Has the USA actually become an International HUMAN RIGHTS abuser?

[DaveFagan]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/25/opinion/americas-shameful-human-rights-record.html?_r=0 [h=1]A Cruel and Unusual Record[/h][h=6]By JIMMY CARTER[/h][h=6][/h][h=6]"Revelations that top officials are targeting people to be assassinated abroad, including American citizens, are only the most recent, disturbing proof of how far our nation’s violation of human rights has extended. This development began after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and has been sanctioned and escalated by bipartisan executive and legislative actions, without dissent from the general public. As a result, our country can no longer speak with moral authority on these critical issues. While the country has made mistakes in the past, the widespread abuse of human rights over the last decade has been a dramatic change from the past. With leadership from the United States, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted in 1948 as “the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.” This was a bold and clear commitment that power would no longer serve as a cover to oppress or injure people, and it established equal rights of all people to life, liberty, security of person, equal protection of the law and freedom from torture, arbitrary detention or forced exile. " "In addition to American citizens’ being targeted for assassination or indefinite detention, recent laws have canceled the restraints in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to allow unprecedented violations of our rights to privacy through warrantless wiretapping and government mining of our electronic communications. Popular state laws permit detaining individuals because of their appearance, where they worship or with whom they associate.
Despite an arbitrary rule that any man killed by drones is declared an enemy terrorist, the death of nearby innocent women and children is accepted as inevitable. After more than 30 airstrikes on civilian homes this year in Afghanistan, President Hamid Karzai has demanded that such attacks end, but the practice continues in areas of Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen that are not in any war zone. We don’t know how many hundreds of innocent civilians have been killed in these attacks, each one approved by the highest authorities in Washington. This would have been unthinkable in previous times. "

Are we now the big human rights abuser?
Do the citizens care? Should they care?
Does it make you feel proud?
Do you actually feel personally threatened by Terrorism?
[/h]

 

[sawyerloggingon]

I am fine with drone attacks on terrorist convoys in the middle of the desert, training camps and isolated local's but when you start killing surrounding innocent civilians you are doing more harm than good by creating 10 new terrorist for every one you kill. Some people will say it is standard collateral damage but we are doing these bombings in areas that are not declared war zones so that argument is null and void.

 

[VanceMack]

I suppose Carter is right and Obama IS a war criminal and human rights violator and should be arrested and held to stand trial.

 

[DaveFagan]

I suppose Carter is right and Obama IS a war criminal and human rights violator and should be arrested and held to stand trial.

It would also be necessary to arrest Saint Ronnie, Bush 1, Billy Clintoooon, and Bush the Moron. Sounds like a plan. Let's get started.

 

[CanadaJohn]

Jimmy Carter is a royal, preachy, pain in the ass who almost 40 years on still can't stomach the fact he was an abomination as President.

However, on the issue of drone attacks in countries that are not "officially" declared war zones, the man is correct.

 

[DaveFagan]

I am fine with drone attacks on terrorist convoys in the middle of the desert, training camps and isolated local's but when you start killing surrounding innocent civilians you are doing more harm than good by creating 10 new terrorist for every one you kill. Some people will say it is standard collateral damage but we are doing these bombings in areas that are not declared war zones so that argument is null and void.

Your understanding is exactly correct and the "Collateral Damage" is unacceptable and that is the point. I'm also not so sure that the "War on Terror" is anything more than a Corporate sales pitch by the Military/Industrial Complex to drum up business. A huge Media exaggeration of real time threats.

 

[sawyerloggingon]

Jimmy Carter is a royal, preachy, pain in the ass who almost 40 years on still can't stomach the fact he was an abomination as President.

However, on the issue of drone attacks in countries that are not "officially" declared war zones, the man is correct.

First time I have agreed with Carter too.

 

[sawyerloggingon]

It would also be necessary to arrest Saint Ronnie, Bush 1, Billy Clintoooon, and Bush the Moron. Sounds like a plan. Let's get started.

Was Bush doing this in heavily populated civilian areas? Honest question, I thought he wasn't.

 

[VanceMack]

It would also be necessary to arrest Saint Ronnie, Bush 1, Billy Clintoooon, and Bush the Moron. Sounds like a plan. Let's get started.

Sure thing. Set it off. You probably should have asked the question you MEANT to ask in your poll. "The US" is very vague and generic and its kinda tough to pin anything on anyone actually responsible. SO now we have it rolling...is Barrack Obama along with all those others you mention a 'war criminal' (and I guess we should include Kennedy and Johnson in the mix).

 

[DaveFagan]

Was Bush doing this in heavily populated civilian areas? Honest question, I thought he wasn't.

