Absolutely true. And if everyone the US had detained over the past years had been “fighting in a war,” you’d have a point. You seem to accept, without question, that this is in fact what they were doing, whereas some of them are arguing they were actually doing nothing of the sort, and were simply scooped up on the word of people with axes to grind, or because the US didn’t like the look of them.
You also assume that these journalists were doing “nothing.” Would you change your argument at all if it could be demonstrated to you that they were, in fact, on the wrong side of the border? Or would that be made irrelevant by the evil of the North Korean government? Exactly what level of lawbreaking by Americans in North Korea would take them beyond “nothing,” in your opinion?
Well, no shit sherlock. “Sez you” is exactly right. He was expressing a personal opinion about America’s moral authority. That’s the thing about moral authority—it’s a pretty intangible thing, and we tend to accord it to people or institutions that we feel have earned it in some way. And when someone, be it an individual or an institution such as a government, expresses moral outrage about the actions of another party while carrying out similar actions itself, then people often accord that person or government a lower level of moral authority on the matter, even when they agree with the substance of their argument in the particular instance under discussion.
If American politicians decry NK’s treatment of these two journalists, i can agree with their position on this particular issue, while at the same time believing that their own actions mean that they don’t have much moral authority in the matter. There’s no particular contradiction there.
When the US sentences 2 mexican reporters to 12 years for illegally crossing the border to document the plight of illegal aliens in the US, then we can talk.
What level of punishment is commiserate with the level of law-breaking one engages in when on the wrong side of a border? Would you object to them being put to death if it were NK law?
You can make the same determination based on the Trail of Tears or the bombing of Hiroshima, if you so choose. When was our moral authority lost, exactly? The comparison is bullshit, IMO, and if you disagree, well, “no, shit Sherlock”.
And since if flew by you, my reference to “fighting a war” was in direct response to We’re the murderers of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, and the torturers of god knows how many. That’s not detainees, that war.
Gosh, I don’t know. Let’s theorize they committed multiple ax-murders in downtown Pyong Yang and see if my opinion changes. Or, in the alternative, we could limit the discussion to what we actually know or believe happened. Or is that made irrelevant to you by the glorious virtue of the North Korean government?
Funny, on my planet, people who risk their life for truth are called “heroes.”
Information is a vaccination against evil. Evil cannot thrive for long in a place where the truth is widely and openly available in the light of day. In America, this fight is fairly simple. But there are dark spots even in our own free press. And most of these are places where information is simply too difficult to get- war zones, closed countries, remote areas. Still, it is essential for our own freedom, our own civilization, that we try to shine a light in these areas.
These women ventured out into a very cold place, under the threat of death, to tell somebody’s story. Somebody’s story who has been crushed under the weight of some of the most oppressive regimes on this planet.
Sure, maybe this piece might have been simply a throw away piece hidden deep in the newspaper. Or maybe they were just doing it for fame. Who knows. But they risked everything to shine a light in a corner of the world that is still a big blank spot for most of us. They were doing something that makes the world a better place, until they got caught by some of the worst people ever.
Of course, they took that risk. And we don’t have a leg to stand on legally. But you know, bringing truth to light in an oppressive place is something I see as a universal good.
All I can hope is that this encourages people to read up on what they were writing about. It’s fascinating. One popular route for defectors involves going across the vast expanse of China- a country that tightly controls movement of people- by train, dodging constant police checks until they reach my own backyard. Once they reach the Laos border, they pose as tourists until they make the final secret trek through the jungle and across the border. From there, they must get to Thailand. Once in Thailand, they are able to connect with South Korean organizations, and will be settled in South Korea. Interestingly, many refugees find their new lives difficult and lonely.
Anyway. Thats my two cents. My other two cents wonders how people would be reacting if this was two men instead of two women.
Sorry but a country which has an aggressive and militaristic foreign policy, which has started a war of aggression with trumped up excuses, which has conducted the war with huge disregard for human life and well-being of the invaded country, which has held people for years without any fair hearing, which has tortured people, which has sent people to other countries to be tortured, which has maintained secret prisons, which has secret and unappealable no-fly lists, which wiretaps without restrain, which treats its illegal immigrants like shit, which does not abide by its treaty obligations when it suits them, which uses the death penalty, which … well, I think that is enough, such a country has zero moral standing to dictate to anyone how they should treat their criminals.
You’ve completely missed the point, which for any Pit thread dealing with any government action of any kind, anywhere, at any time, must of course be: Guantanamo sucks. Why try to have a conversation about anything else?
I’m not going to try to argue out of your position. Mine is that we do not abdicate not just our right but our responsibility to fight injustice just because we have committed injustice ourselves. Apparently to you these women should just rot in a North Korean prison regardless of their guilt or even their alleged crime because we have no “moral standing” to object. Women murdered in honor killings in the mid-east? Women raped in African wars? Oh, it’s all too bad, but we have zero moral standing to dictate to anyone how they should treat their criminals. So sucks to be one of their criminals, I guess.
It’s complete horseshit. It also, not surprisingly is a position utterly devoid of any morality itself, conveniently excusing you from not just acting but even objecting, because who are we to object? Well, who the hell are we NOT to object? If not us, then who? That government out there that is without stain?
