The thing is, it’s got jack shit to do with this situation.
You’re right, you said you’re tired of North Korea. Congrats, that makes a world of difference. (What would bombing North Korea over two hostages do for the moral standing of the U.S., by the way?) In the real world, thieves get robbed and whores get raped. Do you think only the innocent deserve protection?
For the reasons already given, I don’t think this is true.
Then Canada can shut the fuck up about North Korea too.
Who’s left to complain about human rights? China? Iran? Iraq? Mexico? Great Britain? France?
If you want to play this stupid game, you will have to play it to the fucking end.
Then, as far as I can tell, you are agreeing that the US has no moral authority in this specific instance.
The difficulty is, neither does any other country on earth. And therefore, the actions of North Korea, which are a thousand times worse than anything the US has done, will pass unchallenged.
Why is it that, whenever the Bush administration gets mentioned, the SDMB as a whole loses its collective mind? Can you retain any sense of proportion at all?
Let’s assume for the sake of the discussion that waterboarding is a terrible thing. Fine - we did it at least twice. How awful.
Compare that to this -
But we have no right to say word one about it.
For God’s sake.
Regards,
Shodan
Regards Shodan. You got the wrong thread. We are not discussing the Human Rights records of Canada or France or Iraq.
We are discussing whether the USA can simultaneously argue that indefinite detention is OK and that it is not OK. These women were given trials (I am not going to say they were fair) which is more than many detainees in American hands ever got.
To use stereotypes some people love, they were caught redhanded in the field, spying for the enemies of the country. According to some Americans they would deserve nothing. No hearing, no trial, because that would expose and damage national security. They only deserve to be thrown in jail and tortured. See?
You’re not seriously going to suggest that a farcical show trial is any kind of improvement over having none at all, are you? Let’s be fair: I’m guessing you didn’t think much of Bush’s proposed military tribunals, so let’s not pretend the North Korean equivalent is a step forward from that. Stalin did show trials, too, but there’s not much to be said about his human rights record.
I agree. It seems the U.S.’ recent actions with respect to treatment of foreign nationals has become a distraction, and made it difficult to effectively discuss N.K.'s recent actions with respect to treatment of foreign nationals. Odd how that works.
Well, yes, I am going to suggest that a farcical show trial is better than no trial at all. I will also argue that if the same standard is applied to foreigners as to nationals then they are consistent in their administration of justice, even if I may not like it or find it fair, while if a country applies different standards to foreigners and nationals, as the USA does, then it is clear they do not believe in the fairness of the rules applied to foreigners.
I am also going to suggest that no torture is better than torture. And that, while these women have been sentenced to years in prison, so far they have not spent one twentieth of the time some detainees in US hands have and many believe they will be released soon after some bargaining. The USA was never willing to submit to any outside pressure to treat its detainees better or to release them.
We can agree N Korea are bad guys but in this instance they are not even close to what America is doing.
So, in summary, the government of the USA can claim the treatment of these women is unfair and the rest of the world can point out the hypocrisy of the USA.
So they can point out the hypocrisy, what the fuck does that have to do with this case? Because you know what, next time it might be a French journalist or a Turkish Journalist or an Argentinian journalist. Let them score all the hypocrisy points they want, it doesn’t change the fact at all that this is a travesty.
And it’s better why?
We’re talking about North Korea here, so I am not sure justice enters into the picture at all.
I will go way out on a limb and agree with you there.
If we limit our discussion only to treatment of foreign nationals, you might have a point, although since North Korea blocks nearly all foreign nationals from entering the country, it’s kind of a given that they won’t imprison many of them.
A show trial IS better. At the very least, family and friends have a clue what happened. If it were me, I would much prefer that to seemingly disappearing off the face of the earth.
The same applies to other countries having some some chance to gather some information, and perhaps help. Visits, Red Cross packages, etc. Again, whether any of these things happened in this case, I don’t know. But announcing the “crimes” and a “trial” at least open a window of opportunity – a huge improvement over slapping them into a labor camp without a word to the world.
Also, it is an opportunity for the state to “generously” offer a reduced sentence as a show of “good will”. From NK’s point of view, that might even have happened in this case. I have no idea what the worst possible sentence might have been.
I know a lot of people, including me, don’t like the idea of them being ‘bargaining chips’. But the women themselves are probably much better off for it. They will get better treatment and food, because they have some value.
Remember what Dick Cheny said just a few weeks ago about “our” terrorists – something about how if you couldn’t keep them imprisoned you would have to kill them. I’m sure it was discussed at very high levels, and I’ll bet Cheney is smugly congratulating himself on “taking the moral high road” by slapping them in prison indefinitely rather than summarily executing them.
Bullshit. Utter bullshit. You’re acting as if America has been for the last 50 years what it started to turn into in the previous 8.
Yes, we have an aggressive and militaristic foreign policy. Know why? Because it keeps the true madmen in check. Think this little fucker would have tried this shit with Cheney’s finger on the button? Please. I’m an Obama man stem to stern, but he’s not a strong figure worthy of respect (fear) from the people who need to see us as willing to to put bombs and boots on the ground in their country.
All wars are wars of aggression, whoever coined this worthless phrase ought to be kicked in the kneecaps repeatedly. All war has a disregard for human life, every one ever fought. Yep, we’ve done some reprehensible things and had policies that are less than humanitarian, but IMO that’s why Obama’s there, that’s why we PUT him there and it’s not because of what we’ve done in the last 5 years, but what we’ve done in the last 50 that gives us the moral standing to not only dictate, but together with our allies and neighbors DEMAND that humane treatment of prisoners be paramount.
Frankly, we should be doing so in spades when it comes to Saudi Arabia and China, but they have us by the shorts.
