Slashdot Mirror

Meanwhile, Western leftists think that the occasional terrorist mass murderer getting slapped around is much more worthy of attention and support than peaceful political dissidents in leftist dictatorships, even dictatorships that have strayed from the "faith" like China.

Far be it from me to stop a self-satisfied rant from completely mischaracterizing the political views of tens of millions of people, but are you talking about Western leftists like Amnesty Interational? Or maybe you mean Human Rights Watch. Hmm, no, that's not it. Well, please provide examples, since you're obviously quite certain.

Ignore the possibility, of course, that you're living in a Western country, and thus are more likely to hear about protests directed at your own government. Or that China is successfully covering up some percentage of its internal discord, so you're never hearing about it. Or that China has been crushing its citizens for decades, while the West's adventures in fabrication-based nation building are more recent, and thus more likely to garner comment. Or that Western countries have more of a tradition of listening to their citizens, and thus the citizens are more likely to speak out about their own governments' policies with the expectation that it might actually do some good.

Concentrating effort where it's most likely to have an effect is clearly way too abstract a concept for wacko yogurt-eating Birkenstock-shod lefty nutjobs, so it must just mean they're hypocrites with no sense of proportion.

Didn't the brownshirts shout down and harrass anyone that had an opinion different than their own? Isn't that what happens to any conservative speaker who visits a college campus these days?

So until we have forced labor camps and we're filling gas chambers daily, I suggest you rethink your position and keep your mouth shut.

If you really, truely and honestly feel that GWB is as dangerous as Hitler and worse than Bin Laden, why are you sitting on your ass behind a keyboard? If you were in 1938 Germany, wouldn't it be your duty to pick up a rifle and fight the Nazis? So, go ahead, join what's left of the Taliban if that is what your truly belive.

Unemployment is down, the economy is booming, we haven't had a terrorist attack...

So, you'd prefer to live here ?

If you think this place is "falling apart" by all means leave and tell me what you see elsewhere.

I don't even need to leave my chair to do that....

The only thing I have ever recieved from them in the mail is a quarterly newsletter thing detailing what they are doing (which I like - nice to know what I am helping). I have never recieved any cold calls asking me to up my pledge, never recieved any letters asking the same either. And as far as I am aware they haven't given my number to anyone.

My point is, you gotta be careful about what charity you support. I find that the worst ones are the "foundation" type charities for a particular disorder. If you give any money to these guys they will be back at and at you again for more. I find that if you eve rplan to do a one-time donation, or a christmas donation, your best bet is to do so anonymously, or give a fake phone number / address when you mail it in (making it the address of the charity itself is a good way to send a point and have them not waste money sending the stuff out).

Personally, I will *never* give money to a charity that cold calls me, no matter *what* the cause, and I tell them as such if they call (that, although i regularly donate to charities, I will not donate to theirs, because of this call). I refuse to endorse the practice of cold-calling people and asking for money. It is just plain rude IMO. Charities may be allowed to do it by law, but that does not mean that they should.

Isn't that the place with an appauling human rights record ?

Things like imprisonment without trial , torture and censorship .

I apologize for exaggerating in my initial statement. The Bush administration has not broken ALL laws, rules, treaties and international regulations. Im sorry for making such a blatant generalisation. Do you follow the same logic in other contexts? Is it wrong to say that Saddam killed Kurds because he didnt kill ALL Kurds?

What I said in the original post, and for clarification will repeat here is that the Bush administration have shown that any law, rule, treaty or regulation by any national (US) or international forum will be broken, bent or circumvented if they see fit to do so.

The current administration has

Tortured
Kidnapped
Murdered
Instigated coups
Lied (Take your pick. My favourite is: "Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.")
Broken treaties
Hindered international courts

The list goes on and on. I could list more points, various incidents on each point and various sources for each incident but frankly, I can't be bothered. Those who realize that these atrocities are being committed need no persuasions and those who refuse to acknowledge or refuse to see the harm... well... I have no illusion of "converting" anyone.

So; have a nice weekend, and don't let the clue-by-four hit you on the way out.

get their ass in gear and stop w/the human rights issues and the government coverups

Like the US and the Kyoto protocol? Or Guantanimo Bay?

It's easy to have no evidence about Guantanamo, since the restrictions there are so tight. I'm sure you just ignore anything and everything Amnesty International has to say, but they do have this to say, plus a whole lot more:

Full judicial review of detention, and access to lawyers and independent human rights monitors, are basic safeguards against torture and ill-treatment, arbitrary detention, and "disappearance". Evidence that Guantánamo detainees have been tortured and ill-treated continues to mount, with FBI agents now added to the list of those making such allegations. Yesterday, the military announced that it will carry out an internal investigation into these latest allegations.

Anyways, I don't know about your home, but this picture from the BBC sure doesn't look like my backyard.

Look. I'm sure you enjoy playing word games, but Colin Powell's former chief of staff had this to say here:

"Lawrence Wilkerson, Secretary of State Colin Powell's chief of staff in the first Bush administration and a former colonel, said Thursday that the view of Cheney's office was put in "carefully couched" terms in memos but that to a soldier in the field it meant sometimes using interrogation techniques that "were not in accordance with the spirit of the Geneva Conventions and the law of war" to extract better intelligence."

