Slashdot Mirror

Why, yes I can, Dora, as if it mattered. And this isn't a popularity contest, where the countries you like are the ones that matter. Here's why Indonesia sucks, and here's why Ethiopia sucks, and why Equatorial Guinea sucks, and why Gabon sucks. I haven't even touched on their poor economies, or poor literacy. And BTW,this is why YOU suck.

Why, yes I can, Dora, as if it mattered. And this isn't a popularity contest, where the countries you like are the ones that matter. Here's why Indonesia sucks, and here's why Ethiopia sucks, and why Equatorial Guinea sucks, and why Gabon sucks. I haven't even touched on their poor economies, or poor literacy. And BTW,this is why YOU suck.

Why, yes I can, Dora, as if it mattered. And this isn't a popularity contest, where the countries you like are the ones that matter. Here's why Indonesia sucks, and here's why Ethiopia sucks, and why Equatorial Guinea sucks, and why Gabon sucks. I haven't even touched on their poor economies, or poor literacy. And BTW,this is why YOU suck.

People who are being persecuted in Thailand might wonder how it's being spent: http://asiancorrespondent.com/42468/whats-the-point-of-amnesty-international-in-thailand/

Yes, Amnesty is clearly ignoring everything that goes on in Thailand: http://www.amnesty.org/en/region/thailand
And yes, that was sarcasm.

I thought it was obvious that Israel's human rights record is still better than that of the majority of the countries in the region. http://www.amnesty.org/en/annual-report/2011/middle-east-north-africa if you don't want to take my word for it.

Here's the UN report. It should be pointed out that the UN investigator had to make this report without unmonitored access to Manning because the US government refused 'unfettered' access, which is what the UN expects of all cooperating states.

Here's a Welsh MP expressing her concern about Manning's treatment, particularly relevant because Manning is apparently a Welsh citizen in addition to being a US citizen.

Here's Amnesty International.

If you haven't noticed that there's at least a serious question regarding whether Manning's been tortured, you've probably been limiting yourself to mainstream US media.

http://www.amnesty.org/

They're about protecting human rights though, not about whistleblowing, per-se.

They tend to work via traditional means, and do a pretty good job of it.

There is this thing called Google. It's pretty cool. You should try it out one of these days.

http://www.amnesty.org/

And a quarter of the number of people that the US has in jail.

These are political prisoners, not ordinary every day thieves or drug dealers.

http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/images-reveal-scale-north-korean-political-prison-camps-2011-05-03

Interesting how ready people are to rush to the defence of anything to bash the US. I'm a Zimbabwean in the UK, BTW and I regularly hear people defending Mugabe, presumably because they think he's left wing and anti American. There is some incredible loss of perspective, unfortunately but also demonstrates how little anyone really cares about "the poor people in X" when compared to making some political point at home.

All that claptrap about "the free press" and "guardians of democracy" is a pile of cow dung, as anyone who lived through the last 10 years can easily tell. Read your history books and you will see that it has always been thus.

This is true only if U.S. history begins at World War II. In the late 1800s and early 1900s there were labor papers which were mainly subscription supported, with local news, educational articles, and union events. There were many of these, some small, some with a broader reach. For example as late as the 1930s the Institute for Propaganda Analysis, which taught people how to read and think critically, had significant influence.

The media consists almost entirely of hired shills, whose job it is to influence your opinion in exchange for money.

While this is generally true of US corporate news, here are four exceptions: Amnesty International, Christian Science Monitor, DemocracyNow, and Z Magazine.

It's the ad-supported news that increasingly becomes business-supporting news; particularly when the news media organization is owned by big business.

Have you even read that link?!

I see a number of reports about political activists (didn't research each case so don't know if we're talking peaceful marchers or rioting vandals - you may say it doesn't matter, but that's a point for discussion in my opinion) being in jail - at least one report of them being released. Reports about tight control of the media - something we both have to worry about in our countries (I'm assuming you're from US - I'm from UK), but probably not to the same extent.

But I don't see anything that goes against:

There is no torture. People aren't kept in jail without trial. There are elections, and if we can discuss their fairness and the weird system they use, it's not the case only in Cuba (hint, 2000 election in the USA). There is no forced labor camps. Police don't open fire on protests. ...

