That’s not hypocrisy.
That’s not hypocrisy, either.
The US government’s primary responsibility is to look out for the interests of its citizens. It certainly CAN look out for the interest of British subjects, but it needn’t do so. You might call it being a not-so-good ally, but it’s not hypocritical.
Would you be happier if nobody had been released? That would have been a consistent policy and there wouldn’t have been any of this “hypocrisy” you keep focusing on.
If anyone’s at fault, it’s the British government for not making enough of a fuss.
And that’s not Stands with a Fist, that’s President Laura Roslin in what appears to be a summit meeting.
So you’re confessing that you personally have committed the same torture that you’re now condemning other people for?
I think it’s terrible when people apply a different standard to others than they apply to themselves. There’s probably a word for that kind of thing.
But the US is the detaining power and torturer of the Brit, yet moans about the capture of one of its own.
The person was detained under the mental health act and was likely to die soon. She was psychotic and unable to make rational decisions. She recovered and eventually was very grateful. I doubt that that will be the case where the feeding is merely to avoid the embarrassment of deaths at American hands.
That is warped. How much more insistent should an ally be than making it known publicly that you have formally requested your putative ally to release your citizen as they have assessed there is no real evidence against him, and that is refused.
This sort of behaviour gives the US a bad name with its allies, and even more so with its enemies.
That’s not torture and that’s not hypocrisy.
Not everything a country does that is “bad” is hypocrisy.
As noted above most international humanitarian agencies consider it to be torture.
Hypocrisy is saying one thing and doing another. If you cannot see why this plies in this case, then you are truly without a moral compass.
Let me make the hypocrisy clear:
1/ We must keep that low level Brit in Gitmo for the safety of the world
2/ We must release these five high value detainees for political advantage.
Your cites never used the term “torture”.
If there is hypocrisy here, it’s when we say we don’t negotiate with terrorists, and then we go and negotiate with terrorists.
We don’t say either of those 2 things.
I don’t think you understand what hypocrisy is.
If the UK offered five high-level American captives for Aamer’s release and we said no, THEN we’d be hypocrites.
Are you sure you understand what hypocrisy is?
Being a hypocrite is saying one thing, and doing something contradictory. In your hypothetical we’d be inconsistent, but not necessarily hypocritical.
We’d be hypocrites if the UK traded some terror suspects for a UK subject, the US criticized them for doing so, and then turned around and did the same thing.
What’s wrong with Israel doing that?
If they want to trade 1200 prisoners for an Israeli with either Hamas or Hezbollah who are we to be upset with them for that?
You know, sometimes not being humourless can actually help your cause.
Sincerely,
Smiles A Lot
Washte!
He’s not a Brit.
And since you asked up thread, Americans don’t think of green card holders as fellow Americans. It’s just visa category. We don’t have any responsibility or commitment to them, or they to us, aside from paying their taxes and obeying the law. If a Saudi green card holder gets arrested for littering while on vacation in Singapore, Americans would tell him to take it up with his own country’s embassy.
There are a lot of good reasons to shut down Guantanamo, and either try or release everybody in the joint, but none of those reasons are being discussed in this thread.
He is a British Protected Person. The British Government is demanding that he be released as he is a British Responsibility under international Law having been given full residence status. He has a British wife and British children.
Britain is full of people who do not hold full British Nationality but have the rights of residence and citizenship; most even enjoy all civil liberties including a limited franchise. The American model of green card/citizen is not the only one.
If in the eyes of Her Britannic Majesty as our passports say, he is a british protected person, he is a Brit.
Your havering has no effect on that and is merely an excuse to justify detention and torture.
I just feel that illegal detention and torture are a serious issue. Others obviously do not.
You seem more concerned about this British fellow than you are about everyone else still held at Gitmo. Hypocrisy?
Well, none of us have ever committed torture. So we may not feel the same personal connection that you feel.