Originally posted by no1marauderNo. The arab world live in undemocratic states which also imprison people without trial. They expect America to be as harsh and unfair as their own rulers.
You think the level of support in the Arab world for an American occupation of Iraq is contingent on how the US military treats prisoners at Gitmo?
However, for Western democratic countries, being allied with the country running the Guatanamo Gulag is downright embarassing. One of the reasons you are not getting the support you expect.
Originally posted by steerpikeI'm answering the points raised. What additional support do you think the United States would get in Iraq from Western democratic countries IF conditions were improved at Gitmo? Couple hundred thousand troops? $100 billion in reconstruction aid? What exactly would this "support you [US government] expect" be?
No. The arab world live in undemocratic states which also imprison people without trial. They expect America to be as harsh and unfair as their own rulers.
However, for Western democratic countries, being allied with the country running the Guatanamo Gulag is downright embarassing. One of the reasons you are not getting the support you expect.
Originally posted by no1marauderWe got our troops out last week - can't see us going back for a while. I think hoping for support for Iraq is hoping a bit too much - that is one you got into all by yourself, against the advice of your allies. Perhaps next time your diplomats are advised to think and plan, your Government will be a little more receptive.
I'm answering the points raised. What additional support do you think the United States would get in Iraq from Western democratic countries IF conditions were improved at Gitmo? Couple hundred thousand troops? $100 billion in reconstruction aid? What exactly would this "support you [US government] expect" be?
There is more to the world than Iraq. Afghanistan for a start and the need for troops to help reconstruction and elections, Iranian and North Korean nuclear weapons. All need nations to work together.
Originally posted by steerpikeI was responding to the points brought up. In truth, improvement of the treatment of prisoners in Gitmo would bring no tangible benefits to the US government and it is fallacious to say it would.
We got our troops out last week - can't see us going back for a while. I think hoping for support for Iraq is hoping a bit too much - that is one you got into all by yourself, against the advice of your allies. Perhaps next time your diplomats are advised to think and plan, your Government will be a little more receptive.
There is more to the world tha ...[text shortened]... tion and elections, Iranian and North Korean nuclear weapons. All need nations to work together.
Why not simply say it would be the humane and proper thing to do and leave it at that?
Originally posted by no1marauderThe issue goes beyond the welfare of a few prisoners - some of whom would have shown little compassion to thsoe who opposed them in the past.
I was responding to the points brought up. In truth, improvement of the treatment of prisoners in Gitmo would bring no tangible benefits to the US government and it is fallacious to say it would.
Why not simply say it would be the humane and proper thing to do and leave it at that?
What is more important are the principles of justice, a fair trial, punishment of the guilty and protection for the innocent. At Guatanamo,the US has ignored the human rights it has long advocated by denying the rights of legal process. The price it pays is its inability to support human rights around the world - when was the last time the US stood up to China for its continuing imprisonment of political prisoners?
The US, because of its economic size and military might has a leadership role in the world. Who can blame other countries when they are taking the lead from the US in dealing with enemies of the state?
Originally posted by steerpikeYou keep talking nonsense. What has US support for "human rights" around the world ever accomplished on the few occasions it has been consistently applied? Nothing. And other countries don't "take their lead from the US in dealing with enemies of the state", that's rubbish. N.Korea isn't going to treat its political prisoners any better just because the US improves its treatment of prisoners; and Western Europe isn't going to treat its prisoners worse because the US does. You're just talking in cliches; if you want the US to treat its prisoners humanely because they are human beings and have a natural, inalienable right not to be treated cruelly, just say so. Don't pretend what the US does or doesn't do in these types of matters really affects anything, because it doesn't.
The issue goes beyond the welfare of a few prisoners - some of whom would have shown little compassion to thsoe who opposed them in the past.
What is more important are the principles of justice, a fair trial, punishment of the guilty and protection for the innocent. At Guatanamo,the US has ignored the human rights it has long advocated by denying the r ...[text shortened]... other countries when they are taking the lead from the US in dealing with enemies of the state?
The US is currently THE world's greatest superpower which basically polices the world (ignoring the UN in the process). Agreed?
Right.
It is sad when such a huge power is reduced to saying "other countries don't observe human rights, so why should we?"
What should happen is that this comfortably affluent, powerfully armed nation sets a good example to the rest of the world.
THEN there is justification for forcing other nations to observe the same treatment of human beings; by military means if necessary.