One of the best healthcare system of the world (with the same life expectancy as USA despite the blockade, and a lower child death rate), one of the best educative system of the world (lower illiteracy and higher university enrollment rate than in USA).

Although it does seem that people are "jailed for disagreeing" with the state - but considering that I too can be arrested for disagreeing with a copper (affectionately referred to as 'dancing with a copper' :P) or even just using 'inappropriate language', you have to admit there's a fuzzy factor in the use of language and lack of specific details. I.E its hard to say how they were 'disagreeing' or just how strenuously/violently.

I do also see a number of reports to being jailed without trial, alleged torture and indefinite detention - however they all refer to Guantanamo Bay facility, which I'm sure you know is not under control of the Cuban Authority - nor is it approved of by them. This particular one is the one that pulls on my heart strings, and I would've thought might garner some American sympathy as well. A 15 year old boy that was defending himself from foreign troops - and he gets charged with war crimes, taken to a secret prison and facing indefinite detention even if he is acquitted?!

  I suppose it's hard to notice this on the Amnesty International site while perusing the USA page, as the same story from the 12th of August is on page 9 of the USA directory, as opposed to page 2 of Cuba. Which I would say helps to prove the GP's point about Cuba not being as bad as some of its neighbours...

You gotta be kidding. You're wrong about just about everything. Read, for instance what Amnesty International has to say:
http://www.amnesty.org/en/region/cuba

Otherwise your local employees may find themselves detained by police and questioned. Vigorously.

That article is bullshit. El Salvador doesn't have capital punishment for anything but exceptional crimes, and hasn't since 1983

There is a much more reasonable approach to gaining Assange and Manning publicity that even the U.S. government's PR machine cannot silence. You should send Amnesty International a donation together with a note saying they should name Julian Assange and Bradley Manning as prisoners of conscience. You might say roughly :

"I would be very appreciative if you'd consider spending this donation on evaluating more thoroughly the evidence against Julian Assange and Bradley Manning. I believe you will conclude that Assange is in-fact a prisoner of conscience once you've investigated the matter fully. We are all well aware that most regimes will go to great lengths to obfuscate their politically motivated criminal charges, but striping away that facade will naturally require more effort in the west.

Beyond this, there is an underlying truth that Assange's imprisonment sends a message of amoral support to repressive regimes the world over, especially those large enough to feel they have a popular mandate by virtue of economics, like China and Russia. The Bush administration has already provided these regimes with ample ammunition for acts of torture and coercion, assuming they can lie about any given prisoner seeming dangerous. Please take a stand against this further expanding this amoral support.

I recognize that Bradley Manning's case involves further subtleties surrounding his obligations to protect classified material, some of which must remain confidential to protect others. It is nevertheless clear that his actions were based on conscience and require detailed examination."

That'd be a shit storm if Amnesty deemed either one as prisoners of conscience.

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/about/reports/ [greenpeace.org] http://www.amnesty.org/en/who-we-are/accountability/financial-reports [amnesty.org] Wikileaks as an organization is not being prosecuted. Assange (who I criticized, not Wikileaks) is being prosecuted for a reason, in Sweden of all places. Sweden is pretty damned famous for being neutral in diplomatic affairs. Sweden is the same country that refuses to extradite Polanski to the US. So please continue your crazy conspiracy notion that the rape charges are due to agents of foreign governments.

your argument is invalid.

wikileaks AND assange are both being prosecuted. prosecution has not taken the form of a case of court of law yet. (Despite it might have in some countries). yet, national spy agencies have been already going after them, and now national governments are going after them openly too.

assange had to leave switzerland because of what exactly ? american pressure. how couldnt he stay in sweden, in one of the freest countries of earth ? american pressure.

americans are OPENLY pressuring and wanting to prosecute him. interpol issued a warrant for him just recently.

and you are coming up saying wikileaks is not being prosecuted. not only assange IS wikileaks, but there are already moves to get ahold of everything in wikileaks.

really. you are talking about an outfit that has released innumerable crap about a lot of powerful interests and countries, and you are saying they are not being prosecuted.

thats why im telling you to get a fucking clue.

neither amnesty international, nor greenpeace, or your church, has the risk of getting their funds in a random bank confiscated under any kind of random pretense because of international pressure.

geeet a fucking clue, again.

