Amnesty International tiptoes around third-world torturers
Amnesty International is oh so very careful not to offend the tender sensibilities of those responsible for the brutal torture, killing, and mutilation of two captured US soldiers.
Note the two qualifiers in the Amnesty statement: "if" and "may." It's the "may" part that Belmont Club--and myself--find so especially offensive.
{And see this for my own small previous efforts to try to communicate with the folks at Amnesty.)
posted by neo-neocon @ 12:45 PM
21 comments
21 Comments:
Wasp's last paragraph is I think, a form of "grim humour". Death jokes, jokes made when the going gets tough and desperate situations require desperate solutions.
The military has a lot of them, like when the Marines were surrounded in Chosin and said, "Now the Chinese can't get away from us". Target "rich" environment, more for everyone.
Some people like me prefer them, others are offended by them.
McVeigh should have driven it into the UN building to be honest, at Oklahoma.
"Some people like me prefer them, others are offended by them."
Grim humor, as well as politically correct humor are fine, and are actually needed nowadays. However, I think it easy to go too far.
I dislike both the UN and The Times intensely, and I do think that they actively contribute to making serious problems worse. However, even in jest, car bombing them does not strike me as being funny or useful in this context. Sorry, just the way I feel.
Ann Coulter says some things that need to be said, and she is certainly a tough cookie, but she gets in the way of her own message with some of her rhetoric, which can get out of line.
Having said that, there will come a time, not sure when, when even the Times and Amnesty and a whole bunch of others will be personally confronted with the Evil we are facing. Even 9/11 and Madrid did not do it, but something will.
To steal a line from Herman Wouk, the scales won't fall from their eyes, but will be blown off.
I must admit, when that time comes, I will find it hard not to feel at least some sort of grim satisfaction, even as I also call for them to be avenged.
I don't have time to elaborate on this further, but I recently finished The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, and quite frankly I am pretty pessimistic nowadays. So much of the self-denial and Quising-like behavior, so much of the insipid silly excuses for tyrants and thugs of that period are in evidence today. I think it will only fall out of favor when something truly monstrous comes everyone's way.
And when I say monstrous, I mean MONSTROUS; something too ugly to even comprehend at this point.
Amnesty obsequious behavior toward the terrorists is just one small example of this.
I dislike both the UN and The Times intensely, and I do think that they actively contribute to making serious problems worse. However, even in jest, car bombing them does not strike me as being funny or useful in this context. Sorry, just the way I feel.
It's not a joke, I'm actually partially in favor of taking these people hostage and or killing them. A car bomb, although not a controlled raid, would serve the purpose quite well if that is what fate decreed.
You got two problems, McVeigh type fundamentalists and UN type bureacrats. One problem is hard to solve. Two problems can solve each other. In this case, it didn't happen. But I in part wish it did, which is why it is ironic to me.
I prefer the UN rather than the NYTimes because I am more convinced that the NYTimes staff merits mercy than the UN.
I don't favor a car bomb because that isn't what I would do, given that there are diplomats in the UN that we'd like to save. However, if McVeigh wanted to blow up a building and I couldn't stop him or choose the building for him, I'd rather he do us all a favor and blow up the UN building.
Grim humour isn't funny if the possibility of it actually occuring is so obhorrent to you. That is why I say I favor it but others do not.
I don't know whether Ann thinks the way I do, perhaps I have doubt there. I don't know what Ann believes, whether she is a true believer or not. She acts like it, but I am always suspicious of the act.
So much of the self-denial and Quising-like behavior, so much of the insipid silly excuses for tyrants and thugs of that period are in evidence today. I think it will only fall out of favor when something truly monstrous comes everyone's way.
Maybe you're suffering from psychological shock. I mean, if you had thought that the WWII period was a period of national unity, will, and glorious stupendous VICTORIES then seeing what really happened would probably put a damper on your morale. Me? I learned about the stupidities of history like at least a year ago, so I've had time to recover from the morale shock.
Now, I'm as pragmatic as pragmatism can get. We need more will and power, and Bush obviously cannot or will not provide us the ruthlessness America and the world so needs. So, I'm waiting. For someone or something. The move is now in the terroist's hands, and we've defeated many of their splinter cell operations already.
This is not victory, this is like McClellan on the gates of Richmond in the first year of the Civil War. It looks like victory, but three more years of hellfire will reslt if McClellan plays politics, and he did just that.
