Thanks for Nothing
Amnesty International USA issued the following statement in response to the alleged killing and torture of two U.S. soldiers in Ramadi, Iraq.
"Amnesty International, first and foremost, extends its sincerest condolences to the families of Pfc. Kristian Menchaca and Pfc. Thomas L. Tucker for their tragic loss. We are deeply disturbed by reports that these two soldiers were brutally tortured. These reports, if proven true, may rise to the level of war crimes.
Amnesty International condemns the torture or summary killing of anyone who has been taken prisoner and reiterates that such acts are absolutely prohibited in international humanitarian law. This prohibition applies at all times, even during armed conflict. There is no honor or heroism in torturing or killing individuals. Those who order or commit such atrocities must be prosecuted to the full extent of the law without recourse to the death penalty.
The reports, as best I understand them, are that the soldiers were severely tortured before death, their throats slit, after which they were beheaded, then mutilated to the point where only DNA testing could positively identify the bodies. The bodies themselves were then surrounded with antipersonnel devices in a locality frequented by civilians to kill and mutilate anyone who might render assistance or simply catch the unwary.
Let's assign these reports the notation of A. Let's assign the existence of a war crime the notation of B. What I think Amnesty International is saying is that if A then maybe B. However, the truth value of the proposition of the last sentence is not contingent. Rather it is absolute. "Those who order or commit such atrocities must be prosecuted to the full extent of the law without recourse to the death penalty." C. Do C whatever anyone else thinks; whatever else the laws of a sovereign Iraq may specify. C.
My own testament, for the record, are that if I should ever be tortured, have my throat slit, beheaded, mutilated and then have booby traps planted round my corpse so that they might kill any relatives and friends -- should any of this ever happen to me -- that Amnesty International kindly refrain from extending it's "sincerest condolences" and weasely condemnations and offering its insulting and gratuitous advice. I don't want them. I would much rather lie forgotten in some open field than have one of Amnesty International's sick letters on my casket. Not that they would write it.
In related news, MosNews is reporting that four Russian diplomats kidnapped earlier in Iraq are reported to have been executed.
A group loyal to al-Qaeda in Iraq said it killed four kidnapped Russian diplomats, the Bloomberg web-site reported on Wednesday quoting an Internet posting found by the Washington-based Search for International Terrorist Entities Institute. Russia did not pay any "attention to the significance of its citizens," says a translation of the message by SITE researchers ... The posting was by a group called the Mujahedeen Shura Council, SITE said on its own Web site. Two days ago the group gave the Russian government 48 hours to pull out of Chechnya and free Muslim prisoners in Russian jails, according to an earlier statement translated into English by SITE.
Diplomats are protected persons and this report, if true, may rise to a violation of the Geneva Conventions.
posted by wretchardthecat at 6/21/2006 01:43:00 PM
54 Comments:
Amnesty International is just a few liberal British attorneys who formed an organization to further their views. At least that's how they started out, though perhaps they employ more people now. It always amazes me that just because of the name "Amnesty International" the world accepts them as independent experts. This is like if three conservatives started calling themselves "International Law Consulting", and then started appearing on talk shows offering opinions.
Amnesty International, the United Nations, tits on a boar.
Suppose Donald Rumsfeld had said, 'if we find that our men have brutally tortured, slit the throats, then beheaded, then mutilated these detainees, then planted booby traps in case human rights investigators happened along ... if this is true ... then it might rise to the level of a war crime'. I know what I dislike most about the Amnesty International statement. It's the holier-than-thou attitude juxtaposed with their absolutely blatant immorality. If I went in and made that statement to a grieving relative he would be within his rights to punch me out.
OT
Rick Santorum just got on Fox News and announced WMD's HAD been found in Iraq. Sarin and mustard gas artillery shells.
All those people claiming Bush lied about WMD's ought to be ashamed, if they had any capability for that.
Those artillery shells were found long ago, cannoneer, and discounted by both the US military and the Administration.
No, not at all what Mr Powell had in mind when he addressed the UN, making the US's WMD case.
