Well yeah…just like every other country. All countries act in their own interest first. Honestly, if the UK has an issue with that then they need to do what’s best for their own over-riding interest and the protection of their citizens. If that means distancing themselves from the US, then that’s fine. Perhaps they need to look at France as a model for distancing themselves from the US while still maintaining cordial enough relations to still work together when their two interests coincide. And this is not me being snarky or tongue in cheek but seriously, they have to do what’s best for them.
Regardless, I’m still not seeing the hypocrisy involved in this vertical aspect. Is that all you want to discuss, or did you want to broaden the discussion? It seems that’s really what you are focused on and want to discuss, if so then I’ll bow out since I don’t know that much about this one case.
I get it. all that matters in International Relations is self interest and power. I had thought that Character and Values played some part in it.
Now I shall not feel so bad when the Taliban take 30 American soldiers hostage and barter for the other Guantanamo detainees; they will only be looking after their own first.
[QUOTE=Pjen]
I had thought that Character and Values played some part in it.
[/QUOTE]
You, ah, really thought this? I mean…really?
Oh, come on. You wouldn’t have felt bad about that before, and in fact would have been nodding your head with vindication if not joy. My statement there didn’t make one whit of difference (or seemingly have anything to do with your retort here), even if you did think that nation states did things based on ‘Character and Values’ or unicorn wishes and dragon dreams.
But I see you don’t actually want to debate or even discuss anything seriously, so I’ll just leave you to it then.
The question of whether somebody with a terminal illness should be allowed to commit suicide is a complicated one, and one filled with a bunch of moral ambiguity. However, that’s not the case here.
And it also seems irrelevant as to whether the treatment of the Gitmo prisoners is based on their best interests or the attempt not to look bad by the US government. The US government has a duty of care towards people it holds prisoner. When a government confines somebody against their will, whether it’s a criminal in prison, an enemy soldier in a prisoner of war camp, or what have you, they have a duty to keep that person safe and healthy; both a legal duty and a moral duty. When you have somebody under your control like that, and the choice is between force feeding them and letting them die, of course you force feed them. Life is better than death.
The US government proved they don’t give a fuck about their duty of care when they decided that repeatedly drowning people was a valid interrogation method.
The fact that waterboarding is fucked up doesn’t mean that the US has any right to stand by and let its prisoners die. I mean, how is letting one of your prisoners starve to death any better than waterboarding him? They’re both barbaric.
So, you tortured a person a person for there own good? I really don’t think you can call a procedure torture, and say that if the person hates you for doing it, it’s wrong, but if they eventually thank you for it, then it’s ok.
If you are going to assign the Obama Administration with the burden of the unjustifiable actions of the Bush Administration, does Obama also get the credit for things done by prior president like ending the Cold War, sending a man to the moon, and creating the national park system?
It’s not torture but merely “enhanced feeding techniques”.
Anyway I assumed the hypocrisy was the US calling Bergdahl’s detainment illegal under whatever contrived argument suited the Administration at the time.
The Obama administration took that burden willingly when they declared that the CIA’s torturers would be immune from prosecution and that they would actively defend them from any attempt to hold them legally accountable for their crimes, and when they imprisoned John Kiriakou for bringing their crimes to light.