So you just sit on your hands over there, bound to say nothing and do nothing – or so you apparently feel – because of the horrible history of your own government, and you add every horrible “which this, which that” qualifier you can dream up. Fine with me, but I unequivocally refuse to join you in a position I consider incorrect, amoral, and indefensible.
I would not bend over backwards to help these women because unfortunately I think they took a very real risk by even being anywhere near the North Korean border and because I don’t believe we can any further indulge North Korea in the brinkmanship and crazy threats it construes as “diplomacy.” That is heartless enough at the end of the day, but a lack of moral authority to object is the most reprehensible of reasons to leave them to their fate, and I despise it.
You’re apparently all for injustice so long as someone else is committing it.
No, not at all. My position is that I, as an individual, condemn the Korean government but I also believe the American government has zero standing or credibility to talk about fairness or human rights. I am not at all condoning the actions of North Korea.
The problem is that many Americans who condemn south Korea will defend the right of the US government to do as it damn well pleases, without limits, inside and outside the USA. Too many times on this board I have seen people saying non-citizens shoud have no rights and similar things.
So, yes, North Korea has no decency and no moral standing. Everybody agrees with that so it is not worth spending any time on that. The next step is that if and when the US government condemns them the North Koreans can laugh and point at America as the pot calling the kettle black.
And saying America is not as bad as North Korea is a very weak argument. Either all countries have an obligation to be decent and to play with the rest of the world community or they do not. America cannot claim obligations for others which it does not accept for itself. Well, it can and it does but the only response is to laugh in their face.
But your opinion of course means squat on a global scale, as does mine and that of any other individual. It is a government that imprisoned these journalists, and if they are freed it will be due to government action. Probably your government, morally bankrupt though you may personally believe it to be,
I believe you mean North Korea. And your assertion that anyone engaging in selective condemnation, is necessarily a hypocrite – that may be true. But what does that have to do with the topic in this thread, exactly?
So what? How is this not an argument for doing nothing?
Nobody but you said anything about whether America is better, worse, or the same as North Korea. What I said is that there is no real basis, and no real reason, to engage in the weighing of governmental morality or immorality as a prerequisite for objecting to injustice when it appears. That may be your excuse to tie the hands of your own government, but I refuse to grant its validity.
Well, yes, they may be heroes. Heroes take risks and sometimes pay a price. They certainly have my sympathy and support.
I do not think anyone disagrees with that. The question is whether the American government is in a position to demand their release with any moral authority.
Let us note that the US government is not particularly known for serving the truth. Much to the contrary. They have lied incessantly. They have disseminated their propaganda. They have imprisoned and killed many of those who were also risking their lives to inform. They have done all they could to disseminate their own version of the “truth” while preventing any other truths from coming out.
In Iraq the US military deliberately destroyed the installations of Al Jazeera because their truth did not fit America’s truth. Also several reporters have been killed by “accident”. Like http://www.josecouso.info/english.php3
That’s YOUR question. Mine is on what basis you require “moral authority” before allowing one government to object to another’s actions. And I note again the complete amorality – verging on immorality – of such an inert and impotent position.
If the N Koreans have Weapons of Mass Destruction, as they claim, and if they are threatening to use said weapons against S Korea - then surely we should invade now and forcibly disarm them ? Likewise we should stand ready to disarm Iran if they joing the ‘Nuclear Club’ … if we don’t, then who knows where this will end.
I am not saying the US should do nothing. I am saying their ability to be effective is seriously weakened by its recent policies. That’s all.
Yes, the US government, and everybody who has any capacity, should do what they can to ensure these women can get a fair trial. But when others say the same thing to America regarding Guantanamo and all the rest, America and Americans feel entitled to tell them to go pound sand. I am just pointing out that this is a good reason why now America can be told to go pound sand itself. That is all.
I believe and support Human Rights for everybody, including these women and including all the victims of American injustice. I am just pointing out that the American people, as a whole, are not in a very good position to argue for justice and Human Rights when they hold prisoners for years without trial.
America can object as much as it likes but any appeals to decency or Human Rights will be hypocritical and exposed for what they are. And North Korea can tell them to go take a long walk on a short pier. Or, more likely, they can demand three bags of rice and a large coke in exchange for their liberation.
If they were ever going to do that, it would have happened sometime in the last half-century, wouldn’t it?
They’re not “crazy” or on an “axis of evil”, they’re totalitarians. The NK leadership does this stuff, including developing nukes, in order to be a big-time player. If they ever used that military, they’d lose it, and their own power along with it. If they ever embraced peace and opened up, they’d be just another third-world shithole country nobody paid attention to. By making and rattling sabers, and getting the US and the other big powers respond to their provocations, but never actually doing anything, Kim and his generals get the best situation for themselves. Meanwhile, of course, they do have to keep thier own people from pulling out the props from underneath them domestically.
It follows that the best response strategy is to respond a whole lot less. Reduce their ability to feel like they’re a major global power. Keep up the occasional quiet reminder of what would happen if they ever forget their military power is illusory.
Is the whole Bush legacy going to be boiled down to “Bush sucked, so the US has no standing to complain about anything?” If so, that’s ridiculous and disappointing. I don’t know the facts of this case, although it is clear that being near and dealing with an issue related to North Korea, these women were taking a great risk. It would seem to me that they took that risk for a good reason because human trafficking is a legitimate issue that harms a lot of people, but then again, “Gitmo was bad” is a compelling counterargument to any and all things, right?