I'm confident that America's genkai has not nearly been exceeded yet. When steve and confude and conned and others realize to the extent of the hidden reserves that the "paper dragon" superpower has kept in reserve, they will be quite surprised and shocked.
Even I don't know to what extent the sleeping dragon might affect the world once awakened.
The thread's fine, considering what Neo has said she prefers in behavioral terms on her blog.
Amnesty is no big surprise any more. Just another stupid liberal organization dedicated to their stupid agendae, no matter what the facts show.
"It's not a joke, I'm actually partially in favor of taking these people hostage and or killing them. A car bomb, although not a controlled raid, would serve the purpose quite well if that is what fate decreed."
Okay, well then, I heartily disagree. I find that an extremist view. Unless either the Times editorial board or the UN is busy assembling a nuclear bomb in Manhatten as we speak, I'm going to have to fight you on that. If you start doing something like that, you've entered terrorist territory yourself. I understand your frustration but don't let it possess you, for God's sake.
Why take hostage and murder U.S. citizens again? I am not getting the logic there. Is there nothing to do before such drastic measures?
How about we just kick the UN out for a start? Cut off our funding to them. That alone would be a mortal blow considering how much we support the place. How about we catagorically refuse to ever take part in "peacekeeping". Without our muscle, who they gonna call?
With regards to the Times, how about just exposing them for the frauds they are, which many are doing already? Times circulation is dropping all the time, as is their reputation. Beyond that, how about we start prosecuting the leakers of highly classified information. Seems like a decent before we start whacking people.
"Maybe you're suffering from psychological shock. I mean, if you had thought that the WWII period was a period of national unity, will, and glorious stupendous VICTORIES then seeing what really happened would probably put a damper on your morale."
Actually, yes, I do think that. Actually, I know that. This country was almost stupidly ambivalent about the war before it came to us, but after, there was national unity, there was will and there were glorious stupendous victories. The press managed to NOT harp on every set-back, did not seek to slander the Commander-in-Chief, I don't recall many anti-war protests post Pearl Harbor, we managed to fight on opposite sides of the globe simultaneously, and we managed to win with our Allies.
I gotta admit, I'm a little mystified by your attitude. I am not being confrontational. I think you might be in shock. Ymarsakar, I may be morbid over the situation, but you are getting a little rabid. Let's both of us take a deep breath, alright? Do not let the tinfoil hat wearers get you crazy, please.
What stupidities of history are you talking about?
"What the hell were Amnesty supposed to say in your view?"
I think people were looking for at LEAST the same level of outrage and certainty of wrongdoing when two legitmate POW's are murdered and butchered as when someone's Koran gets a little mishandled or when panties get put on their head. I think Neo and the Belmont club explained the issue pretty well, actually.
Weary g......So, you are complaing that they are a) waiting for the facts to emerge rather than the sensationalism expressed in the blogworld, (certainty about whom?) and b) you are asking them to express 'outrage' because you expect them to be on your side (as opposed to neutral).
Confud,
As I pointed out already, both Neo and Wretchard explained the issue quite clearly. Since you have not bothered to address their, or my point, I don't think there is any point in engaging you on this. Sorry. Maybe when you can clearly state our point, and then refute it in an equally clear manner, I'll respond. Until then...
Charlemagne,
As I told Confud, you are missing the point, most likely on purpose, when it has been quite clearly spelled out. There is no need to elaborate further on it. When you can honestly state the issue, perhaps there can be a discussion.
Okay, well then, I heartily disagree. I find that an extremist view. Unless either the Times editorial board or the UN is busy assembling a nuclear bomb in Manhatten as we speak, I'm going to have to fight you on that.
Now granted, some of these people have diplomatic immunity, so I don't think you can choose to do or not to do based upon the nuclear bomb situation. The point then remains, are we at war with these people, diplomats of such and such countries, or are we not?
As far as I consider them, the representatives countries send to the UN aren't diplomats, and aren't worthy of diplomatic immunity. Now I know that people and nations have used embassy staffs for intel and espionage operations, but this is like giving the UN a free building in which to conduct anti-American espionage operations.