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderInternational diplomacy isn't always tit-for-tat; rather, countries can accumulate 'brownie points' for their actions, which makes future cooperation more likely. The US got a whole dollop of them after Sept 11, which allowed it to invade Afghanistan with virtually no complaints, but it blew the lot over Iraq. Obeying the Geneva Convention in Guantanamo isn't going to win anyone back, because other countries think the US should do so anyway, but continuing to abuse the prisoners is likely to strain relations further with the US's remaining Western allies, which are awash with such bleeding-heart liberal ideas as 'human rights'. I don't know about other countries, but the US is becoming more and more unpopular among British people, and sooner or later (ie when Blair goes) we're going to have a government that reflects this.
I'm answering the points raised. What additional support do you think the United States would get in Iraq from Western democratic countries IF conditions were improved at Gitmo? Couple hundred thousand troops? $100 billion in ...[text shortened]... What exactly would this "support you [US government] expect" be?
You're perfectly right that the US won't lose much in the short term by pissing off France et al, but in the long term this 'because we can' attitude the US government seems to have will mean that if the US wants to do anything, it has to do so by itself. I don't think the cost of that would be particularly appealing to US taxpayers.
Originally posted by no1marauderAmong other things - Yes.
You think the level of support in the Arab world for an American occupation of Iraq is contingent on how the US military treats prisoners at Gitmo?
It isn't by far the biggest piece of the jigsaw (maybe the US position on Israel is) - but it is part of the problem. Addressing Guantanamo, in itself, may not have "tangible" benefits (not in the short run, anyhow) - but fuel to the fire is fuel to the fire.
Personally, I think Guantanamo is just a symptom - it is the disease that needs to be tackled. If you are the world's leading superpower, are you above the law (the Geneva Convention and the UN Charter - for instance)? When do the deaths of half a million children of another country become "worth it"?
An interesting contrast is with China - possibly the "other" superpower in the world today. When was the last time one heard of a major terrorist attack on Chinese soil? How many Chinese nationals are beheaded on television? Are Chinese people safe in their own country? Abroad?
Luc
Originally posted by no1marauderTangible benefits that can be directly correlated to improved conditions in Guantanamo - no.
I was responding to the points brought up. In truth, improvement of the treatment of prisoners in Gitmo would bring no tangible benefits to the US government and it is fallacious to say it would.
Why not simply say it would be the humane and proper thing to do and leave it at that?
Intangible/indirect benefits - I certainly believe so.
In turn:
Howardgee: The US shouldn't police the world. No matter how we treat people here, we shouldn't force other nations to do anything by military means except not to attack us.
Acolyte: I'm not interested in the US gaining "brownie points" so other countries will be more inclined to join the US when it invades other countries. They're unnecessary if we don't invade other countries.
Lucifershammer: I've never claimed the US is above international law; I've argued in other threads the exact opposite. We shouldn't improve the treatment of prisoners because it'll make us look good; we should improve the treatment of prisoners because it is the moral and just thing to do. It is irrelevant to me whether other countries think that is a good or bad thing; it's still the right thing regardless of what their opinion is.
The US shouldn't police the world....unfortunately they do!
and with this role comes responsibility.
There are few things worse than corrupt policemen.
Once the people realise how corrupt the force is, they cease to have any respect and start to take the law into their own hands.
This is what has happened the world over with regard to the US.
Guantanmo bay is just one of many indications of this malaise.
Originally posted by howardgeeI condemn it as a stupid training tactic gone awry, if in fact it did happen. I also condemn any "real" incidents such as this that actually take place in Iraq against Iraqi prisoners. I do, however, agree that there should be a tactical response team such as what we have in prisons in the US to "neutralize" out-of-control prisoners that won't comply. Just enough force to end the resistance is all you need...
So, no Americans out there wish to condemn this approach to prisoners in camp X-ray.
As long as this attitude prevails, expect more beheadings of your citizens in Iraq.
After all, if you cannot observe basic human rights, how the hell can you expect the "uncivilised" Islamic militants to?
Originally posted by no1marauderOh, for God's sake! Surely a supposedly civilised country should want to uphold human rights for its own sake, irrespective of whether or not it deters terrorists or wins international support? Without our respect for fellow humanity none of us is worth anything.
I'm answering the points raised. What additional support do you think the United States would get in Iraq from Western democratic countries IF conditions were improved at Gitmo? Couple hundred thousand troops? $100 billion in reconstruction aid? What exactly would this "support you [US government] expect" be?
Rich.
Originally posted by richhoeyThat's what no1marauder was arguing. Have you read the entire thread?
Oh, for God's sake! Surely a supposedly civilised country should want to uphold human rights for its own sake, irrespective of whether or not it deters terrorists or wins international support? Without our respect for fellow humanity none of us is worth anything.
Rich.