The very fact that now, three and a half years after the UN speach, as the US begins to prepare to "stand down" as Iraqi "stand up", the arguement still revolves around the CIA's inabilities to see across borders, with any clarity, is telling.
That yourself and even more so, Mr Santorum are still discussing Saddam's WMD shows just how poorly the War has gone, and is still going.
The Administration is not out touting Iraqi success, even as they are occurring. Wonder why?
Why continue to discuss what was not there, as opposed to what was? As it relates to the Authorization for Use of Force in Iraq.
Which of the "where as's" of the Authorization has not been fulfilled, why have we not declared Victory?
If I find your missing tail, will you quit with the Eeyore routine?
One thing that the Amnesty International types seem to miss is that rules like the Geneva Convention are based on the principle of reciprocity. The idea is that nations voluntarily agree to certain rules of war conduct because if all sides do it, it works to their interest. It was never intended that one country like the US would be bound to it while other combatants refused to follow. It would be like if someone broke their half of the contract, never paid the money, but expected me to follow through on my end of the deal.
Note that AI just wants to prosecute the terrorists to the full extent of the law WITHOUT resort to the death penalty.
In other words, lock them up with access to air conditioning and a pool, facing mecca, with food cooked to their religion's specifications and access to their religion's purveyors for the rest of their lives. Undoubtedly this would also include health care and dentistry up to and including any organ transplants necessary to keep them healthy.
At taxpayer's expense.
Whatta deal.
Find the missing WMD, or quit bringing the subject up.
If it went on to Syria, why did not we, in pursuit?
Most likely 'cause it did not.
Why has WMD not been deployed against US in theater, 'cause the Enemy does not have the capability.
If they could, they world.
In Jordon the WMD attack, that was planned by aQ, was not with militarized stocks, but with items commercially available.
Unstead of promoting Iraqi indepedence from US, as the Bush endorsed Maliki Plan calls for, why so we hear reports of keeping the Iraqis from fulfilling their mission
"...in early March when Iraqi troops from Col. Saad’s brigade were repeatedly killed by sniper fire while guarding electrical and water facilities in a nearby town. Col. Saad and his men determined that the snipers were shooting from kiosks in a nearby souk. Col. Saad’s response was to order the shopkeepers to empty the vegetable stands. His men then bulldozed the stands, ending the sniper threat.
Quoting from Mr. Jaffe’s article:
When Col. Pasquarette learned about the incident, he was furious. The Iraqis’ actions ran completely counter to his strategy. He had told his soldiers to focus less on killing insurgents and more on reconstruction programs designed to win support of the people.
[…]
Because the Iraqi troops operate in his sector, Col. Pasquarette oversees them. He
called Col. Payne into his office and demanded that he tell Col. Saad to have his soldiers apologize and pay reparations to the shop owners.
Col. Payne passed along the orders. But Col. Saad says he refused to follow them. “Here in Iraq if someone makes a mistake, you punish them," he says, referring to the shop owners failure to give Iraqis information about the snipers. “If you give him money, he will repeat the mistake. And he will consider the person who gave him the gift an idiot.” ..."
Of course the history of success for the modern US Military's tactics is not long in COIN operations. It is non existent. The victories in Afghabistan and Salvador were done outside the Military chain of command, by professionals.
"...He had told his soldiers to focus less on killing insurgents and more on reconstruction programs ..."
Stay the Course!
or
Stay the Course?
"These reports, if proven true, may rise to the level of war crimes.
What a bold, emphatic statement by AI especially in light of all the carnage and death perped by the Dealth Cult.
These people do not seem to understand that the bad guys don't give a damn about the Geneva Conventions and are not all intimidated by the words "war crimes."
Their mentality reminds me of the idiots who asked before the invasion of Afghanistan, "Why do the US have to invade, why can't the Police just go in and arrest Osama?"
From the AP
BAGHDAD, Iraq -- Gunman abducted about 85 workers Wednesday as they left an industrial plant north of Baghdad, police and a witness said.
