Posted on 06/01/2005 12:51:30 PM PDT by CHARLITE
The latest hysteria alleging American human rights abuses of suspected terrorists comes from Amnesty International, which apparently hopes to turn even the slightest supposed mistreatment of prisoners into a full-scale Abu Ghraib-type scandal.
According to the Washington Times, Amnesty International "last week called on foreign governments 'to uphold their obligations under international law by investigating U.S. officials implicated in the development or implementation of interrogation techniques that constitute torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment' at the U.S. military base known as Gitmo."
Furthermore, in a report titled "The State of the World's Human Rights," the organization charged that "the U.S. Navy base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, 'has become the gulag of our times' and accused high-level U.S. officials -- including the president, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales and former CIA Director George J. Tenet -- of flouting international law in their treatment of detainees."
"The gulag of our times," eh? Perhaps Amnesty International is conveniently unaware of Kim Jong Il's prison camps in North Korea. But this would be surprising considering its own website describes North Korea thusly:
"Access by independent monitors continued to be severely restricted. There were reports of widespread political imprisonment, torture and ill-treatment, and of executions."
Until American GIs start sawing off the heads of terror suspects with steak knives, it's laughably ridiculous and insulting to even attempt to equate our treatment of prisoners with that which military and civilian personnel have endured at the hands of murderous Islamist barbarians. That Amnesty International has the audacity to insinuate that American treatment of enemy combatants is actually worse than what men, women, and children endure daily at the hands of al Qaeda and Kim's North Korean henchmen clearly indicates its anti-American agenda and should be enough for anyone to realize the U.S. will never get a fair shake from international critics during this war.
Those who do care to consider the facts surrounding American treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay can read Michelle Malkin's article today, in which she cites the numerous accommodations that are made for our dear Muslim captives. http://www.townhall.com/columnists/michellemalkin/mm20050601.shtml
"Erik Saar, who served as an army sergeant at Gitmo for six months and co-authored a negative, tell-all book about his experience titled "Inside the Wire," inadvertently provides us more firsthand details showing just how restrained, and sensitive to Islam -- to a fault, I believe -- the officials at the detention facility have been.
Each detainee's cell has a sink installed low to the ground, "to make it easier for the detainees to wash their feet" before Muslim prayer, Saar reports. Detainees get "two hot halal, or religiously correct, meals" a day in addition to an MRE (meal ready to eat). Loudspeakers broadcast the Muslims' call to prayer five times a day.
Every detainee gets a prayer mat, cap and Koran. Every cell has a stenciled arrow pointing toward Mecca. Moreover, Gitmo's library -- yes, library -- is stocked with Jihadi books. "I was surprised that we'd be making that concession to the religious zealotry of the terrorists," Saar admits. "[I]t seemed to me that the camp command was helping to facilitate the terrorists' religious devotion." Saar notes that one FBI special agent involved in interrogations even grew a beard like the detainees "as a sort of show of respect for their faith."
In order to endure "human rights" abuses, one must first be human, a designation many if not most of the detainees at Gitmo are fortunate to receive. If it were up to me, most of these bastards would be sleeping on barbed wire. But until Amnesty International can uncover living conditions that are inferior to what our troops have to put up with in the field as they hunt these vermin, its allegations are as worthless as those who believe them.
Char :)
A beating, lice powder, and a Bible.
Fine.
But an ideological library?
Fighters that wear no uniform deserve only a quick trial and a quick execution (after they have been pumped for information, of course).
one wall in each cell should be painted with Bush's face, in red white and blue colors. =P
Char,to start with Michelle Malkin's is my favorite writer she tells it like it is and doesn't have to go on tv and make an ass of herself to do it..like some other unnamed woman we all know!
Loudspeakers broadcast the Muslims' call to prayer five times a day.(who do they pray to could it be the devil it sure isn't God.)
Every detainee gets a prayer mat, cap and Koran. Every cell has a stenciled arrow pointing toward Mecca.(The arrow should be pointed toward hell where they will meet up with the other animals.)
So, the terrorists, and their supporters, are unhappy.
Oh, well.
Thanks for the ping!
No - give 'em a Bible, shave their heads and faces, and feed 'em pork roll for breakfast, liverwurst for lunch, and hot dogs for dinner. They can starve if they don't like it.
Islam should not exist in their world. 9/11 happened. Screw 'em: they should be damned thankful that they haven't been hanged.
"The gulag of our times," eh? Perhaps Amnesty International is conveniently unaware of Kim Jong Il's prison camps in North Korea. But this would be surprising considering its own website describes North Korea thusly:
"Access by independent monitors continued to be severely restricted. There were reports of widespread political imprisonment, torture and ill-treatment, and of executions."
"The gulag of our times," eh? Perhaps Amnesty International is conveniently unaware of Kim Jong Il's prison camps in North Korea. But this would be surprising considering its own website describes North Korea thusly:
"Access by independent monitors continued to be severely restricted. There were reports of widespread political imprisonment, torture and ill-treatment, and of executions."