My church discloses the money they take in and where every penny gets spent. It is a large reason of why I attend that particular church. I value transparency.

Many non-profits are transparent with their funds. Since you asked:

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/about/reports/

http://www.amnesty.org/en/who-we-are/accountability/financial-reports

Wikileaks as an organization is not being prosecuted. Assange (who I criticized, not Wikileaks) is being prosecuted for a reason, in Sweden of all places. Sweden is pretty damned famous for being neutral in diplomatic affairs. Sweden is the same country that refuses to extradite Polanski to the US. So please continue your crazy conspiracy notion that the rape charges are due to agents of foreign governments.

Someone has suggested killing Assange as a means to protect national interests. I didn't defend that notion, in fact I argued against it.

The difference between Amnesty International is that they are fairly transparent, and well respected. And Amnesty International (who does also criticize governments and try to expose corruption) has blasted Assange and Wikileaks. Did you know that?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/10/amnesty-international-hum_n_677048.html

I called Assange a hypocrite because he claims his life's work is about transparency, yet he operates under the guise of total secrecy. Do you want to argue that doesn't make him a hypocrite?

And you're telling me to get a fucking clue? Take two seconds and read up on the shit you want to pretend you know something about.

Incarceration rate per 100,000: U.S. 754 Iran 222 percent

Maybe the difference can be explained by those women stoned to death?
(don't worry, it's now possible they dismiss the stoning and hang her instead)

What's funny is that under the definition given, there has never been a true dictator. There is always opposition.

"Amnesty International fears that this assault on key institutions of accountability, combined with sweeping emergency powers, will exacerbate existing patterns of human rights abuse, including torture and other ill-treatment, arbitrary detention, enforced disappearances and use of excessive force to suppress peaceful dissent,"

"Are you saying that it isn't just to formally revenge the victim?"

The answer depends on how you define Justice, I would define the implementation of justice as an act that restores, or adequately compensates for, what the victim has lost. Some deeds simply can't be undone or justly compensated for. Other than the poetic kind (and using my #def) there is no possible justice for the murder victim, although blood money may compensate the relatives for the loss of the victims material input, it does nothing for the victim.

The overused Gahndi quote sums it up best "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind". The victim and the murderer are both dead and (unless you believe in hell), are no longer suffering. The outcome for those still alive after the execution is a doubling of the number of families that are suffering a loss.

Since murder can't be undone the question then becomes one of can we do anything to the murderer to deter other would-be murderers, such as publicly hang, draw and quater him followed by prominently displaying the butchered corpse at various public places? It's a logical idea that appeals to our base emotions but real world experience says it doesn't work as a deterent even for less passionate crimes such as drug smuggling.

"Of course given that the real murderer is executed, that he got a fair trial, that the murder wasn't an accident etc"

In the same manner that you can defeat terrorists without using their methods, you can punish murderers without killing them. Personally I think the state should set the example of - we only kill in self defence or defence of the innocent in mortal danger, but it's "you're country - you're rules".

None of the above means I think that murders don't deserve a bullet to the head but what we are given is the track record of the state/church/lynch-mob, It says that there is a very significant risk of inadvertently commiting the irreversible act you're trying to deter. IMHO and the opinion of the clear majority of nation states, it's an unacceptable risk.

I don't see the US joining the rest of the world in this "enlightened" view of capital punishment any time soon. A poll of SCOTUS a few years ago found that a majority of the SC Judges thought that shooting an unarmed fleeing thief was justifyable.