The workers were thought to be mostly Shiite and the plant is located in a predominantly Sunni Arab area.
The witness said that about 85 workers were taken near the parking lot of the al-Nasr General Complex in Taji, 12 miles north of Baghdad, while police Lt. Thaer Mahmoud said they filled up a bus and a minivan. Taji is predominantly Sunni Arab area that has seen much insurgent activity. ...
...On June 6, gunmen in police uniforms raided a business district in central Baghdad, seizing 50 people, including travelers, merchants and vendors. Both Shiites and Sunnis work in the area.
The Shiite-dominated Interior Ministry, which oversees police, denied its forces were behind the kidnappings. ...
...It was unclear what became of the victims. ..."
There are times when people who are "generally on your side" are embarassments. Santorum with his sanctamonious morality, idiots still talking about stray mustard gas or exploded Sarin gas stuck in a sand berm on the Iranian border where they have been lodged since 1982.
Santorum will be gone soon. Pity Spector couldn't follow and we could get 2 mainstream conservatives between those ridiculous extremes.
As for the last of the WMD true believers - the argument of why the Sunni fanatics and Al Qaeda terrorists haven't used any of the vast stockpile they "secretly buried" on crowds of Shiite heretics, Kurdish abominations, or Crusader Jew Tools appears to rest on the high scruples of the Jihadis to follow rules of war and minimize civilian casualties. Or the interviews of all the Republican Guard leaders who described the total consternation in the Invasion readiness meeting chaired by Saddam at which they learned there were no WMD, none for any Division to fight with, but Saddam saying he hoped his big bluff on WMD would still deter attack.
In the Conservative Movement, 3 things to avoid saying, unless you are a comedian:
1. On to Syria! On to Iran! Faster, faster. Please.
2. Terri Schiavo was as aware and cognitive as any of us Republicans that saw the video.
3. Vast quantities of WMD are out there. Trust us. Maximum All-Wise Beloved War Leader Presidente` Jorge Bush II is never wrong.
Abdullah Azzam - now theres a name to remember....
Taji, that is Col Pasquarette's AO.
Seems hus hearts and minds program won't do much for those 85 victims.
Will he send each of their families the $2,000 USD condolence check, or do we have to kill the victims directly for those payments to be offered, as in Haditha?
The investigation into Haditha has been completed?
Do not know about that, but the condolences payments were offered and reportedly rejected.
The NCOIC of the action's lawyer admitted to the killings, not the Iraqi's reported scenario. The defense, if required, will be that the actions of the Marines were justified by the circumstances.
WMD were always a side issue. Let's never forget that the second Iraqi War started when Saddam attacked our planes. Those air craft had permission from the UN Security Council to protect the Kurdish no-fly zone. Against UN orders, the Iraqis continued to fire on those air craft, a direct act of war.
Do not know about that, but the condolences payments were offered and reportedly rejected.
The NCOIC of the action's lawyer admitted to the killings, not the Iraqi's reported scenario. The defense, if required, will be that the actions of the Marines were justified by the circumstances.
Let's also not forget that the reason why no one knew whether Iraq had WMD was because they refused to allow inspections which were ordered by the UN Security Council. They disobeyed those and other resolutions for years. Blame Saddam Hussein, not the CIA or President Bush.
All the reasons for the War, every single one of 'em, can be found in this White House document.
Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq
If it is not there, it was not a real reason. WMD is oft mentioned, but, I believe UN resolution mentions win in the numbers count.
Those Resolutions have all been complied with, now.
A democratic government has emerged, what else is on the list?
If the French and Russians hadn't been bought and paid for with Iraqi oil money, the UN would have overthrown Saddam years earlier, on the mere principle that he refused to obey security council resolutions. Those resolutions, agreed to unanimously, said that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, the ones it used against its own people, were a danger to humanity.
As President Bush said in the months leading up to the second Iraq War, either the UN Security Council finally enforces its own resolutions or we will.