Nudge nudge, wink wink, say no more...
Information for Journalists
Irene Khan - Biography
Irene Zubaida Khan joined Amnesty International as the organization’s seventh Secretary General in August 2001.
Taking the helm in Amnesty International as the first woman, the first Asian and the first Muslim to guide the world’s largest human rights organization, Irene brought a new perspective to the organization. As an individual, she brought experience and enthusiasm for putting people at the heart of policy.
Irene took up the leadership of Amnesty International in its 40th anniversary year as the organization began a process of change and renewal to address the complex nature of contemporary human rights violations, and confronted the challenging developments in the wake of the attacks of 11 September.
In her first year in office, Irene reformed AI’s response to crisis situations, personally leading high level missions to Pakistan during the bombing of Afghanistan, to Israel/Occupied Territories just after the Israeli occupation of Jenin, and to Colombia before the Presidential elections in May 2003. Deeply concerned about violence against women, she called for better protection of women’s human rights in meetings with President Musharraf of Pakistan, President Lahoud of Lebanon and Prime Minister Khaleda Zia of Bangladesh. She has initiated a process of consultations with women activists to design a global campaign by Amnesty International against violence on women.
Irene has been keen to draw attention to hidden human rights violations. In Australia, she drew attention to the plight of asylum seekers in detention. In Burundi, she met with victims of massacres and urged President Buyoya and other parties to the conflict to end the cycle of human rights abuse. In Bulgaria, she led a campaign to end discrimination of those suffering from mental disabilities.
Interested in working directly with people to change their lives, Irene helped to found the development organization, Concern Universal, in 1977, and began her work as a human rights activist with the International Commission of Jurists in 1979.
Irene joined the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in 1980, and worked in a variety of positions at Headquarters and in field operations to promote the international protection of refugees. From 1991-95 she was Senior Executive Officer to Mrs. Sadako Ogata, then UN High Commissioner for Refugees. She was appointed as the UNHCR Chief of Mission in India in 1995, the youngest UNHCR country representative at that time, and in 1998 headed the UNHCR Centre for Research and Documentation. She led the UNHCR team in Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia during the Kosovo crisis in 1999, and was appointed Deputy Director of International Protection later that year.
Irene studied law at the University of Manchester and Harvard Law School, specialising in public international law and human rights. She is the recipient of several academic awards, a Ford Foundation Fellowship, and the Pilkington "Woman of the Year" Award 2002.
Public Document
One can understand how the kulaks felt, every institution
seemed to be penetrated by activists, as we see here.
"One can understand how the kulaks felt, every institution
seemed to be penetrated by activists, as we see here."
Found this little gem, (snip)
http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.21419,filter.all/pub_detail.sp
This month, the United Nations Security Council voted to condemn terrorism. The resolution was introduced by Russia, still grieving over the terrorist attack on a school in Beslan, and perhaps the unanimous vote will give it a measure of solace. But the convoluted text and the dealings behind the scenes that were necessary to secure agreement on it offer cold comfort to anyone who cares about winning the war against terrorism. For what they reveal is that even after Beslan and after Madrid and after 9/11, the UN still cannot bring itself to oppose terrorism unequivocally.
Terrorism As a Right
The reason for this failure is that the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), which comprises fifty-six of the UN's 191 members, defends terrorism as a right.
After the Security Council vote, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations John C. Danforth tried to put the best face on the resolution. He said it "states very simply that the deliberate massacre of innocents is never justifiable in any cause. Never."
But in fact it does not state this. Nor has any UN resolution ever stated it. The U.S. delegation tried to get such language into the resolution, but it was rebuffed by Algeria and Pakistan, the two OIC members currently sitting on the Security Council. (They have no veto, but the resolution's sponsors were willing to water down the text in return for a unanimous vote.)
True, the final resolution condemns "all acts of terrorism irrespective of their motivation." This sounds clear, but in the Alice-in-Wonderland lexicon of the UN, the term "acts of terrorism" does not mean what it seems.
For eight years now, a UN committee has labored to draft a "comprehensive convention on international terrorism." It has been stalled since day one on the issue of "defining" terrorism. But what is the mystery? At bottom everyone understands what terrorism is: the deliberate targeting of civilians. The Islamic Conference, however, has insisted that terrorism must be defined not by the nature of the act but by its purpose. In this view, any act done in the cause of "national liberation," no matter how bestial or how random or defenseless the victims, cannot be considered terrorism.
This boils down to saying that terrorism on behalf of bad causes is bad, but terrorism on behalf of good causes is good. Obviously, anyone who takes such a position is not against terrorism at all-but only against bad causes..." read more...
TO AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL, THE VICTIMS ARE THE 'REAL TERRORISTS' AND TO THE UN, TERRORISM IS ACTIVISM!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.