So for instance why should the government of Lebanon be forced to adhere to a higher standard on Human Rights than the US and President Obama are???
During the Bush Regime the US lost the moral high-ground and has no right to judge other nations when it comes to Human Rights violations or War Crimes or Crimes Against Humanity .
Meanwhile Obama's stance merely reinforces this judgement.
Why should Mubarak face a trial for his crimes while Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Condi Rice, Karl Rove and those in the Obama administration are not held to the same standard and so are not considered responsible for their War Crimes, Crimes Against Humanity and other Human Rights violations.
see: Human Rights Watch : Egypt: Make Mubarak’s Trial a Turning Point by Heba Morayef VIA The Times(UK) AUGUST 4, 2011
and as for Lebanon see:
"Lebanon: Cease Harassment of Human Rights Activist for Documenting Torture
International and Local Groups Condemn Rise in Intimidation of Human Rights Defenders Human Rights Watch AUGUST 4, 2011
When America abuses and tortures detainees or attack civilians in their homes in the middle of the night intimidating and threatening families and or then detaining or murdering these civilians this Obama and the US media and the US media believe to be legal and moral when committed by American personnel in the name of fighting so called terrorists.
Once again even the so-called liberal media in the US tend to downplay accusations of torture and other human rights abuses claiming for instance that though "Waterboarding " is torture other techniques such as hooding, beatings, sleep deprivation etc. are not considered torture which is in direct contradiction of International Laws and agreements dealing with torture and other human rights abuses.
When it comes to the Global War On Terror President Obama and his administration like the Bush administration refuses to accept that they were or are still committing that is engaged in illegal and immoral activities denying any rights to detainees and those who might be engaged in terrorist or insurgency against the US military .
President Obama like the Bush Regime have no sense of decency when it comes to fighting those alleged to be America's enemies.
Given this situation the US president its legislative branches Congress and Senate and Supreme Court and its Intelligence Services and military are so far beyond the reach of International Law or even America's own laws and its Constitution.
So the American government and American media have no longer the right to condemn other countries' leaders or intelligence services or military for engaging in similar activities which the US has now deemed legal and moral ie shooting and killing protesters and detaining activists and torturing them and denying them their basic rights.
As has been discussed on previous occasions President Obama and much of the American public and media believe that non-Americans have no rights and that the US military or Intelligence or other government personnel in foreign countries operate with complete impunity . This means torturing and murdering civilians who are suspected of being tied to terrorists or insurgent activities or even activists who voice opposition to American occupation of Afghanistan,, Iraq , Libya and so on can be tortured, rendition-ed or summarily executed without having to even explain their actions let alone be investigated or charged for such criminal activities.
It also appears the US applies these same rules to friendly regimes which are considered allies . This means that while the US supported Mubarak of Egypt or the Saudis or the government of Bahrain or Pakistan no matter what those regimes did was considered as lawful and moral. So the people of these various nations should know that the US is not on their side the US is rather on the side of whomever is willing to kowtow to America and serve America's interests and not the interests of their own people.
UK's Secret Policy on Torture Revealed : Information Clearing House News
Will Rumsfeld or other members of the Bush Regime finally be forced to pay for authorizing torture or will Obama step in to stop any such investigation.
President Obama has so far refused to take the Bush Regime to task for their illegal and immoral torture policies.
As some critics have noted that under Obama a similar policy on torture is continuing as Obama defends the use of torture by merely redefining Enhanced Interrogation Techniques such as "Sleep Deprivation", "Stress Positions", nudity ,verbal insults , threats and intimidation, solitary confinement , hooding, and even renditions and targeted assassinations as all Lawful and even moral if the President and executive branch permits it.
As Nixon notoriously said any action is to be considered legal and moral if the President okays it.
As we have seen alleged whistleblower Bradley Manning has been kept in prolonged solitary confinement for over a year and is the victim of sleep deprivation and threats and intimidation as he refuses to name anyone who was involved in his releasing documents to Wikileaks.
So Obama himself sees nothing wrong with the abuse and torture of so called detainees .
Obama appears to be more concerned as the Bush Regime was with such activities being made public.
Therefore we can conclude that both administrations were mostly concerned about the leaking of information and photos and video of such abuses by US personnel at Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, Basra and dozens of secret facilities than they are with the activities themselves.