These are some of the resolutions in the authorization of force document which are still true for Iraq, and are still reasons for war:
Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;
Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;
Well, I sympathize with Wretchard. With the likes of Amnesty International, a statement of support for ending barbarities by the Other Side was likely something that couldn't just be said instantly from the bottom of the heart but carefully vetted by the PR consultants to "say something insincere, but appropriate....." Just like the Christian Peacemakers were eventually forced to express gratitude from inbetween gritted teeth after their spectacular rudeness in failing to mark the success of the British and American special forces that risked their lives to save 2 of "Peacemakers" from The Religion of Headchoppers.
Still, they know the "game" is that enemy sympathizers still pretending to "support the troops" or at least appear neutral must occasionally issue false statements of regret or contrition about "enemy excesses" as they prepare another "Abu Ghraib-like atrocity" or "secret wiretapping" press release...Otherwise, they may be condemned for "selective silence...which they see as a political misstep".
A few organizations are immune from that - legal system attackers of the Left -so well funded by wealthy secular Jews, Euroweenies, and certain WASPY progressives in old money tweed, and so unaccountable to anyone other than activist judges --that they never have to stoop to denounce enemy atrocities as they go after American military monsters and other violators of "precious enemy liberties." The ACLU, National Lawyers Guild, Soros Foundation, Center for Constitutional Rights and other old-time Communist fronts come to mind...
But the truth appears to be, echoing Desert Rat somewhat, that Iraq is becoming Lebanon. Shia and Sunni are purifying their neighborhoods of the alien enemy and setting up defensible lines. Kurds are busy buying tents and looking at cleansing neighborhoods in Mosul and Kirkurk of non-Kurds to take in the soon expected Kurds driven from Bahgdad and majority Sunni towns near "Kurdistan".
The elected government regards the US as an unwelcome infidel outsider best gone as soon as possible from non-Kurdish areas. No bases. Probably no oil contracts as that would prove Iraqis still in the grip of the Occupier. Best they go to the Russians. Egyptian, Saudi, and French and Chinese instead to demonstrate "independence".
If that is the final outcome - Civil War then Americans unwelcome for at least a decade for screwing up the postwar so badly -
Then it will have been a lost war. 20 - 25,000 casualties, 600 billion in warfunds and disability payments borrowed from China pissed away to be repaid by our kids.
And we can cast blame from the neocons to the Hate-America Left. And Bush as the Main Guy who flubbed the Postwar and gave Medals of Freedom to Tommy Franks, Bremer, and George Tenet for their
key roles in the Great Foulup. Suggested Title for Bush II's post=presidency Novel "Not Totally for the Rich, Not Totally as Bad as Jimmy Carter".
I don't agree with the negative conclusion about Iraq, or the blame. The Sunnis have been fighting a civil war against democracy and the rest of Iraq since day 1. Before there can be peace, the country must go to the brink of civil war and maybe fight it for awhile. The Sunnis need to see that they can't win militarily, or by stalling things out. If and when the Sunnis finally choose democracy, peace will come quickly.
"I would much rather lie forgotten in some open field than have one of Amnesty International's sick letters on my casket."
So stop giving them - and their compatriots - consideration and column inches, you damn fool.
From CNN:
The Washington Post reported Wednesday that two Yusufiya residents claimed they saw insurgents behead and dismember the soldiers after dragging their bodies behind pickup trucks.
In an interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer, Maj. Gen. William Caldwell wouldn't confirm the Post report.
"We are confronted down there by a very brutal element of anti-Iraqi forces that have absolutely no respect for personal dignity or deceased," said Caldwell. "And the site upon which our commanders and troops arrived on was one that was very horrific and just, at this point, we're going to continue with the analysis and provide the families the full details of everything they still want to know."
An Islamist Web site reported that the new purported leader of al Qaeda in Iraq, Abu Ayyub al-Masri, was directly involved in killing the two soldiers. Caldwell said the claim is being investigated.
