more "minor stuff"

[Cyrus]

"I think that [American] soldiers determined to be guilty of abuse should be turned over to the Iraqi authority. I think it would promote goodwill, and discourage future bad acts."

Unfortunately, the United States refuses to recognize any outside jurisdiction over the behavior of its armed forces. Only American courts can judge Americans.

Even if an American soldier is caught cutting off ears off Iraqi men or setting off fire to Iraqi babies, no World Court can lay a hand on him, as such a court did with the likes of Serbian military about Kosovo. The American administration has ripped off all treaties that bind it to international jurisdiction on these matters. This is how things are, America is virtually a rogue state in the world.

Would you say that this regime of impunity can rub off the American soldiers and encourage them to engage in criminal behavior? Just a thought.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
Tuco:It is not just a few assh#%@# to blame here. A great number of soldiers in Iraq don't have any knowledge of the Geneva Convention or what it GUARANTEES prisoners held by governments that signed the document.

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you know this?


[ QUOTE ]
M: So I do definitely think we can and should blame Saddam and his vast Baathist party machinery and leadership for widespread tortures and murders, and also blame a few of our own jerks for serrious but lesser abuses. But those are two very different things.

Tuco: Tell that to the prisoners who had phosphoric liquid poured on them, or were urinated on. The amount of good you do isn't a "sum" figure. You are either good, or you are not.

[/ QUOTE ]

You seem to be weighing first and foremost those who are the transgressors. But what about from the victims' perpective? Getting beaten or urinated on is a lot less bad than getting tortured to death, right? Few victims of abuse isn't as bad as a great many victims of abuse, right? These are not even close to equivalent comparisons, from the victims' perspectives, or considering the net amounts of suffering.

What I think is happening here, in our discussion, is that a reflection of how we tend to think about such things is starting to emerge. You seem primarily focused on the transgressors--in this case the handful of US soldiers--while I seem preoccupied with the suffering of victims, and how to relieve it. I have noticed a similar difference in perspective when discussing things with Andy Fox.

[Cyrus]

Where do you get off downplaying this stuff by "keeping it in perspective"? You should hide in a cave or something until the administration pulls the curtains over the whole thing. Unless you are totally shameless about what you say or do!

"Just watch the liberals and Arabs have a field day with this."

Then you too should be a liberal and an Arab, if only liberals and Arabs are against torture, without any damn "perspective".

As to Saddam Hussein, give me a [censored] break! It was the liberals who, many years ago, were protesting and calling on the hypocrisy of the United States when it was allowing Arch-Torturer Saddam to gas the Kurds and supporting him in his "just fight" against Iran (which he had invaded!). So your "comparison" between American atrocities and Saddam's atrocities not only is totally irrelevant (as if one crime can nullify the other) but it is also so very hollow.

[MMMMMM]

Cyrus there is little doubt that these guys will be punished.

It is a good thing that world courts do not have criminal jurisdiction over the US military, because if they did, those courts would quickly be politicized and subverted much like the ridiculous and pernicious United Nations . How you can not realize this is actually quite baffling.

The USA was created to escape from the cesspool which is the rest of the world. Allowing the world jurisdiction over the USA would be counterproductive, and contrary to the purpose and principles our nation was founded on.

[MMMMMM]

Cyrus, none of this is hollow or irrelevant if you consider things from the victims' perspective.

Why isn't this obvious.

[Cyrus]

Could it possibly be that Clarke was absolutely correct?

QUOTE : "What [the Bush administration] will do is stagger along until there's a major incident and then suddenly say, 'Oh my God, shouldn't we be organized to deal with this?' "

DATELINE : February 2001.



Et tu Bremer ?

[Cyrus]

"There is little doubt that these guys will be punished."

Of course they will be punished! They were caught...

"It is a good thing that world courts do not have criminal jurisdiction over the US military, because if they did, those courts would quickly be politicized and subverted."

The United States has refused all proposals to ensure even a modicum of neutral and independent jurisdiction, just like every other nation on Earth, on the issue of human rights. Even refused to have some sort of veto power. The reason is the U.S. did not want anyone peeking into what its military is up to. Surprised ?

"The USA was created to escape from the cesspool which is the rest of the world."

OK so now I get it. It is the United States versus the world, innit? You must be getting your view of the world from Marvel comics.

"Allowing the world jurisdiction over the USA would be counterproductive, and contrary to the purpose and principles our nation was founded on."

If you believe that the United States is doing the right thing and that the United States is different from all other countries, then it logically follows that all the other countries should try to emulate the United States in all respects, in order to rise to the level of the United States. Which means that every country in the world should also refuse to recognize world courts, the U.N. and international treaties!..

[Cyrus]

"None of this is hollow or irrelevant if you consider things from the victims' perspective."

Your arguments are what's hollow and irrelevant. From my perspective.

And as to victims, well Decency is the victim of your logic.

So I would suggest taking your damn "perspective" and shoving it up where the sun don't shine, just like what the American soldiers did to their Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib. One can only imagine what has gone down in Guantanamo all these years, where no reporters, no lawyers, no relatives and no outsiders whatsoever have been allowed near the prisoners.

[MMMMMM]

Every country should fail to recognize the UN.

This USA is not "against" the rsst of the world, but our Constitution was specifically designed to avoid the kinds of atrocities and loss of rights that have plagued mankind throughout the ages. Religious freedom was also a principal reason for the founding of the USA. Sadly, we have strayed somewhat from the Constititution and Bill of Rights. No ther country has anything as good as the Constitution to form a basis for just government and protection of individual rights.

World Courts and the UN are bad ideas. International treaties however are a necessary aspect of international relations.

Countries should not recognize the UN or World Court. Better these institutions die a natural death from neglect.

[Cyrus]

Your post doesn't need any response or improvement. It is brilliant enough as it is. This here post of mine is redundant!

I will only say this, though, to help others understand the depth of your logic : Imagine every country in the world behaving like the United States does in international affairs. What a wonderful world it would be.

"Countries should not recognize the UN or World Court. Better these institutions die a natural death from neglect."

The World Court, dear jester, had a parent and that parent was the United States! Right after the World Court was born, the United States exempted itself from its jurisdiction. All countries are equal in front of the Court but I guess some countries are more equal than others.