17LikesDo you think it's an issue voters care about?Originally Posted by Colin M
Do you think it's an issue voters care about?
It is about keeping people in their narrow thinking boxes.
They should care. How many do, is another matter.
Disappointing, but not surprising. It shows that smoothing over the waters and not rocking the boat in the name of a spurious harmony is regarded as being more important than seriously bringing malefactors to account. It shows a reprehensible indulgence to wrong-doing that is not on the wrong side of the fence. But it has ever been thus,since Ford's pardon to Richard Nixon.
No replies to this thread since yesterday afternoon.
I'll give some credit to owedtojoy for saying that he was disappointed in hearing this, but are any of the other Obama cheeerleaders trying to ignore commenting on this?
Disappointing is such a timid word though.
When a Muslim family pours acid over their children for whatever reason, showing their ankles in public, there is uproar on here and rightly so. But when America sends men "suspected" of terrorism to Uzbekistan to be raped with glass bottles and supported the dictatorship who rapes children in front of their parents and boils them alive it's "disappointing. But we can't live in the past. It happened 4 years ago. Any mention of it is whataboutery."
In fairness, as many on here have said, they did have a mandate to do all of this.
Good question.
It was on their broadcasts too.
The best bit is where Obama says he wants to look "Forward and not back" on this stuff. The cops should use that as an excuse not to investigate crimes more often. Oh, Obama WAS happy to look backwards though when they charged Kiriakou with revealing the name of the torturers.[/QUOTE]
I'm afraid if we apply that sort of logic - looking 'forward and not back' then we should really shut down the War Crime Trials in the Hague and let all those pieces of work from the Bosnian/Serb conflict go free.
The 'leaders of the free world' have already corrupted the Geneva Convention by declaring anyone who fights them 'enemy combatants' unless they wear a uniform or are part of a regular army or something stupid. Does this mean the Syrian, Libyan, etc. etc. rebels are not entitled to be treated as soldiers by US standards, and does the US therefore stand over Assad's killing and torturing of rebels - after all they are 'enemy combatants' rather than soldiers, and therefore not covered by any Geneva Convention.
The detention centres in Guantanamo were illegal by any international standard, as were the methods of 'interrogation' applied there. If Britain and Europe and the rest of the international community had any balls they would declare Bush a war criminal and declare Obama's decision invalid in the eyes of international law.
If the shoe was on the other foot - The US would do all in its power (possibly including an incursion into another country) to extract someone that they view as a war criminal or a so called terrorist.
I have great respect for the US people, but at this point I think they should focus on getting freedom and democracy in their their own country rather than pretending that they are trying to bring it to other countries.
The notion of International Justice is a joke when the West talk a great show, but in reality - they are mere lackeys to the might of the US perpetual war machine.
There probably isn't torture, but there is little doubt that the CIA and the Armed Forces have acted outside the limits of the law in Obama's Presidency as well, as I imagine they have in every Presidency at least since the start of WWII and probably since Washington. It's just the way it works and the world would be a very very different place if every state followed international law. In reality none do, that have any reason not to. Inevitably for that reason, people who do what they are told to do by the government of a state will never be chased.
Are you going through your relativist phase?