"Although we cannot confirm or deny that now, because we just really don't know, by initial indications from the detainees that we've picked up and the questioning that is going on, that has not been something we have heard from them," Caldwell said. "But we can't absolutely deny it at this point. "
The two soldiers disappeared Friday after an attack on a checkpoint in Yusufiya, south of Baghdad. A third soldier, Spc. David J. Babineau, 25, of Springfield, Massachusetts, was killed in the attack.
Tucker's father said that his son wanted to be where the action was.
"I'm sure that he might have been a little scared, but he took it on as a job, a job that needed to be done," Tucker said on NBC.
An Iraqi official initially told reporters the two bodies were discovered, leaving the U.S. military in the uncomfortable position of having to notify the soldiers' families after the news reports aired.
The bodies were mutilated, sources said, and visual identification was impossible. DNA tests are being conducted to verify the men's identities. After testing, the remains will be returned to the soldiers' families.
The bodies also had been booby-trapped, and bombs lined the road leading to them. It took troops 12 hours to clear the area and recover the bodies, military sources have said.
The military said that because of sensitive details of the soldiers' deaths, it will not be making a public statement after medical exams are conducted, although family members can learn the details if they wish.
So stop giving them - and their compatriots - consideration and column inches, you damn fool.
You're the fool. The "consideration and column inches," as you put it, comprise a post that plainly reads like pure condemnation.
How the hell did you read it?
sirius-sir: old Hollywood saying, "there's no such thing as bad publicity." In citing them, Wretchard is giving Amnesty International the halo of both respectability and credibility. (*and* he spelled their name right!) I don't know that ignoring them would be any better, but I certainly understand Trish's reaction.
The whole ideological left is collapsing in a gigantic reductio ad absurdum. We may win, or the Islamic Fascists may win, either way the Left is lost.
To Trish's point above however, it might be useful to mention, alongside posts such as "Thanks for Nothing", those supporters of these organizations most likely to be embarrassed by such garbage.
For example shouldn't Reebok, as a big supporter of Amnesty International, be embarrassed? Would wearers of Reebok sneakers really like to know that they are contributing to an organization with such obvious contempt for US soldiers? Such obvious double standards favoring real torturers?
The left has employed this tactic with considerable success. Why not turn the tables? They have lost the moral high ground. The corporate world should realize this. It's time to end what Ayn Rand termed "the sanction of the victim."
Howdy,
I think Amnesty International wants us and the minutemen to sign an updated Geneva Convention (version 2006 or so).
Certainly al-Qaeda will be a signatory!!!
Maybe the Ill one could sign as well...
Maybe Saddam can show some respect for international law before DR puts him back in power...
The power of contracts and the printed word!!! That will get us Americans to stop mutilating and beheading the peacemakers in Guantanimo...
Why has WMD not been deployed against US in theater, 'cause the Enemy does not have the capability.
If they could, they world.
I am not so sure, Rat. I don't think Nerve gas shells are that effective against an army spread out in open terrain, especially one with protective gear. Lobbed into Game 6 of the NBA finals or a britney spears concert is another matter..
Let's suppose that there were weapons of mass destruction ready to go during the invasion... And you are Saddam...
What would be the reaction to using those weapons? Obviously your in the proverbial toilet when it comes to your supporting troops.. Hell, they're thugs, not strategists.. That's not what you paid them for.. You have this "secret supply" stashed and ready.. The tanks and marines are mopping up your force. Do you let loose with these weapons on an NBC-Trained force, or do you organize the inevitable "resistance" and use them in a "Hail-Mary" at the end?
What would you do?
Certainly nothing cite-able, but...
The past five years have led me to disrespect organizations I thought had earned my respect.
I don't think I am out of the ordinary.
I wonder if Amnesty International is still getting the same number of 'small' contributions as they received in the 80's. Probably so, ahem... But, not mine.
By the way, the whole cross post thing about the WMD Find documentation really means very little unless:
1. It is obvious that stockpiles were obviously being hidden.
2. That these stockpiles contained enough to be militarily useful - or useful to the 'freedom fighters'.
Otherwise, it just proves the point that Iraq is a weapons depot.