Human Rights. Bush made torture the USA interrogation standard. Need I say more? Bush1 and Saint Ronnie imported cocaine from Nicaragua and sold it in Los Angeles to finance weapons for the Contras. That's why Bush 1 pardoned eight cabinet members. Slick Willy Tomahawk missiled Afghanistan to try to assassinate Bin Ladin (good try, failed because he told the Pakistan ISI about it and they finked out to OBL and the SAME ISI GEN. MAHMOUD was a $50,000 Mohammed Atta financier)

 

[DaveFagan]

Sure thing. Set it off. You probably should have asked the question you MEANT to ask in your poll. "The US" is very vague and generic and its kinda tough to pin anything on anyone actually responsible. SO now we have it rolling...is Barrack Obama along with all those others you mention a 'war criminal' (and I guess we should include Kennedy and Johnson in the mix).

Simple answer. YES! However he has stopped the TORTURE institutionalized by Bush the Lesser. Yes to Kennedy and Johnson. Kennedy for Bay of Pigs and LBJ for Vietnam and specifically the Gulf of Tonkin lies..

 

[DaveFagan]

To the persons who have chosen NO as the answer, I feel compelled to point out that the dead non-combatants, mostly women and children, are still dead. It's gratifying to know that they were not abused and are just dead. Know what I mean? It's certainly not the fault of the one who pulled the trigger. Is it? Could be they are just no-good, lesser, evil beings who hang around with their families and drink beer or wine or pray. The 2 and 3 year olds are the real evil. otherwise they'd feel abused, I guess. Eh?

 

[Captain Adverse]

I am fine with drone attacks on terrorist convoys in the middle of the desert, training camps and isolated local's but when you start killing surrounding innocent civilians you are doing more harm than good by creating 10 new terrorist for every one you kill. Some people will say it is standard collateral damage but we are doing these bombings in areas that are not declared war zones so that argument is null and void.

You are right when you state "Some people will say it is standard collateral damage..." But that term has been horribly distorted ever since the Vietnam War.

I was a soldier myself and I acknowledge that in any war zone there are bound to be circumstances where "collateral damage" may accidentally occur, i.e. when artillery and other indirect fire is used, and when a civilian runs into a free fire zone in the middle of a fire-fight.

But I was also trained to identify and target enemy combatants, and to do my best to AVOID killing innocent civilians caught in the middle of combat. Today, it seems to have become an acceptable fact in efforts of combating terrorism. If there is a target surrounded by civilians, take him out anyway. The civilians are acceptable collateral damage.

But it is NOT acceptable because while we may be taking advantage of a target of opportunity, we are also serving to swell the ranks of terrorist organizations. If I saw my mom blown up I'd want a little vengeance, wouldn't you? That’s a perfectly understandable reaction on the part of the friends, family, and even general observers of the tragedy who blame us for the horrors they just witnessed. Each and every time this occurs it works to the detriment of our overall objectives because we are creating a never-ending supply of dedicated and highly motivated enemies.

I would rather see an expansion of CIA trained targeted assassinations than a continuation of this acceptable collateral damage policy. Bad as it sounds, at least that way we could try to claim higher moral grounds, meanwhile reducing the possibility of creating more enemy recruits we'd have to deal with later.

 

[VanceMack]

Simple answer. YES! However he has stopped the TORTURE institutionalized by Bush the Lesser. Yes to Kennedy and Johnson. Kennedy for Bay of Pigs and LBJ for Vietnam and specifically the Gulf of Tonkin lies..

You sure about that? How about the expanded black ops prisons in the ME? Sure is easier to not have to worry about GITMO if you just keep the captured in Afghanistan and other places...right?

Like I said...as long as you are speciic it is an honest question.

 

[DaveFagan]

You are right when you state "Some people will say it is standard collateral damage..." But that term has been horribly distorted ever since the Vietnam War.

I was a soldier myself and I acknowledge that in any war zone there are bound to be circumstances where "collateral damage" may accidentally occur, i.e. when artillery and other indirect fire is used, and when a civilian runs into a free fire zone in the middle of a fire-fight.

But I was also trained to identify and target enemy combatants, and to do my best to AVOID killing innocent civilians caught in the middle of combat. Today, it seems to have become an acceptable fact in efforts of combating terrorism. If there is a target surrounded by civilians, take him out anyway. The civilians are acceptable collateral damage.

But it is NOT acceptable because while we may be taking advantage of a target of opportunity, we are also serving to swell the ranks of terrorist organizations. If I saw my mom blown up I'd want a little vengeance, wouldn't you? That’s a perfectly understandable reaction on the part of the friends, family, and even general observers of the tragedy who blame us for the horrors they just witnessed. Each and every time this occurs it works to the detriment of our overall objectives because we are creating a never-ending supply of dedicated and highly motivated enemies.

I would rather see an expansion of CIA trained targeted assassinations than a continuation of this acceptable collateral damage policy. Bad as it sounds, at least that way we could try to claim higher moral grounds, meanwhile reducing the possibility of creating more enemy recruits we'd have to deal with later.

I agree with the post with the exception of the CIA trained targeted assassinations. I don't trust the CIA. They've been too politicized by their proximity to the sewage system surrounded by the Beltway known as GOV'T.