Good point. I find it fascinating that slashdot is quoting a web site called "iran video news" that is run out of Arizona. If this is the only source that is reporting Iran is "considering" the death penalty then why the fuck should we believe it? We already know that the United States runs an intense media propaganda network around the world, and used it domestically during the build up to the Iraq war. In terms of Iran's use of the death penalty, they are definitely more fascist than we are, and these executions should stop. At the same time, why don't we start looking at our OWN record? Wouldn't it be easier to end our own human rights transgressions before attacking those of other countries? We've imprisoned journalists, and we've executed people who were children when they committed their crimes, the mentally retarded, and have condemned to death many people who were probably innocent, so our high horse on capital punishment and the imprisonment of journalists is not particularly "high". We've also now started imprisoning without trial and even torture.

I am sad to see slashdot fall for this obvious propaganda. I thought you guys were good critical thinkers.

http://news.google.com/news?q=iran%20crackdown

http://www.amnesty.org/en/region/iran

etc

maybe you don't see the evidence because you're not making the slightest effort to see the obvious?

oh, this is where you disqualify all these observations because they are "western media". nevermind the fact you can find this news from all over the world, right? and as for blog posts: they couldn't possibly be from real iranians, its all cia propaganda, right?

all we need is a proper objective fact finding mission of actual abuse by the iranian regime on its own citizens, right? ok genius: lets go and form that fact finding mission. i think we will find the iranian government quite helpful in that regard

the iranian government distorts all media from iran... but you will not find reason to criticize the regime... until you find media that is undistorted from iran. chicken and egg, no?

or put it this way: if you find the evidence to be undependable, an assertion that all is milk and honey in iran is just as dubious as the assertion that all is not right, correct? in which case, you need to apply your mind, and look at the smoke and figure out if there is a fire

look at the amazing effort the cia is making in formulating youtube posts of abuse, of making up blogs and tweets, of all iranian observers of any ideological attitude united in their depictions of what is going on in iran, including expat iranians. and then conclude what? that the cia is really good at making shit up? pffffffft

iraq was a travesty of bad info. because of that, don't conclude ALL info you receive about american enemies is made up. or YOU compound the damage the iraq fiasco was

Does the US have an extradition treaty with Venezuela?

"President Chavez emphasized that terrorist Luis Posada Carriles should be extradited to Venezuela, according to the extradition treaty between governments in Caracas and Washington."

I guess I could have Googled it quite easily :-(

The US courts seem to think that he's under threat of torture if he is returned, although the Amnesty International report doesn't state that much that is hugely controversial for Venezuela (and the US has no qualms about shipping folks to worse destinations).

True - but in all the hubbub about al-Magrehi there's a lot of hidden sub-texts that made that hubbub all the louder:

Maybe I should have phrased it differently. When I mentioned the hubbub I meant all the voices against his release with shouts about there being deals made. A lot of Americans opposed his released, when as you say there are questions as to his guilt, but there's no outcry from Americans for the government to hand over another accused terrorist.

Although I note that the treaty excludes political crimes (including assassination of political folks), crimes that come with them a death penalty, or life imprisonment (unless assurances are given), crimes committed outside the statute of limitations, folks who've applied for asylum (decision deferred until proceedings complete), and their own citizens. Quite a readable document, surprisingly! (not that I'm saying his lawyers have argued that he's exempt).

But, yes, I agree that there are some double-standards on the part of the US authorities - but then the relationship with Venezuela in 1922 (when the treaty was written) was probably different to what it is now....

That's the most propagandistic summary I have seen in a while. Chávez has been democratically elected and Venezuela has a freer press than Colombia, Mexico, Pakistan and other US allies, including puppet governments like Iraq and Afghanistan where the US could simply tell the leaders to enact laws and impose freedom of the press by decree. Not only that, TV stations actively collaborated with a coup d'état against Chávez, and instead of rounding up the criminals and sending them to jail or to the firing squad, he left them in place, and waited for the licence of one station to expire.

I've spent the better part of this afternoon commenting here and there in this article and I'm exhausted, so I'll be brief, although I'd certainly prefer to reply more extensively.
I don't know anything, to be honest, about the situation regarding press freedoms in Colombia, Pakistan and Mexico. However, it's ridiculous to imply journalism is just fine* and dandy down here.

Furthermore, I'm curious: how, exactly, does a TV station collaborate with a military coup?

* you have to select "Venezuela" in the combo box here to get the listing.

I wonder what his repeat statistics are in comparison to other places that run taxpayer funded country clubs.