Additionally, once the science and technology is known, reconstituting these weapons is a repeatable endeavor. The important fact is that Iraq used these weapons. How effective was Amnesty International regarding the use of WMD by Iraq and Iran in the 80’s?
Lawyer for Saddam Hussein abducted, shot to death. Ramsey Clark, grab
a flight to Baghdad.
buck,
The Mohammedans have used every weapon in their arsenal, in Iraq.
The artillery shells need to be fired from a gun, to mix the chemicals, or so I'm given to understand. Bringing in a howitzer, to Dallas or Miami would be more difficult than one would presuppose.
In Jordon, the plan was not to use militarized gas, but to attempt to vaporize a chorline cloud over the city, as I recall.
Tell me w.w. how many aQ fellows are left in Iraq, more than that, how are 130,000 US troops going to "get" them? By paying off US "victims".
Massed US troops did not do Z in, nor did they assist in gathering the intel that led to the airstrike.
Why were those three enlisted men left as security on the side of the road, without support or an NCO?
>How effective was Amnesty >International regarding the use of >WMD by Iraq and Iran in the 80’s?
I don't know about Amnesty International but in 1990 when Rumsfeld and others denied that Iraqis had gassed Kurds HRW published and investigated the story.
While odd at timers both AI and HRW do pursue militant policies to a variety of regimes both right and left while individuals such as those who post here find evil relative, justified if the regime is allegedly pro American, stressed or created if an enemy. This is the behavior of fanatics right and left.
The fact that women must be vieled in many places, that barbers are shot for shaving beards, that local usually religiously driven warlords have become little Saddams is of no interest because the tragedy might imply problems and failures, so if Iraqis die in vast numbers it will not matter, just as only "American hating leftists" cared about the butcher of Baghdad before the invasion of Kuwait.
What Wretchard meant to say was:
Fuck You Assholes.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Reebok has their own in-house "human rights" organization that works with AI (http://www.reebok.com/Static/global/initiatives/rights/intro.html). I sent them the following (rhrbusiness@reebok.com ):
SUBJECT: Amnesty International
BODY:
To whom it may concern:
Given Amnesty International's recent comments regarding the brutal torture, murder, and mutilation of two U.S. Soldier's, I hope your organization will reconsider doing business with them. The following statement by Amnesty is outrageous:
BLOCKQUOTE
"Amnesty International, first and foremost, extends its sincerest condolences to the families of Pfc. Kristian Menchaca and Pfc. Thomas L. Tucker for their tragic loss. We are deeply disturbed by reports that these two soldiers were brutally tortured. These reports, if proven true, may rise to the level of war crimes.
Amnesty International condemns the torture or summary killing of anyone who has been taken prisoner and reiterates that such acts are absolutely prohibited in international humanitarian law. This prohibition applies at all times, even during armed conflict. There is no honor or heroism in torturing or killing individuals. Those who order or commit such atrocities must be prosecuted to the full extent of the law without recourse to the death penalty.
/BLOCKQUOTE
The second paragraph really demonstrates that instead of being concerned with the appetite for kidnapping, gruesome torture, and summary execution on the part of the "insurgents", Amnesty has taken this awful act as an opportunity to wag it's haughty, condescending, finger at the USA. It's beyond disgusting. This organization has shamed itself and anyone associated with it.
George Barker
New York, NY
Here we go again.A day to fume in rage at Jihadi nihilism.What do we get here from the usual suspects:the all glib pessimism all the time from the Great Southwest and more pure paleo-conservatism from the bunker under Berlin.Hey Trish,there's an infinite amount of column space in the blogosphere.Calling our gracious host a fool is beyond the pale.
Do you have in your no doubt smarter than I makeups,even an ounce of ire for the sorry s that butchered our young men?If not ,you're nothing but empty blather in the ethernet and who cares what you think.
Oops!My filter removed my descriptive term for the fruit of Islam.Fill in the blanks.
