at the UN and let the laughter begin. Example.....Sudan. We say anything about it...and we are told to quit trying to rule the world, we do nothing and the world does nothing and the killings continue.

    Dude we love the Brits so I hope I'm not being too harsh with my comments, but we just aren't quite ready to dissolve the entire police department when we hear of a few bad policemen, but it sounds like you and the rest of the world are. What the world really needs is for people like you...who seem to actually care...to think a little and pick your friends on some things other than financial ties.....for example, the Europeans and Iran. How much money are ya'll going to give to Iran before you figure this one out? How about the human rights of the Iranians...the Kurds...the Christians there? Nothing...we hear nothing...all we hear is how illegal American foreign policy is and how right and moral the Europeans are. When your capitals are in flames, you will come to our way of thinking...it is just a matter of time. Then this entire debate will become an after thought.

     
    At 12/28/2004 05:19:00 pm, Blogger Voice 1 said...

    Thank you for your comments. I recently made a post to say that on the UN's Human Rights Commission, human rights laws should be applied to ALL countries, not only those deemed as "evil" by whichever power wants to deem another in that manner.

    I've also made comments about the human rights situations in China, Sudan and Zimbabwe. I would say that if you are going to have a law on human rights, then they should apply to ALL countries, whoever they are, and however powerful they are.

     
    At 12/28/2004 05:40:00 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

    Prior to World War II, your country and mine were two of only about 50 or so democracies world wide. Today the number is around 150 of a possible 200. Great strides have been made in regards to human rights, but they were not made by words or outdated organizations. They were made by ending dictatorships, by whatever means. You want human rights for all....press hard on those last 50 or so countries that refuse to give their own people the freedom they desire. Speak out against powers, whether weak or strong, that refuse to allow their own people to run their own governments. That will alter human rights in the world...nothing else. American style, British style, Greek style democracy....who cares? Just as long as the people are in charge to follow human rights or not, but take the decision out of the hands of a dangerous few. Regime change is the pragmatic solution to both of our problems....but I know....some say that is illegal too. One thing is for sure, human rights will get no better in this world as long as the world turns out in droves to support a few tyrants in the UN, like they have been doing for years now.

     
    At 12/28/2004 08:50:00 pm, Blogger Voice 1 said...

    Thank you for your comment, I have to say my view is that until so called "civilised societies", who are supposed to lead in matters of human rights and international law behave like civilised societies, then what sort of example is that to set to developing nations?

    After all, if they view self proclaimed "civilised societies" as not acting so civilised, then what message does this send out to the world?

    "Civilised societies" have to lead by example if they wish to take the moral high ground, and until that example has been met, then no flouter of international law, and no war criminals or human rights abuser anywhere in the world has the right to call another nation "evil" or to say that another nation is flouting international law.

    I do not know anybody who now believes that our "civilised societies" are acting either within the realms of the law, or acting morally correct. It is very easy to PURELY lay the blame for the world's problems on the UN, although I do believe there are some problems with the UN, I do believe that they can only act with the mandate set by the member states of the organisation.

     
    At 12/28/2004 09:34:00 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

    "I do not know anybody who now believes that our "civilised societies" are acting either within the realms of the law, or acting morally correct."

    Then you need some new friends.

    " I do believe there are some problems with the UN, I do believe that they can only act with the mandate set by the member states of the organisation."

    Even when those member states like Rusia, China and France are bribed by other members? This is why John Kerry's "global test" was rejected by voters.

     
    At 12/29/2004 10:27:00 am, Blogger Voice 1 said...

    I don't think I could find anybody who actually agrees with the current project, even when I was involved with petition signings against the illegal invasion of Iraq, I didn't find one person who believed that the action was a "legal" action. And as I said, I don't know anybody who believes torture and abuse are "civilised".

     
    At 1/31/2005 05:40:00 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

    When Saddam was filling up mass graves, the U.S. was either helping (1988) of sitting but and watching it so that the Shia would not come to power (1991).

    "I just wish I could hear someone speak out to "human rights" against TRULY oppressive regimes".

    What? You mean like condemn the U.S. for giving millions in military aid to Islam Karimov's regime - a regime notorious for boiling people to death?

    "If people break laws, they go to jail."

    Do they? Like when Bush went to jail for violating Article VI of the Constitution of the United States of America?

    "In Iraq, people got to fill mass graves for decades and the world stood against anyone that would attempt to say or do anything about it."

    Read a little history. When Saddam was using chemical weapons, the U.S. was giving diplomatic cover - first by denying it, then by watering down a UNSC resolution aimed at putting sanctions on Saddam's regime in '88.

    "How about the human rights of the Iranians..."

    Yes. How about it. The student movement was very lively and freedom was openning up in Iran. Then the U.S. came out with it's "axis of evil" crap and the result was predictable: crack down on any dissent in Iran to shore itself up against foreign invasion.

    "the Kurds..."

    The only ones protesting at the time of the Kurdish massacres were the left. Certainly not the U.S. as I have already pointed out.

    "When your capitals are in flames, you will come to our way of thinking...it is just a matter of time."

    And why would they be in flames? Who is threatening them?

    "Great strides have been made in regards to human rights, but they were not made by words or outdated organizations. They were made by ending dictatorships, by whatever means."

    WHAT???! Read a little. Look at the fall of tyranny in the former Soviet block. Not ended by military imposition.

    "You want human rights for all....press hard on those last 50 or so countries that refuse to give their own people the freedom they desire."

    And press hard on nations like the U.S. who support brutal tyrants like Islam Karimov.

    "Speak out against powers, whether weak or strong, that refuse to allow their own people to run their own governments."

    No country in the world lets its people run their own governments. There are only republics. The closest thing in the world to a democracy is the city of Porto Allegre which has instituted a system of participatory democracy.

    "One thing is for sure, human rights will get no better in this world as long as the world turns out in droves to support a few tyrants in the UN".

    Ah. You of course mean incidents like the U.S. covering for Saddam or Israel or demanding the Khmer Rouge be allowed a seat in the General Assembly.

    "Even when those member states like Rusia, China and France are bribed by other members?"

    Or the U.S. bribing and bullying other members? Forgot about that one, didn't you.

     

    Post a Comment

    Links to this post:

    Create a Link

    << Home