Well, I'm pretty sure that those roving gangs of mentally handicapped people are going to think twice before loitering in any convenience stores. I'm sure that Arizonans can be proud of his "tough on being confused in public" stance, and those pansies from Amnesty International just don't understand just how much danger the coffee pot could have been in from that 130 pound giant if Sheriff Joe and his boys hadn't beaten and tortured him to death.

Of course, I'm just cherry picking the one, lone example of a harmless little guy with the mind of a twelve year old who was murdered by Sheriff Joe. I'm sure that everybody else who has died while in Sheriff Joe's custody have been dangerous, vicious criminals and not, say, people whose only crime was appearing to be mexican, or a blind man serving a short sentence for shoplifting, who accidentally fell out of his bunk so hard that he broke his neck, ruptured his intestines, gave himself severe internal bleeding and broke all of his own toes.

Yeah, that's the kind of "tough on blind guys who commit misdemeanors" stance that we can all support, isn't it?

And this is the country that won't lift a finger to prosecute those companies complicit in warrantless wiretapping of its own citizens.

Not to mention the broad range of human rights abuses by the USA.

If anyone wants to look at the facts and decide whether I'm right or gujo-odori is right, my position is supported by:

1. Israelis commit just as much terrorism as the Palestinians (and the Israelis have killed far more Palestinians than vice versa)
http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/MDE02/005/2002

2. The U.S. government commits entrapment by having its paid informers entice otherwise law-abiding Muslims into breaking the law.
http://www.thislife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?sched=1088

3. Most normal people will commit war crimes just like the Nazis did if they are placed in an environment like the Nazis were in. This was proven by the social scientists Stanley Milgram http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment and Philip Zimbardo. http://www.prisonexp.org/ . This was confirmed by the real-world experience of the U.S. military in Afghanistan and Iraq.

These government agents are professionals at manipulating people. You are an amateur at defending yourself from their manipulation. You don't know what you could be manipulated or tricked into doing.

The government informer threatened to kill John DeLorean's daughter. Would you have let them kill your family?

You can't condemn someone else by saying that you would never have done such a thing. You don't know.

You show me a person who says "Yeah, sure" to an offer of blowing up a Synagogue for cash and I'll show you a person with a predisposition to do that anyway.

If you had read psychologists like Stanley Milgram http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_milgram you'd know that most people could be manipulated to do exactly what the Nazis did by someone who is a skillful manipulator -- and informers are skillful manipulators. If you read testimony at these trials, you'll see that the defendants made innocent decisions that would have seemed reasonable at the time, and one thing led to another.

If you had been in that situation, an undercover agent might have manipulated you into going along with the plot.

Prejudice against Muslims? Hardly. You *have* noticed that the people going around doing this are primarily young, primarily Muslim, primarily male, right?

Prejudice unsupported by facts. The Israelis commit just as much terrorism as Arabs and Muslims. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yigal_Amir http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/MDE02/005/2002 And the U.S. has supported many terrorist movements against Cuba, Nicaragua, etc.

If moderate Muslims want Islam to be respected rather than suspected, they need to stand up and denounce terror and denounce terrorists. Even when those terrorists are state actors.

That is such bullshit I don't want to go through the details. You'll have to look up Gershom Gorenberg's articles yourself. Let's just say that I was working to free Muslims from jail who were imprisoned for denouncing terrorism.

What's my race and religion? You can call me Irish Catholic. In some parts of the world, that might have gotten me some extra scrutiny once upon a time and I wouldn't call it unfair. People with names like mine and a religion like mine were planting bombs in London, and some here in the US were helping to finance them. If our terrorism problems here were with people of Irish ancestry and Catholic religion, I'd be quite understanding if that got me secondary screening when I fly, and I wouldn't be whining that it's racism or prejudice.

There's at least one case that I can remember of a group of innocent Irish people who were convicted of terrorism charges in England and who served decades in jail, where one of them died, until it turned out that the scientific evidence against them, of nitrates, was faulty and they were released.