What's a proportional response to this atrocity?Yank 200( 100 for one) Wahabbi A-holes out of their cells in Gitmo and give them the Mama Cass treatment:cram a ham sandwich down their throat until they split hell wide open.
The West, now basically the US and England are going through the throes of death by a thousand cuts.
The ChiComs and Russia are still supplying as much antithesis as they can toward our demise. We're well into WWIII and we still don't use our full might to dust off the interlocutors of communism. Most treat communism as anacronistic. Our State Department and Defense Department are in disarray.
We have not learned to kill en mass,without remorse against the interlocutors and it would be so easy for us to do. We do not have the will, and the cuts are mounting.
We should start by striking Iran and North Korea. Without mercy. But once again there is no leadership with the will or guts to do so. We have a moral duty to our citizenry to initiate, not just contemplate these actions.
I guarantee after obliterating most of the Muslim world and turning North Korea to calcine earth, winning hearts and minds will be a breeze.
No doubt we would have to withstand a withering rebuke from the UN and Amnesty International which is enough to deter, golly, just about anyone.
Nurse , another bandage please.
Count me in the Wretchard Column.
I take a stand, FOR individual freedom, FOR personal responsibility, FOR equality of men and women, FOR the oneness of humanity...
If this angers the enemies of such a stand, and they (torture, kill, desecrate, booby-trap), THEN I NUMBER Amnesty International AMONG them, in spirit if not in action.
Leave my body in the mud, for it is cleaner than a dirty apology-cum-obfuscation delivered by AmInt.
Leave my spirit to the ignored and 'nonexistent' God... It will envelope and enfold the love/knowledge that dwelt in my body during life, and which AmInt cannot sully with its foul equivocations!
And while I'm here, I second Boghie's idea (6:32): Lets get an Updated Paper, and send it round for Today's Signatures, and compare it to Hitler's signature, about which he privately declared, "I will SIGN ANYTHING to forward my plans..."
Signatures are an outward, material and objective sign of a COMMITMENT to HONOR (the signed Agreement).
In today's absence of HONOR, such Updated Papers are a travesty, a joke, a sad shackle around the ankle of Righteous America, struggling to maintain ITS honor in a world of lies and duplicity!
Amnesty International condemns the torture or summary killing of anyone who has been taken prisoner and reiterates that such acts are absolutely prohibited in international humanitarian law. This prohibition applies at all times, even during armed conflict. There is no honor or heroism in torturing or killing individuals. Those who order or commit such atrocities must be prosecuted to the full extent of the law without recourse to the death penalty.
If you really read it, AI's statement is intended to apply to both sides. They cannot bring themselves to unequivocally condemn the terrorists
Dear Wretchard -- don't you think there should be pictures of this? Pictures of the bodies as they were left, pictures of the booby traps?
In the "media war" which the we good guys are losing, we seen unwilling to show pictures of the truth.
Either our support helps the elected Iraqis win, or else the murderers and torturers will rule Iraq in a "most brutal & ruthless & lucky" wins internal leader battle.
Amnesty does NOT, really, believe in the enforcement of punishment against the killers -- this is the crux of their hypocrisy. Real enforcement includes a balance between the errors of letting the guilty go free, and punishing the innocent. Their absolute prohibition on punishing or killing the innocent in any collateral damage means they don't accept any real punishment for the guilty.
Bush and the Reps should be running against the Dems and the UN and Amnesty. Amnesty & the UN still do not call Darfur a genocide (=action required); and the Dems support that "test".
-Liberty Dad
The normal perversity of the Left is really outdone in the casual dismissal of the certifiable terror weapons found throughout Iraq. Shameless repitition of the Big Lie is a technique that works, though. As buck smith points out, the reason for sending a military expedition to invade is precisely to interdict and prevent the use of terror weapons against civilian populations.
It is typical inversion of logic by the Left to then stand that concept on its head and claim that if those weapons have not been used against our military forces, it means they really must not be WMD, right?
What a bunch of morons. I can't believe they're that fast on their feet. It *HAS* to be a fundamental ornery contrariness.
