Bush blasts Amnesty report on Guantanamo
Ok, suppose that all the detainees are lying. What about the simple fact that the US is detaining these people without charging them, without giving them lawyers, and witout granting them trials? Do any members of the press ask questions anymore? Note Bush and Cheney's non answers and their appeal to emotion and patriotism -- the report is absurd because America promotes freedom. Give me a break!
Bush blasts Amnesty report on Guantanamo - Politics - MSNBC.com
posted by Victor Laszlo @ 5/31/2005
4 comments
4 Comments:
But in the past, when it was convenient to the Administration, they
did not hesitate to cite Amnesty to make its case. And nowhere did the
Administration need more help than in selling the Iraq war. Secretary
Rumsfeld repeatedly turned to Amnesty to highlight the repressive
nature of Saddam's regime. On March 27, 2003, Rumsfeld said:
We know that it's a repressive regime…Anyone who has read Amnesty
International or any of the human rights organizations about how the
regime of Saddam Hussein treats his people…
The next day, Rumsfeld even cited his "careful reading" of Amnesty:
…[I]t seems to me a careful reading of Amnesty International or
the record of Saddam Hussein, having used chemical weapons on his own
people as well as his neighbors, and the viciousness of that regime,
which is well known and documented by human rights organizations,
ought not to be surprised.
And on April 1, 2003, Rumsfeld said once again:
[I]f you read the various human rights groups and Amnesty
International's description of what they know has gone on, it's not a
happy picture.
So the rule here appears to be: Amnesty is a legitimate source for
human rights violations of other countries, but is an unreliable and
irresponsible source for reporting on the U.S.
http://thinkprogress.org/index.php?p=979
Now Anonymous, why would you go and destroy a perfectly inpenetrable line of reasoning by bringing in something like objectivity?
That's the problem with you over-educated, saab-driving liberal elites. You always want to go and introduce secular reasoning into an argument. Amnesty International is right when they have facts that support our arguments because God wants us to have facts to support our arguments. They're wrong when they disagree with us because God doesn't like organizations to disagree with us. It's as simple as that.
Of course, they can’t debunk the main “gulag” charge: that the Bushies are systematically detaining people in secret without providing access to attorneys or ensuring due process.
So, per usual, they don’t bother discussing the merits. The pushback is mainly bluster.
That’s enough to feed the right-wing echo chamber, but way short of actually discrediting Amnesty and salvaging America’s international reputation.
Most depressingly, Bush is following the irresponsible pattern of other nations that Amnesty charges with human rights abuses: instead of cleaning up his act, he blames the messenger.
you misunderstand the entire issue. At the most basic level, the administration believes the world at large is uneducated, misinformed and without a real powerbase. For a long time, they have assumed the attitude of a neo-roman rule predicated on forcing their belief system on every other group. It is very simple and easily understood. Whether you call the other "muslim" or "barbarian", the fact remains that they are less than human, less than civilized and should be molded into good, obedient second-class citizens. It's really just common sense, right?
Post a Comment
<< Home