According to this article in Slate, http://www.slate.com/id/1003657/ entrapment requires 3 things:

1. The idea of committing the crime came from law enforcement officers, rather than the defendant.

2. The law enforcement officers induced the person to commit the crime.

3. The defendant was not ready and willing to commit this type of crime before being induced to do so.

Many of these terrorist cases meet all 3 requirements.

Repeatedly, an informer went to American residents who had previously had no contact with Islamic terrorism.

Repeatedly, the informer came up with the plot, and encouraged the defendant to participate by offering him substantial amounts of money.

Repeatedly, the defendant had never participated in this kind of activity before, and would never have done so if the informer hadn't suggested it and facilitated it, often by providing bogus "weapons."

The prosecutors claim that the defendants would or might have some day participated in terrorism anyway. That's speculation which would only convince jurors who are prejudiced to believe that Muslims or Arabs are terrorists.

For example, listen to the case of Hemant Lakhani on This American Life. http://www.thislife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?sched=1088 .

The good ole USA (and Australia, etc).

equating Norton with China, North Korea, or any of the numerous and viable human rights watch hotspots on the planet.

And the reports of phosphorous bombs, among other things, are pretty damn credible.

Actually, they are not. Not even the most die-hard leftist at ONU is giving much credit to these alegations.

Amnesty International: Israel used white phosphorus in Gaza civilian areas
White Phosphorous and Dense Inert Metal Explosives: Is Israel Using Banned and Experimental Munitions in Gaza?

Ah, thanks for that correction. I heard the statistic and was repeating without verifying. The population referred to the west bank as well. Even so the point can still stand.

"Over three-quarters of the current estimated population of some 1.4 million are registered refugees; representing 22.42 per cent of all UNRWA registered Palestine refugees." - http://www.un.org/unrwa/refugees/gaza.html

"Today, some 300,000 Palestinian refugees reside in Lebanon" (Its increased since then) - http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/MDE18/010/2007/en/dom-MDE180102007en.html

"the 1.7 million refugees registered with UNRWA in Jordan." - http://www.un.org/unrwa/refugees/jordan.html

And expect more in syria, the west bank, egypt and saudi arabia.

"The problem is that drug laws and enforcement (particulary in the US) are insanely draconian."

Compared to what? There are many places in Asia where possession carries life imprisonment or even the death penalty.

Check this out.

Community service, court-ordered rehab, even a couple of years in jail hardly seems draconian.

Listen to what the parent is saying, folks. It's the difference between freedom and dictatorship, and apparently a principal that some portion of the population in the US and UK don't understand.

The UK is doing better lately.

The US has further to go to get back on track:

Wow, it's not every day you see a post like that one:

given who these people are (and indeed who they work for [e.g. US military]), I think the results can be trusted.

And then the sig:

Amnesty International

> Why...Do you need to access the Amnesty International website to cover the Olympics?

Amnesty International have been maintaining a running journal of the Chinese Government's crackdown in the run-up to the Olympics. On Monday they published a major report entitled ``The Olympics Countdown: Broken Promises'' which followed-up from an equally stinging April report:

http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/report/chinese-authorities-broken-promises-threaten-olympic-legacy-20080728

Perhaps you missed this on the BBC? After all, it was only on every half-hourly World Service bulletin ( alongside a report on how those journalists already in China could not read it ).

If I were a journalist in Beijing, monitoring the AI website to determine where unrest was being quashed would be a fairly important daily activity.

I feel the same way. This is the same as certain political entities attempting to tie every crime on the planet to terrorism. The person who posted that is obviously unacquainted with world events. Its rather easy to do a little research and find sites like Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch

FTFA:

"Caputo: Here we are, a company founded on improving the quality of the experience of the internet and trying to make the world a better place."

Come on... The company is founded on maximizing revenue for ISPs. Who does he think his audience is? Oh, and I didn't realize bandwidth throttling was improving everyone's quality of life! And here I thought others were doing this. Congratulations on finding a way to make the world a better place and line your pockets at the same time!

Why not?

You've been punishing people with far less evidence of criminal intent.

You're the one who made the direct comparison ... here, let me remind you ...

Re your other examples, enacting a punishment which God commands clearly is not murder, any more than the person throwing the switch on the electric chair should themselves be in it.