W. is on the money re: AI's "holier-than-thou" attitude. From where I sit this is the truth behind much of posturing of the left, which, in the teeth of its own declared secularism, loves to talk about "morality" when it's a matter of fingerpointing someone else's "immorality."
Haven't heard much about the peculiar psychological pathologies of such behavior, but I think it's there to be talked about. Much left-wing posturing among the intellectual classes (limited full disclosure: I am 5 years out of my retirement from academe) is, oddly enough, behavior geared to prove to some imagined accusatory audience that they--contrary to what "the others" may think--basically a decent, moral human being. For which reason I'm anti-war, anti-Bush, pro-choice, give to charity, anti-discrimination (etc. etc.).
Who are "these others" that are the focus of these people's paranoia? Who are the accusers they apparently hear in their heads, and why are they so fearsome that they must be pacified by constant moralistic grandstanding?
It's time, I think, to stop speculating on the imbecility of the limp left, and to start speculating on its pathologies. More probable explanations might be gleaned thereby.
W. is on the money re: AI's "holier-than-thou" attitude. From where I sit this is the truth behind much of posturing of the left, which, in the teeth of its own declared secularism, loves to talk about "morality" when it's a matter of fingerpointing someone else's "immorality."
Haven't heard much about the peculiar psychological pathologies of such behavior, but I think it's there to be talked about. Much left-wing posturing among the intellectual classes (limited full disclosure: I am 5 years out of my retirement from academe) is, oddly enough, behavior geared to prove to some imagined accusatory audience that they--contrary to what "the others" may think--basically a decent, moral human being. For which reason I'm anti-war, anti-Bush, pro-choice, give to charity, anti-discrimination (etc. etc.).
Who are "these others" that are the focus of these people's paranoia? Who are the accusers they apparently hear in their heads, and why are they so fearsome that they must be pacified by constant moralistic grandstanding?
It's time, I think, to stop speculating on the imbecility of the limp left, and to start speculating on its pathologies. More probable explanations might be gleaned thereby.
Enemy Sympathizers, my behind! As far as I am concerned, Amnesty International and the MSM have decamped to JOIN the enemy and use their talents accordingly.
The President should make it abundantly clear that these acts will reap the whirlwind for the terrorists at whatever cost it takes...
Shorter Belmont Club: my reading skills do not extend to AI's extensive documentation of human rights abuse in Iraq.
They cannot bring themselves to unequivocally condemn the terrorists
AI condemns acts. Are you now making a distinction between 'good torture' and 'bad torture' in the way that fuckheads distinguised 'good AIDS' from 'bad AIDS'? Well, that's nice.
Desert Rat,
If the people fighting the U.S. in Iraq were to use WMDs against us, the 4th (and arguably the most powerful) branch of U.S. government (the people) would again rally to the cause like they did just after 911. This petty argument of the justification for being in Iraq would be silenced and all it would cause would be solidification of our resolve. We are continually mopping the floor with the anti-U.S. elements in Iraq.
They are fighting a media war and nothing more and using WMDs would play right into the hands of the U.S. efforts. Their most powerful ally right now is the vocal minority stateside and know that that very minority would be silenced if they were to use WMDs. Not only that, it would give the 4th branch even more cause to disbelieve and discredit our current media corporations thus destroying their cause.
Desert Rat,
If the people fighting the U.S. in Iraq were to use WMDs against us, the 4th (and arguably the most powerful) branch of U.S. government (the people) would again rally to the cause like they did just after 911. This petty argument of the justification for being in Iraq would be silenced and all it would cause would be solidification of our resolve. We are continually mopping the floor with the anti-U.S. elements in Iraq.
They are fighting a media war and nothing more and using WMDs would play right into the hands of the U.S. efforts. Their most powerful ally right now is the vocal minority stateside and know that that very minority would be silenced if they were to use WMDs. Not only that, it would give the 4th branch even more cause to disbelieve and discredit our current media corporations thus destroying their cause.
Post a Comment
<< Home