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2011/08/04">
The lawsuit claims that Rumsfeld personally approved torture on a case-by-case basis. (AP Photo)The man, whose name is withheld from court records, is a U.S. Army veteran who worked as a translator in Anbar province. The U.S. suspected him of helping Iraqi enemies acquire classified information and helping anti-coalition forces enter Iraq, the AP says, though he was never charged with a crime and says he never broke the law.
and so it goes,
GORD.
Exclusive: Document shows intelligence officers instructed to weigh importance of information sought against pain inflictedRumsfeld Torture redux
By Ian Cobain
August 04, 2011 "The Guardian" - - A top-secret document revealing how MI6 and MI5 officers were allowed to extract information from prisoners being illegally tortured overseas has been seen by the Guardian.
The interrogation policy – details of which are believed to be too sensitive to be publicly released at the government inquiry into the UK's role in torture and rendition – instructed senior intelligence officers to weigh the importance of the information being sought against the amount of pain they expected a prisoner to suffer. It was operated by the British government for almost a decade.
A copy of the secret policy showed senior intelligence officers and ministers feared the British public could be at greater risk of a terrorist attack if Islamists became aware of its existence.
One section states: "If the possibility exists that information will be or has been obtained through the mistreatment of detainees, the negative consequences may include any potential adverse effects on national security if the fact of the agency seeking or accepting information in those circumstances were to be publicly revealed.
"For instance, it is possible that in some circumstances such a revelation could result in further radicalisation, leading to an increase in the threat from terrorism."
Will Rumsfeld or other members of the Bush Regime finally be forced to pay for authorizing torture or will Obama step in to stop any such investigation.
President Obama has so far refused to take the Bush Regime to task for their illegal and immoral torture policies.
As some critics have noted that under Obama a similar policy on torture is continuing as Obama defends the use of torture by merely redefining Enhanced Interrogation Techniques such as "Sleep Deprivation", "Stress Positions", nudity ,verbal insults , threats and intimidation, solitary confinement , hooding, and even renditions and targeted assassinations as all Lawful and even moral if the President and executive branch permits it.
As Nixon notoriously said any action is to be considered legal and moral if the President okays it.
As we have seen alleged whistleblower Bradley Manning has been kept in prolonged solitary confinement for over a year and is the victim of sleep deprivation and threats and intimidation as he refuses to name anyone who was involved in his releasing documents to Wikileaks.
So Obama himself sees nothing wrong with the abuse and torture of so called detainees .
Obama appears to be more concerned as the Bush Regime was with such activities being made public.
Therefore we can conclude that both administrations were mostly concerned about the leaking of information and photos and video of such abuses by US personnel at Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, Basra and dozens of secret facilities than they are with the activities themselves.
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2011/08/04">
Judge OKs Suit Against Rumsfeld Over Alleged Torture
An American contractor who claims he was imprisoned and tortured by the U.S. military in Iraq can sue former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld personally for damages, the Associated Press reported.
The lawsuit claims that Rumsfeld personally approved torture on a case-by-case basis. (AP Photo)The man, whose name is withheld from court records, is a U.S. Army veteran who worked as a translator in Anbar province. The U.S. suspected him of helping Iraqi enemies acquire classified information and helping anti-coalition forces enter Iraq, the AP says, though he was never charged with a crime and says he never broke the law.The man’s federal lawsuit claims that Rumsfeld personally approved torture on a case-by-case basis and did not allow access to U.S. courts. His attorney, Mike Kanovitz of Chicago, says the U.S. military did not want his client to reveal information he’d acquired in Iraq.
“The U.S. government wasn’t ready for the rest of the world to know about it, so they basically put him on ice,” Kanovitz told the AP. “If you’ve got unchecked power over the citizens, why not use it?”
The Obama administration’s Justice Department has represented Rumsfeld and argued he cannot be sued personally for official conduct because, it argues, judges cannot review wartime decisions. The administration also argues the case could reveal sensitive information, the AP said.
U.S. District Judge James Gwin, a Bill Clinton appointee, said U.S. citizens retain their constitutional protections during wartime.
“The court finds no convincing reason that United States citizens in Iraq should or must lose previously declared substantive due process protections during prolonged detention in a conflict zone abroad,” Gwin wrote in a Tuesday ruling.
and so it goes,
GORD.
No comments:
Post a Comment