First, we have zero evidence that god exists, never mind that god commands anything whatsoever, but that's an entirely different kettle of loaves and fishes.

Even if we allow for that, "just following orders" is not an excuse. As I pointed out, the Nuremburg trials made it quite clear. Ditto Tokyo. BTW, funny how Lieutenant Calley got off so lightly after being convicted of multiple murder at the May Lai massacre in Viet Nam. *cough* double standards *cough* and that one of the "usual suspects" in the whitewash was Colin Powell, but I digress.

Executioners carry out executions, some of which are later found to be wrong. Certainly, we now regard executing someone for heresy to be stupid. Ditto for stealing a loaf of bread, or a horse. Or for being gay, even though the bible commands it, and it still occurs today in parts of the world. Here's the case of a kid being executed because of allegations he had anal sex at 13. This was last December, not 100 years ago.

So, is the executioner in these cases guilty of murder? If murder is defined as the killing of someone other than as an act of self-defense or defending someone else, all state-sanctioned executions are murder; even under a lesser standard, the executioner is still guilty of murder in many cases.

World Vision

Amnesty International

Etcetera

That the treatment at Abu Graib was newsworthy shows that you're babbling nonsense. If the US military was at all like al Qaeda or like Saddam Hussein, then it would have been expected.

All of you other countries lost the right to have the US stay out of world affairs. The US tried to avoid both world wars, and was brought in by plots of other nations. Now, the US is going to have its hands in whatever it can reach. We get attacked when we leave the rest of you alone, and we get attacked when we don't. We might as well sway some things in our favor, then.

Before you start mouthing off about human rights abuses and "terrorist acts" by the US, you should look up some other countries. I suggest you start with China, Myanmar, Iraq, Somalia, Serbia, Mexico , Brazil, Colombia, and Peru.

That the treatment at Abu Graib was newsworthy shows that you're babbling nonsense. If the US military was at all like al Qaeda or like Saddam Hussein, then it would have been expected.

All of you other countries lost the right to have the US stay out of world affairs. The US tried to avoid both world wars, and was brought in by plots of other nations. Now, the US is going to have its hands in whatever it can reach. We get attacked when we leave the rest of you alone, and we get attacked when we don't. We might as well sway some things in our favor, then.

Before you start mouthing off about human rights abuses and "terrorist acts" by the US, you should look up some other countries. I suggest you start with China, Myanmar, Iraq, Somalia, Serbia, Mexico , Brazil, Colombia, and Peru.

That the treatment at Abu Graib was newsworthy shows that you're babbling nonsense. If the US military was at all like al Qaeda or like Saddam Hussein, then it would have been expected.

All of you other countries lost the right to have the US stay out of world affairs. The US tried to avoid both world wars, and was brought in by plots of other nations. Now, the US is going to have its hands in whatever it can reach. We get attacked when we leave the rest of you alone, and we get attacked when we don't. We might as well sway some things in our favor, then.

Before you start mouthing off about human rights abuses and "terrorist acts" by the US, you should look up some other countries. I suggest you start with China, Myanmar, Iraq, Somalia, Serbia, Mexico , Brazil, Colombia, and Peru.

"We may not even bother to charge you, but even if we do, we'll certainly kick you around in Hotel Guantanamo for a few years first, You Filthy Enemy of Capitalism."

Don't forget the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist). Not only was its being called terrorist slander to begin with, but it's now abandoned the civil war and a major player (in fact, the largest player) in the creation of a new secular, democratic republic. And it's still on the official US terrorist list.

They killed thousands of civillians in a war. Here's what Amnesty International said
http://archive.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGASA310462005?open&of=ENG-NPL

Examples of the lack of commitment to human rights by the CPN (Maoist) are plentiful. Maoist forces have staged several attacks recently on civilians and civilian objects, including political activists and schools. On 15 April, Maoists reportedly surrounded Bargadwa village, Somani VDC, Ward 7 in Nawalparasi district and rounded up all villagers. They then reportedly separated all the boys and men aged between 14 and 40 and summarily executed ten men and one boy. On 29 April, Maoist cadres reportedly abducted and killed Dan Bahadur Shreebastav, chairman of the Kapilvastu District Monitoring Committee, and on 9 May shot dead Bhagwan Das Shrestha, chairman of the Chitwan District Monitoring Committee. None of these victims were legitimate military targets.