But you haven’t condemned all such actions. Quite the opposite; you’ve asserted that US torture and detention policies were uniquely damaging to US moral standing, impliedly in a way that previous US human rights or international-law violations (like the internment of Japanese-Americans, the Bay of Pigs invasion, Jim Crow, or previous Gitmo detentions) were not. That’s not necessarily hypocritical, but absent any explanation, it’s not immediately apparent why you think it’s consistent.
And as for your response in #95, the distinction between “mentioning US conduct of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan” and “mentioning the Bush administration” seems exceedingly thin.
I see. It all makes sense now. America is good because it has a militaristic and aggressive policy so that it may keep in check other countries who are bad because they may or may not have militaristic and aggressive policies. It is so clear now. Like, America can disregard the UN and invade Iraq for disregarding the UN. Right?
And America can DEMAND humane treatment of prisoners except if they are in American hands because … that would be silly? Help me out here.
Where did I defend any of those actions? Or because I did not mention them by name it is implied I thought they were good and fine?
I disagree but, further, the notion that I do not care about the reporters and just wish them ill so that Bush looks bad is (1) not true, (2) not supported by anything I have said and (3) stupid.
And I have said many times that Bush is not the only one responsible for what America did during the years he was president. America is responsible more than Bush. And Bush is not responsible for what has happened after he ceased to be president, America is. And America continues to hold people without trial. Although Obama says torture has stopped, he continues to cover up what happened and to protect those who did it which makes him, and America accomplices.
So, no. Not everything is about Bush. This is about America and North Korea. It was not me who brought Bush into all this.
No, I have the correct thread, all right.
We are discussing if the US has the moral standing to speak against what North Korea did. You apparently feel she does not. It is legitimate to see if this is a generally applicable principle, or not.
It seems it is not a generally applicable principle, since you resist applying it to any except the US.
Regards,
Shodan
The principle is that if you condemn someone for doing something which you are doing and supporting and approving then you are hypocrite. Yes. that is the principle and it stands. So you can start a thread when France or Canada condemn another country for doing something which they are doing and supporting and approving. Since that is not the case that is irrelevant.
Here we are dealing with whether the USA is in a logical and moral position to condemn someone, anyone, for imprisoning foreigners without less than a fair trial. And the answer is, clearly, no.
…has anyone here heard of Jawed Ahmad, Bilal Hussein, Sami al-Hajj or Ibrahim Jassam?
They are all journalists that have been held by US forces for varying times since the beginning of The War Against Terror.
Jawed Ahmad was from CTV, held for 11 months in detention, then was released without charge. He alleges being beaten while in custody and he had two ribs broken. Tragically a year after his release he was gunned down in Kandahar.
Bilal Hussein was from the Associated Press, held for 5 months in detention, and was released without charge. Sami al-Hajj: Al Jazeera, held for seven years, released without charge.
Ibrahim Jassam worked for various agencies including Reuters. He has been held so for 9 months, and is still being held despite being ordered released by the Iraqi courts.
The case of Ibrahim Jassam is not on the front pages of the newspapers. It is not the subject of discussion on the majority of message boards. I would venture to say that 95% of Americans had never heard of him.
This is the hypocrisy sailor and mhendo are talking about. The OP is outraged at North Korea’s detention of these two journalists, but wouldn’t even have heard of Jassam. I have every sympathy for the two journalists currently held by the North Korean regime. I believe that everything should be done to ensure their freedom. The North Korean regime is a horrific, disgraceful and pathetic regime: it is no surprise that an event like this could have happened.
I also strongly protest at the US’s detention of Ibrahim Jassam. It appears he is only get his release when his “time runs out”, and that the US are only holding onto him because they can. This is disgusting, an outrage, and every doper should be up in arms. The United States is better than this.
Sorry not following you. What don’t you think is clear - my statement about NK (sort of kidnapping) or my statement about the US (sort of kidnapping people).
I put “sort of” in parenthesis because I agree that the circumstances under which these journalists were captured is murky. OTOH, the examples of the US capturing people under murky circumstances and then torturing them have been well documented in the last few years. There can be no reasonable question about that part.
George Bush was president a mere six months ago. Our current foreign policy is the direct result of actions (and inactions) which he and his administration orchestrated and pursued with gusto. It’s naive - laughably naive - to pretend that his and his administration’s policies are irrelevant to the situation involving a country he named as one of America’s greatest foes.
One of the most terrible things about Guantanamo is that it betrayed our foundational principles and damaged our reputation of honesty, integrity, honor and justice with allies and antagonists alike.
You, Marley23, can complain about anything you like. That’s why God gave you the internet. The US, via its diplomats and politicians, is likewise free to complain.
The rest of the world, allies and antagonists alike, are under no obligation to give a shit.
Of course, some of them may be inclined to address our complaints - in so far as they like us or want to help us. And of course, our actions in the past eight years have reduced our likability a whole hell of a lot. That’s why bringing up Bush is relevant. Because of his actions and policies - the US is in a weakened position when bringing complaints.
Let me put this another way. I don’t think anyone here has said we couldn’t complain. Complain to your heart’s content! What some people are saying is - our complaints are probably going to fall on deaf ears since we’ve pissed off everyone who might have listened sympathetically.
That’s not in any way, shape, or form the same as saying you or the US shouldn’t bring those complaints or try to assist these women.
Not to worry. Obama will apologize, Bill Richardson will rescue the distressed damsels, and all again will be sweetness and light.
Given the human rights records of Afghanistan, Iraq, and Sudan, these complaints can’t be taken seriously.
Regards,
Shodan
I’m sorry but… WHAT THE FUCK ? If you think a country’s government is no good, journalists from this country are fair game ? You can’t be serious.