We do work together as a team- remember we were a team with GB in the recent invasion of iraq, weren’t we?
Which is the European Court of Human Rights, not applicable to AMERICA. Do the Eurpeans follow the decisions handed down by SCOTUS? :dubious:
Eh, I was outdated by a few year. Big deal.
And the USA claimsit started the War against Iraq in “self defense”. The British isles were in no danger whatsoever from the Argentines, the Argentines just wanted what they claimed they had the right to. Thus, Britian was no more defending itself than America was. It was only “defending” a piece of rock about as far from England as it’s possible to be, a relic of the bad old Imperial days, and which Argentina also has a reasonable claim to.
If you can define “torture” as anything you want it to, then we are mostly all guilty of torture by eating meat- afterall, PETA sez so. :rolleyes: True, there were some US violations by rogue soldiers in that Iraqi prison- but also those soldiers were punished for their misdeeds. So, what’s the dif?
So they claim. :dubious: One of those claimants is a clear liar who accepted hush money, and now wants more. But there’s no proof it was the USA *directly * involved. Can you give me anything but unsubstanciated claims?
Oh bullcrap- many other nations ignore the UN when & if it fits their best needs to do so. It’s just that when America does it, dudes notice- as it’s important.
As to crap like “Does not run Guantanamo” I can counter with “the USA does not have the Tower of London”. So?
And, no, I ignored the rest of them as they weren’t important or meaningful. Unless you really think that the ability to kill yourself by buying cigars from a murderous tyrant dictator is a “mark of civilization” :dubious: :rolleyes:
As I have said countless times in this thread, I protest British or European barbarism as vociferously as any other. But the point s that Guantanamo is still operational, and still being defended as US government policy, for which the US needs a genuine bollocking unless, as I say, it doesn’t care about being civilised.
The contents of the ICRC’s representations and reports are confidential and for the exclusive attention of the relevant detaining authorities. Therefore, in accordance with its usual policy, the organization will not publicly confirm or deny whether the quotations in the article entitled “Red Cross Finds Detainee Abuse in Guantanamo”, which appeared in the New York Times of 30 November, reflect findings reported by the ICRC to the United States authorities regarding the conditions of detention and treatment of detainees at Guantanamo Bay.
The ICRC uses its exchanges with governments to make clear its concerns and recommendations regarding the situation in places of detention and to demand changes when necessary. Guantanamo Bay is no exception. The ICRC remains convinced that its policy of direct and confidential representations to the detaining authorities best serves the objective of ensuring that the detainees’ treatment meets the standards set by international humanitarian law. This policy has made it possible for the ICRC to have repeated and regular access to those held at Guantanamo Bay and to speak with them in private.
The recent creation of the Office of Detainee Affairs in the US Department of Defense has provided a forum in which issues relating to Guantanamo Bay can be discussed in a more timely and systematic manner.** Nevertheless, the ICRC remains concerned that significant problems regarding conditions and treatment at Guantanamo Bay have not yet been adequately addressed. The organization will pursue its discussions on these issues with the US authorities.**
My bolding
No. British remonstrations were readily ignored and the US acted very poorly towards its other partners in the coalition of the conned.
I didn’t say it was applicable to the US. What I said was that there was full and independent regular view of how we are doing on Human Rights by an organization not controlled by our state. Makes me feel more comfortable.
Last time we killed a prisoner, nearly fifty years ago. Last time the US did, less than fifty days ago.
Argentina may have had a claim to the rocks. Members of the UN have agreed to settle such disputes without resorting to aggressive war. Once Argentina resorted to aggressive war, Britain’s response was legally a war of self defence. Sorry if the facts get in the way.
There are international definitions of torture (try using Google.) The US has concentrated recently on redefining severe mistreatment so that it can call it something other than torture. No one else in western governments believes this argument has any validity.
Cite?
None have done so so regularly, nor so frequently used witholding of contributions as a means of influencing desired outcomes.
Except that one is a Tourist Attraction and the other is a Torture and Detention facility.
Not Important?:-
Signed up for the International Criminal Court
Has a human rights system that is not open to easy abuse by the executive.
Has a judiciary that is fully independent of the executive and the legislature with preferment by skill and ability rather than by political stance.
Does not have a Patriot Act (Yet)
Works successfully in voluntary and mutual alliances with other countries with due regard to the rights of other countries.
That all seems important to me, but if you find them unimportant, then it goes to the very root of the problem- if you don’t find these important then you are not really interested in being a civilized country.
A LOT different than “The ICRC has stated clearly that the US has not followed the GC in its treatment of prisoners. The ICRC is the competent authority. The USA disagrees and ignores the ICRC” The ICRC has “expressed concerns” not “stated clearly…”.
That’s nice. But the USA can’t join up, even if it wanted to. So, this is a moot and not significant point
You have WAY less population, and thus less crime, thus less need to execute prisoners.
And the USA invasion of Iraq was also “legally a war of self-defence”. I am dubious of both claims. The Bristish Isles were in less danger from Argentina than the USA was from Iraq. Which is to say- none at all in either case.
The USA claims it doesn’t torture. Prove differently.
Where’s something from you other than unsubstaniated wild claims?