Last month, Maoist forces also carried out a spate of attacks on schools in the context of a two-week campaign for the closure of all private schools initiated on 14 April 2005. Among the schools targeted were a school in Nepalgunj, Banke district, on 17 April and another in Kalyanpur, Chitwan district on 21 April. Three children were reportedly injured when the Maoists threw a bomb at students at a school in Khara, Rukum district, on 17 April. Hundreds of schools across the country remain closed due to threats by Maoists. Furthermore, Maoist forces have regularly abducted large numbers of students from schools for political indoctrination and propaganda campaigns. In a recent example, reports from Salyan district indicate that as many as 200 students from remote villages were abducted around 17 May. None of these targets can be described as military â" they were all civilians and civilian objects the targeting of which is prohibited under international humanitarian law.

We are also concerned that Maoist forces have abducted, tortured and killed civilians, whom they accused of "spying" and other crimes, and security force personnel whom they had captured. Among recent cases is Lila Singh, a 23-year-old karate practitioner from Mahendranagar, Kanchanpur district who was abducted from her home on 29 April allegedly on suspicion of spying. To date, her relatives have not heard anything about her fate or whereabouts. On 16 May 2005, Shanker Sarki, a soldier, who had returned home from Congo where he had served in the United Nations Peacekeeping Forces, was abducted from his home in Dhangadi, Kailali district by 12 armed Maoist cadres in civilian dress and killed. Torture and extrajudicial executions are similarly prohibited, under international law, in all circumstances.

Now the government has basically surrendered and called elections where the Maoists have had free range to intimidate, something they have a long experience in. Here's what the UN said.

http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSDEL140233

KATHMANDU, June 23 (Reuters) - Activists from the youth wing of Nepal's former Maoist rebels are creating a "climate of fear" by abducting and beating people, the United Nations said on Saturday.

The UN body said on Friday that Maoists, who ended a decade-long insurgency in November, were among those preventing other parties from functioning freely in rural areas ahead of an assembly election at the end of this year.

On the BBC they interviewed people who said that they were voting for them to stop them killing people! Seems like te

Democratically elected government or not, dropping cluster bombs into residential neighbourhoods to kill people is terrorism, and the people who commit terrorism are terrorists.

Agree?

http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/AMR25/008/2003

So do the children being kids being executed [stopchildexecutions.com] by the regime.

You know who else executes children? The USA.

I think you are confusing "has been regulated" with "has been imagined to be regulated by lawyers and naive fools." To be "regulated" requires a bit more than the mere existence of regulations on paper. It requires that these things have actual force, that they actually do something, they restrain people in some way.

I guess among the naive fools you find Goering, Milosevic, Taylor, and W. Bush. Of course, the frat boy Bush hasn't really paid the price yet, while the US has lost status morally and politically because of torture being done by CIA and US military. Only a naive fool believes that torturing suspect enemies do not have a price both economically and politically, while influencing directly the security of US citizens abroad and at home.

Do you think Bliar checked with the lawyers just for fun before the Iraq invation? Do you think commanders in the field don't know that one day there will be peace and maybe it would not look so good if it appeared in the papers that his troops raped those civilian girls? Do you think armies court martial soldiers for unlawful killings just to lose some pure killing machines? My interpretation is that any military knows that keeping to international laws and standards is good for moral, gives an advantage in the propaganda war and that a displined army is infinitely stronger than a bunch of random killers.

Heck, even al-quada justify their killings with their twisted interpretation of the Quaran; notice how bin laden replaces international law with his own sets of laws taken from a religious text to justify for his supporters and backers how al-quada is conducting their jihad (holy war).

It seems to be hard for naive fools to understand that diplomacy is not weakness, that international law exists because it is a win-win for nations, and that breaking international law has consequences even though there is no world police. The bully on the block maybe thinks that he will always be the strongest, but the smart guy knows that he needs friends and allies to get by and survive.