Human Rights and Wrongs (Why the Double Standard?)

[ABACA]

Last week, two American soldiers, Pfc. Kristian Menchaca of Houston and Pfc. Thomas Tucker of Madras, Ore., were taken prisoner in Iraq. They were brutally tortured, and so severely mutilated that their faces were unrecognizable. They were tied together with a bomb between their legs - a booby trap intended to kill whoever tried to recover their remains.

Would you regard such actions as serious violations of the laws of war and fundament. . .human rights? It is not clear that the most powerful human rights organizations see it that way.

Amnesty International, which claims its mission is "to protect human rights worldwide," appears to have nothing to say about the torture and killing of Menchaca and Tucker. As I write this, its Web site features an article on arms control, and another on a "new international treaty to prevent torture and other ill-treatment through a system of regular visits to all detention places." Evidently, "all detention places" does not include places in Iraq where al-Qaida and Baathist forces detain their prisoners.

The homepage of Human Rights Watch suggests the group's main concerns are Indonesia, Burundi and Chad. Regarding Menchaca and Tucker, there is a three-sentence press release noting that "captured combatants must be treated humanely."

At the United Nations Website, I found no statement by Secretary General Kofi Annan concerning the slaughter of American soldiers. However, the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, Louise Arbour, was moved in recent days to accuse the United States of maintaining secret detention centers in which torture is alleged to take place. Reports of such centers - she doesn't actually know whether they exist - are of "grave concern."

"For all the human rights problems in the world in places like North Korea and Iran and so on, to go after the United States and Israel - it is business as usual from the U.N. human rights machinery," U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton told reporters.

Bolton is right to suggest that, in addition to the United States, Israel is the favorite whipping boy of the U.N. and the so-called "human rights community." These groups gave immediate credence to Palestinian allegations that Israeli artillery fire had killed civilians picnicking on a Gaza Beach. They gave short shrift to Israeli officials who insisted their weapons had not caused the carnage.

Nor does it matter that when Israel does fire into Gaza, it is aiming at militants who are launching missiles at Israeli villages. Such missiles were being fired from within a few hundred yards of that Gaza beach that day.

What explains this double-standard of continually trying to tie the hands of those fighting terrorism while turning a blind eye to the terrorists themselves?

One could argue that it's a kind of compliment; that those organizations expect America and Israel to maintain higher standards. But war is not golf: You don't handicap those you view as stronger players to make the contest more exciting.

One could speculate that these groups do, in fact, deeply disapprove of all torture and killing - they just don't believe that Islamic extremists routinely carrying out such atrocities would listen to them.

But why not? Imagine if Kofi Annan were to say: "Those who consider themselves members of resistance or liberation movements must abide by international law. If they refuse to do that, they should not expect international law to protect them."

Consider what it would mean if Amnesty International would say: "Even those who have not signed the Geneva Convention must respect the human rights of those they fight and, even more, of non-combatants. If you violate the norms of civilized behavior, do not expect us to defend your rights."

Try to hear Human Rights Watch announcing: "We will not establish the precedent that it is an outrage for al-Qaida members to be detained in Guantanamo but acceptable for captured American soldiers to be butchered."

They could make such statements. They choose not to.

_____ Clifford D. May, president of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, writes for Scripps Howard News Service.

[B. Goetz 7]

It is not the role of the International Human Rights Community to remark upon every murder committed in every country. They are concerned with the actions of governments and militaries.

It's strange that anyone would call for the US government and US troops to be considered on equal footing with Al Qaeda fighters in terms of legitimacy.

[Captain Blamo]

Well if the US hadn't dumped 320 metric tons of DU munitions and other nasty shit in Iraq maybe the world would give a rats ass.

[Ultrashogun]

I think the reason that AI is silent over this is simply that you can put pressure on governments, but underground insurgents dont really give a damn.

[kingstu]

Originally Posted by Ultrashogun

I think the reason that AI is silent over this is simply that you can put pressure on governments, but underground insurgents dont really give a damn.

The "World Community" views the United States and Israel as the “oppressors” and the “oppressed” get a free pass to engage in any type of behavior as long as it’s directed at the “oppressors”. Essentially, the attitude is that the terrorists/insurgents/freedom fighters are fighting against a powerful enemy so they can engage in any tactics they wish as long as it’s directed at the big bad United States or Israel. The funniest thing about all this is the car bombs in Iraq kill far more Iraqi civilans than U.S. soldiers but apparently nobody gives a shit about Iraqis killing other Iraqis.

[kingstu]

The Palestinians were offered about 95% of the "occupied" territories when Bill Clinton was in office but Arafat refused the deal which makes me think that he didn't really want peace with Israel he wanted all of Israel.