Now why would anyone take them hostage? What would be the use, to be exact? The obvious one is, that we get rid of them and their institution. Once their diplomatic immunity is removed, then they'd have to be arrested and deported, because no foreign national can be on American property and known to be spying on us, and not be deported without diplomatic passes. Second thing, there's a lot of records in the UN building at this moment, that has the dirt on Kofi Annan and what not. Arresting them, taking hostage if you will, in return for the goods on the entire UN organization would provide us with the legal and moral justification to abolish the UN or at least transfer it to France.
Again, there's that little matter with the diplomatic accreditation. It can be withdrawn, if it was withdrawn, then the UN bureacrats are physically incapable of moving the heck out if they didn't want to abandon their stuff, and arresting them for deportation would be one good way to preserve the documents and prevent them from destroying them. I don't consider the UN to be in a state of war with the US, but it's pretty close.
Why take hostage and murder U.S. citizens again?
Why would arresting or taking hostage someone, necessarily be connected to murdering US citizens? A raid is pinpoint and exact, while a car bomb is uncontrollable in who it kills.
I make the distinction that there are UN Bureacrats, who for some reason get diplomatic immunity, compared to the ambassadors from different countries. Best leave their stuff alone. The good thing about the UN is that it has a huge amount of paper work, and computer records. I bet we can find it if the authorization came through. But it'd mean taking the UN building and people in it, literally hostage via the power of the United States. Lots of people will be complaining that this is a breach of international law, but they can't actually do anything about it since the entire building and complex is on US soil, and if we give safe conduct for their own diplomats and their own records.
Cut off our funding to them.
As far as I know, we already cut off the funding. But I'm pretty sure the UN bureacrats have alternative assets by now, Oil for Food was only one of their illegal operations funding their stuff. We all know powerful institutions like political offices and the military, can make secondary cash on the side via the black market or selling out. The UN covers the entire world.
How about we catagorically refuse to ever take part in "peacekeeping". Without our muscle, who they gonna call?
Russia, the Africans who play the most part in the rape situation given their culture. You know, the usual suspects. The UN actually pays peacekeepers money for peacekeeping. I don't know how much, but it seems to be enough to subsidize a good sized military force.
It is true that the UN loses much of its legitimacy and reach if the US just pulls out. But how are you going to pull out of the UN when you have invited the UN into your home and heart? You got to have the dirt on them, and they ain't going to give it to you just cause they like us. Storming the building, arresting everyone, deporting and trying specific people, this is how you get the dirt and the evidence to justify kicking the UN out. The AMerican want this, but nobody in Congress seems to make an issue of it, and we all know how Bush acts. So Bush isn't going to order anything done about the UN. And any raids can't be conducted without his authorization. But just because Bush doesn't do it, doesn't mean it shouldn't be done after all.
With regards to the Times, how about just exposing them for the frauds they are, which many are doing already? Times circulation is dropping all the time, as is their reputation. Beyond that, how about we start prosecuting the leakers of highly classified information. Seems like a decent before we start whacking people.
I don't know what to do with the Times. That's Bush's decision. I leave the Times out of this whole theoretical situation. If you got a plan and can convince Bush to do it, then best of luck to you.
This country was almost stupidly ambivalent about the war before it came to us, but after, there was national unity, there was will and there were glorious stupendous victories.
Did you hear what happened on Wake Island and Admiral Kimmel's account of Pearl Harbor?
Wasn't good. If you google Husband Kimmel you'll find a free online book he wrote about his entire experience, enlightening glimpse of a primary source into WWII times.
What stupidities of history are you talking about?
Wake Island is one of them. My position looks crazy because it is in the context of a joke I was talking about. But I don't mean that in the sense that it is a "joke" and should not be considered seriously. I only mean it in the sense that those were my end views, not my explanations of them. They look crazy unless you delve into the details. Any plan can look crazy until you see the details, in fact. Any methods I approve for such ends as getting rid of the UN or killing UN bureacrats, or taking UN members hostage, are contingent upon a lot of absolute reality standards that is not moldable to my whims. Bush has to authorize it, the legal framework has to be tight for trial or deportation, and it has to be able to unearth enough DIRT to shut down the UN permanently on US soil. Considering the nature of humanity, I'm pretty sure there is more dirt to be found. It is of course debatable whether if you get this evidence, COngress will vote to shut off funds permanently or move the UN out of America, but well that's how the cookie crumbles. The risk we take for inviting a serpent in the heart of our economic center.
Anyone can say "kick the UN out", but how are we going to do it that is actually going to, you know, work?