 

[Morality Games]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/25/opinion/americas-shameful-human-rights-record.html?_r=0 [h=1]A Cruel and Unusual Record[/h][h=6]By JIMMY CARTER[/h][h=6][/h][h=6]"Revelations that top officials are targeting people to be assassinated abroad, including American citizens, are only the most recent, disturbing proof of how far our nation’s violation of human rights has extended. This development began after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and has been sanctioned and escalated by bipartisan executive and legislative actions, without dissent from the general public. As a result, our country can no longer speak with moral authority on these critical issues. While the country has made mistakes in the past, the widespread abuse of human rights over the last decade has been a dramatic change from the past. With leadership from the United States, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted in 1948 as “the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.” This was a bold and clear commitment that power would no longer serve as a cover to oppress or injure people, and it established equal rights of all people to life, liberty, security of person, equal protection of the law and freedom from torture, arbitrary detention or forced exile. " "In addition to American citizens’ being targeted for assassination or indefinite detention, recent laws have canceled the restraints in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to allow unprecedented violations of our rights to privacy through warrantless wiretapping and government mining of our electronic communications. Popular state laws permit detaining individuals because of their appearance, where they worship or with whom they associate.
Despite an arbitrary rule that any man killed by drones is declared an enemy terrorist, the death of nearby innocent women and children is accepted as inevitable. After more than 30 airstrikes on civilian homes this year in Afghanistan, President Hamid Karzai has demanded that such attacks end, but the practice continues in areas of Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen that are not in any war zone. We don’t know how many hundreds of innocent civilians have been killed in these attacks, each one approved by the highest authorities in Washington. This would have been unthinkable in previous times. "

Are we now the big human rights abuser?
Do the citizens care? Should they care?
Does it make you feel proud?
Do you actually feel personally threatened by Terrorism?
[/h]

The problem with dragging forward any of the presidents responsible for whatever excesses the United States has gone to is that they are taking action based on parameters that have been culturally and legally acceptable for decades.

The American people didn't believe things like Iran Contra mattered 27 years ago (not enough to punish or correct Reagan), so every subsequent president has taken such policies not just as their prerogative, but as their responsibility and the cornerstone of an effective post-Cold War foreign policy.

 

[AliHajiSheik]

Oh boy, another weepy thread. I didn't vote for the guy but he is the President and sometimes have to make decisions we don't like. If he commits a crime, then our elected representatives need to pursue him. If our elected representatives commit a crime, then we need to go after them too.

Or were you planning a citizens arrest?

 

[Wiggen]

I am fine with drone attacks on terrorist convoys in the middle of the desert, training camps and isolated local's but when you start killing surrounding innocent civilians you are doing more harm than good by creating 10 new terrorist for every one you kill. Some people will say it is standard collateral damage but we are doing these bombings in areas that are not declared war zones so that argument is null and void.

So the best thing for terrorists to do is to base themselves amongst innocent civilians? Nah, they would never do that.

 

[Wiggen]

You sure about that? How about the expanded black ops prisons in the ME? Sure is easier to not have to worry about GITMO if you just keep the captured in Afghanistan and other places...right?

Like I said...as long as you are speciic it is an honest question.

I knew if I lived long enough I'd see you defending the rights of terrorists and their human rights. I guess it all depends on who the President is, right?

 

[VanceMack]

I knew if I lived long enough I'd see you defending the rights of terrorists and their human rights. I guess it all depends on who the President is, right?

Dood...you have probably missed the numerous times I have defended Obamas actions in the war against terrorists...about the only thing I have an appreciation of, but at least there is that. Dont project your thoughtless political ideology on others....mmmkay? You will look less goofy that way.

 

[TheDemSocialist]

Yea. We have been a human rights abuse nation for a very long time, and a state sponsored terrorist state for a long time as well.

 

[sawyerloggingon]

So the best thing for terrorists to do is to base themselves amongst innocent civilians? Nah, they would never do that.

The do exactly that but what do we gain in the long run killing innocent women and children to take them out? Seems to me we just create more terrorist.

 

[TheGirlNextDoor]

Simple answer. YES! However he has stopped the TORTURE institutionalized by Bush the Lesser. Yes to Kennedy and Johnson. Kennedy for Bay of Pigs and LBJ for Vietnam and specifically the Gulf of Tonkin lies..

Then Congress needs to be held just as responsible, no?

 

[DaveFagan]

Then Congress needs to be held just as responsible, no?

Yes and No. In the recent deal with Snowden, Wyden and Udall tried to get the NSA head Clapper and McCullough to testify regarding surveillance within the USA and both of these officials lied outright to these Congressmen. I, personally, think most Congressmen and women are scumbags and are chosen to run for office by those character traits. They are all sellouts to Corporate America and don't realize that, we the people, are the ones they are elected to represent. That is what is so reprehensible about Clapper and McCullough lying to Wyden and Udall. Who speaks for us? You and I and Grandma.

 

[Wiggen]

The do exactly that but what do we gain in the long run killing innocent women and children to take them out? Seems to me we just create more terrorist.

So your solution is what? Let's just leave the terrorists alone? Yeah, that works.