No other nation is as important as the USA either.
The Tower *used to be * a torture, detention & execution facility, note.
None of those are significant. Any nation can (and many have) laws that are far more invasive of their citizens privacy that the Patriot Act, but since their laws aren’t named “the Patriot Act” they don’t have one, thus they are more civilized. Clearly, it’s the very name “Patriot act” that makes a nation less civilized. :rolleyes: :dubious:
But comparing the USA to GB- the USA doesn’t have:
A Legislative Body made up of inbred dudes that weren’t elected to office.
A monarch that still- in theory- has great powers.
Bits and pieces of an Empire that we refuse to let go of.
Northern Ireland!
and the USA does have:
A written Constitution that is the model of most other nations Constitutions.
A Bill of Rights
The right to a free press
The right to peacably assemble
The right to practice your religion
The greatest Economy in the World
The greatest Military in the World.
Actually, I could have stopped at Northern Ireland, and have won by default.
The people on the Falklands were not Argentinean. They did not fly the Argentina flag. They flew the Union Jack and were of British descent and wanted to remain that way. Argentina had already tried the UN route then launched an attack against British land and people. When Iraq attacked another country and invaded it you may remember that the majority of the world joined together with America in the lead and removed them from Kuwait. The first Gulf War is a much closer comparison than the current uncalled for war of aggression and arrogance.
Actually no you couldn’t. Northern Ireland was a clusterfuck in the 70’s-early 90’s. Since then there has been relative calm. The IRA have decommissioned their arms and said that it will no longer carry out any actions whatsoever. Both sides are now fighting the fight politically. Britain under Major and Blair bit the bullet and talked to the terrorists. The current British Government deserves a lot of praise for the overall way it has worked to end the madness. They took hits from both sides and kept going. The Clinton and to a much lesser degree the Bush Admin also were essential in the ending of the killing.
We can look into the pasts of every country and play the “Yeah, well you did …” game all night but it doesn’t really address the actual issue at hand which is what is happening and being done now
Well, I don’t know about any other Americans, but as for me, I don’t care if the US is considered a civilized country or not.
Claiming to be civilized and then tut-tuting other countries when they don’t live up to your arbitrary and invented standards is just cultural imperalism. Civilized countries are apparently those which the people making the civilization argument live in (and the ones who behave like them) and non-civilized countries are ones where the people they don’t agree with live, or the ones where people do things differently. Thanks, but I’ll pass on that. It’s just cultural snobbery and moral absolutism as far as I’m concerned. And I think those things are quite uncivilized.
In fact the British citizens were released, ‘to UK custody’ as a face-saving gesture to the Americans. They were then released as free men without further ado, no foundation for any criminal charge being established.
The case of prisoner David Hicks may interest you. As EU nations have adopted a non-discrimination policy he is eligible on his mother’s side for British citizenship. A court has ruled in his favour and strongly indicated his entitlement to equivalent protection and representation by the British government. Which would free him from Guantanamo. To avoid embarrassing the Americans, the UK has appealed the case.
This is your idea of debate? What the hell is this?
Yes, the UK has less crime than the US, but how is that supporting evidence that the US needs to execute prisoners? How could you need to execute a prisoner anyway?
That’s the whole point. Civilized countries don’t need to execute prisoners. They’ve found other ways of dealing with crime.
The EU has more population, and thus more crime than the US, but it doesn’t execute any prisoners.
The fact that the ICRC was willing to say that in public meant that it was mighty concerned about US policy. It usually refrains from all comment.
Didn’t say it should. Just pointing out that UK laws have some outside input from other similar countries- keeps us in the civilized camp don’t you know.
What a bogus argument. Not even worth debating.
British citizens were at risk on British Territory. Suppose Guam or Puerto Rico were invaded.
Read the press. Listen to Gonzales breaking the English language.
I think you are messing up your numbering system.
“My cock is bigger than your cock”
Yes, before the USA was even thought of. I seem to remember some atrocities in the Civil War.
Not even an argument.
Nor does the UK anymore, save for a small minority who will soon be removed.
The monarch has no powers at all. They are all vested in the PM who exercises the Royal Prerogative. Read up on your constitutional law.
Guam, Eastern Samoa, US Virgin Islands, Guantanamo, Puerto Rico etc etc. Read your history.
I’ll refer you to Yojimbo’s comments above.
No where near as many as whose constitutions are based on the British Model.
So does the UK. Eurpean Declaration on Human Rights. Which gives rights appropriate to the 21st Century rather than to the 18th.
So does the UK.
So does the UK.
So does the UK
My cock is bigger than your cock.
My balls are bigger than your balls.
I’ll trade you Northern Ireland for a century of Jim Crow laws.
No-one can deny that you love your country right or wrong can they?
actually, a considered “thank you very much, now stay the fuck home” would deprive the administration of a forum for obfuscation that is not without its uses, even granted that the boobocracy thinks its just clever as hell to moon the rest of the world whenever the opportunity presents.
Vide, the last global warming confab, where we more or less gummed things up just by throwing our not inconsiderable weight around in the halls.
Fuck these hypocrites where they breathe. They don’t deserve to hang out with human beings.