So, Amnesty International was perfectly correct to use the "if the reports are true, then..." phraseology, because at the time of the release, the US MILITARY itself had not confirmed torture, nor even "positively identified" the bodies.
Then again, when the military confirms something, Amnesty I is still being "specious about the reports if they are true" methodology. Not like it makes a difference charles. Charles point might be justifiable, if AI actually had an example of trusting the USA military's reports.
This is a good example of the major points of the Arab Israeli guerrila war
It lists all the major poins and contentions and historical props. Like Al Dura and what not, explains it with the big picture brush.
The purge procedes. All hail the mutagenic disease of virutousity.
Personal assassinations are just one method of the new age of the 21st century, at the dawn of humanity.
To paraphrase Sally, seems like the publisher is one with a right-wing agenda. Hardly an impartial or neutral source of information.
Personal assassination doesn't work until they are dead, charles, just giving you a pointer.
Confude has to attack me, it's automatic. Because I know his weaknesses, and he has to attack while I have to do nothing.
"Encounter Books has published scores of well known writers, including Ward Connerly, John Fund,Victor Davis Hanson, Theodore Dalrymple, David Horowitz, Leon Kass, William Kristol, Melanie Phillips, Wesley J. Smith, Thomas Sowell, David Stove, and Keith Windschuttle."
The list of authors should give anyone that is impartial and moderate, a sense of what is going on.
I didn't mispell it, the virtual propaganda of viruses ; )
We love you too COnfude.
Charlemagne,
"I take it that you're fixating on the use of "may" in Amnesty's statement "if proven true, it may rise to the level of a war crime"."
Yes, that is the issue. I am not sure why you were hesitant to properly spell it out before.
If it is proven true that two soldiers taken prisoner, and tortured, murdered, dismembered and/or burned, then "may" does not enter into it. It is a war crime, or there is no such thing. The fact that Amnesty felt the need to qualify even such a obvious example is the issue.
In professional writing (used in the world of business/diplomacy -- and, yes, press releases) it's standard practice to write "may" when in ordinary conversation you will use "will".
What else needs be said except this is nonsensical. In business writing, as you call it, if you indicate that you "will" do something, and then later claim you meant "may", I hope you have either a very forgiving boss or a good lawyer.
For instace, a pharmacutical company issues a disclaimer for drug X. Are you telling me that there is no difference between the following two sentences?
"Drug X may cause dizziness, blood clots, stroke and cerebral bleeding."
"Drug X will cause dizziness, blood clots, stroke and cerebral bleeding."
Don't answer the question, it was rhetorical, Charlemagne. Instead of parsing hairs, how about we chalk it up to AI mispoke?
There are some very good Japanese made katanas, who can split hairs quite well, as well as necks and human bone.
But the best ones made by their national treasures, is quite expensive. Cost more than a ferrari last time I heard.
Asymmetrical warfare never was about symmetry.
One of the reasons why I said that the Islamic Jihad headchoppers didn't hold a candle to the discipline of the Japanese in terms of cutting off heads, is precisely because of Kendo and the dedication to the art of the sword by the Japanese.
In executing someone by chopping off their head, a clean execution goes right through the vertebrae, and such requires control and precision. The Europeans had such a problem with that, that they created the guillotine. Their weapons forging and skill with a blade, were fundamentally inferior to Asian and Oriental standards.
The point I made before then, was to state that we had beaten the fascistic and fanatical Japanese human wave attacks and preserved the future of Japanese children in peace and prosperity. The Islamic Jihad are not nearly as lethal, and their fate will be similar.
People should have hope in this conflict because AMericans learn from our former enemies and our current friends. We are not a xenophobic culture as is the Leftist academia and the French are.
America is not great because we look inwards like a turtle, our enlightenment comes as much from outside influences as it does from Western ancestral practices (Wild West).
We have balance, and I believe everything becomes easier if one has balance, still hard, yet easier as well.
After the gulag absurdity, I'm surprised any sensible person takes Shamnesty International seriously at all.
"if proven true, it may rise to the level of a war crime"
The problem is that "may" follows "if". So, if they were mutilated and/or tortured it "may' rise to the level of a war crime? Would they say that if Americans were the subject?
If proven true, it IS a war crime. There is no question about that. 'If' is fine, 'may'- in this context- is not.
You have to understand what you read or it doesn't count.
Come on people, it all depends upon the definition of what is is. After all torture is defined by what America is American.
Post a Comment
<< Home