[stevus]

Originally Posted by ABACA

Last week, two American soldiers, Pfc. Kristian Menchaca of Houston and Pfc. Thomas Tucker of Madras, Ore., were taken prisoner in Iraq. They were brutally tortured, and so severely mutilated that their faces were unrecognizable. They were tied together with a bomb between their legs - a booby trap intended to kill whoever tried to recover their remains.

Would you regard such actions as serious violations of the laws of war and fundament. . .human rights? It is not clear that the most powerful human rights organizations see it that way.

Amnesty International, which claims its mission is "to protect human rights worldwide," appears to have nothing to say about the torture and killing of Menchaca and Tucker. As I write this, its Web site features an article on arms control, and another on a "new international treaty to prevent torture and other ill-treatment through a system of regular visits to all detention places." Evidently, "all detention places" does not include places in Iraq where al-Qaida and Baathist forces detain their prisoners.

The homepage of Human Rights Watch suggests the group's main concerns are Indonesia, Burundi and Chad. Regarding Menchaca and Tucker, there is a three-sentence press release noting that "captured combatants must be treated humanely."

At the United Nations Website, I found no statement by Secretary General Kofi Annan concerning the slaughter of American soldiers. However, the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, Louise Arbour, was moved in recent days to accuse the United States of maintaining secret detention centers in which torture is alleged to take place. Reports of such centers - she doesn't actually know whether they exist - are of "grave concern."

"For all the human rights problems in the world in places like North Korea and Iran and so on, to go after the United States and Israel - it is business as usual from the U.N. human rights machinery," U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton told reporters.

Bolton is right to suggest that, in addition to the United States, Israel is the favorite whipping boy of the U.N. and the so-called "human rights community." These groups gave immediate credence to Palestinian allegations that Israeli artillery fire had killed civilians picnicking on a Gaza Beach. They gave short shrift to Israeli officials who insisted their weapons had not caused the carnage.

Nor does it matter that when Israel does fire into Gaza, it is aiming at militants who are launching missiles at Israeli villages. Such missiles were being fired from within a few hundred yards of that Gaza beach that day.

What explains this double-standard of continually trying to tie the hands of those fighting terrorism while turning a blind eye to the terrorists themselves?

One could argue that it's a kind of compliment; that those organizations expect America and Israel to maintain higher standards. But war is not golf: You don't handicap those you view as stronger players to make the contest more exciting.

One could speculate that these groups do, in fact, deeply disapprove of all torture and killing - they just don't believe that Islamic extremists routinely carrying out such atrocities would listen to them.

But why not? Imagine if Kofi Annan were to say: "Those who consider themselves members of resistance or liberation movements must abide by international law. If they refuse to do that, they should not expect international law to protect them."

Consider what it would mean if Amnesty International would say: "Even those who have not signed the Geneva Convention must respect the human rights of those they fight and, even more, of non-combatants. If you violate the norms of civilized behavior, do not expect us to defend your rights."

Try to hear Human Rights Watch announcing: "We will not establish the precedent that it is an outrage for al-Qaida members to be detained in Guantanamo but acceptable for captured American soldiers to be butchered."

They could make such statements. They choose not to.

_____ Clifford D. May, president of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, writes for Scripps Howard News Service.

There is no such thing as "laws of war."

[EnemyOfTheState]

Originally Posted by stevus

There is no such thing as "laws of war."

there is, but it applies when both sides respect the rules.

so basically. yes it is obviously a double standard.

it's rediculous how much hype the media, UN makes when
someones ass in guantanamo is touched inaproprietly.

the reason is mostly because Europe is largely antisemitic.
that's why israel is so demonized.
although it is not right to use 'human rights' as a tool to demonize
US in this case, but US foreign policy earned this kind of attitude by
the world. most of the world is anti US. it's a lot of work to repair
this problem. so basically don't vote for cowboys, republicans and other
eugenicists, racists, elitisist trash. unfortunately most americans are blinded
by mind bogling patriotism and really don't give a fuck about anything
else.

[InternetHero]

Originally Posted by Captain Blamo

Well if the US hadn't dumped 320 metric tons of DU munitions and other nasty shit in Iraq maybe the world would give a rats ass.

So conspirtoiral assertions cancel out the legitmate fact that minor US abuses are apparently far more adhorent than those committed by jihadists every single day?

[Captain Blamo]

Originally Posted by InternetHero

So conspirtoiral assertions cancel out the legitmate fact that minor US abuses are apparently far more adhorent than those committed by jihadists every single day?

????????