You may want to say that Cheney doesn't espouse torture, or that Guantanamo isn't torturing detainees. That's fine. You keep using your "carefully couched" language. Personally, I'm going to keep asking for trials and public disclosure, so we can figure out for ourselves what's going on instead of having to listen to endless talking around the subject.

It's easy to have no evidence about Guantanamo, since the restrictions there are so tight. I'm sure you just ignore anything and everything Amnesty International has to say, but they do have this to say, plus a whole lot more:

Full judicial review of detention, and access to lawyers and independent human rights monitors, are basic safeguards against torture and ill-treatment, arbitrary detention, and "disappearance". Evidence that Guantánamo detainees have been tortured and ill-treated continues to mount, with FBI agents now added to the list of those making such allegations. Yesterday, the military announced that it will carry out an internal investigation into these latest allegations.

Anyways, I don't know about your home, but this picture from the BBC sure doesn't look like my backyard.

Look. I'm sure you enjoy playing word games, but Colin Powell's former chief of staff had this to say here:

"Lawrence Wilkerson, Secretary of State Colin Powell's chief of staff in the first Bush administration and a former colonel, said Thursday that the view of Cheney's office was put in "carefully couched" terms in memos but that to a soldier in the field it meant sometimes using interrogation techniques that "were not in accordance with the spirit of the Geneva Conventions and the law of war" to extract better intelligence."

You may want to say that Cheney doesn't espouse torture, or that Guantanamo isn't torturing detainees. That's fine. You keep using your "carefully couched" language. Personally, I'm going to keep asking for trials and public disclosure, so we can figure out for ourselves what's going on instead of having to listen to endless talking around the subject.

I mean look at the critism that most Europeans have over the U.S. ... it is too easy to get guns, there aren't enough laws to restrict buisnesses, taxes are too low, "hate speech" is not punished, health care should be nationalized and controlled by a central authority, etc., etc. They are not complaining for the most part that the U.S. restricts freedoms, they are complaining that the U.S. is too free and a "cowboy culture"

No.

Europe is complaining how freedom of press is killed. Europe is complaining how freedom of life is restricted by people being imprisoned for years without trial.

Europe is laughing when a chick flashing some nipple causes a national scandal, and frightened when secret mass surveillance projects and torture facilities do not.

Europe is complaining that corruption and ridiculous massive secrecy restricts freedom. Europe wants things to be managed transparently, so at least abuses can be exposed.

Oh, and Europe is complaining that America's freedom to become better is restricted by automatic labeling of any not-in-Fox-News observations or suggestions as "anti-american".

Have you heard of this place?

Guantanamo Bay

http://web.amnesty.org/library/eng-usa/index

You paint a destorted image. Since you brought up Amnesty international the above is 40 pages of human rights violations it's documented in the US. Let's not mention the zillions of assasinations, wars and puppet governments its supported over the years. Dont't those count as immoral acts?

An interesting difference between communist states and capitalistic states.

Communists put millions in jail for talking politics. Capitalists put millions in jail for feeling disadvantaged and stealing.

Somebody needs to figure out a system were no one goes to jail. Sheesh.

Uh huh. Your Wikipedia reference is somewhat selective - you ignore the paragraphs immediately following the section you quoted, which cast that section in a rather different light. The talk page for that article also disinclines the reader to take either side too seriously.

Fine.. Never did really like Wikipedia.. here are some links to Amnesty International:

The main page for Cuba
The Sinking of the "13 de Marzo" Tugboat
One of the many articles on the "Prisoners of Conscience"
Dozens of AI articles about Cuba

But that's beside the point. I'm well aware that the Castro regime has a brutal side. But it's a Care Bear convention compared to many regimes enthusiastically supported by the US - I'm thinking especially of Pinochet in Chile and of the Nicaraguan Contras, who routinely raped their democratic opponents, flayed them alive and left them to bleed to death hanging from trees by the roadside.

Those incidents in Nicaragua and Chile were not supported by the American public.. those were operations carried out in secret (by the CIA).

The abuses in Cuba are hardly unknown by Americans.. plenty of attention has been given to the subject. And while I'll agree we support some pretty despicable regimes, there are very few countries that have had more immigrants land on our shores asking for amnesty.

Over 1 millions people have fled from Cuba and are now living in the U.S. (mostly Florida).

So.. here's a rhetorical (and hypothetical) question for you:

If you lived in France, and every year people from Tunisia would risk death on rafts that barely float, starving, and damn near dead to arrive at your shores asking for amnesty..

What would you think about Tunisia? Because those feelings are how America feels about Cuba.

Uh huh. Your Wikipedia reference is somewhat selective - you ignore the paragraphs immediately following the section you quoted, which cast that section in a rather different light. The talk page for that article also disinclines the reader to take either side too seriously.

Fine.. Never did really like Wikipedia.. here are some links to Amnesty International:

The main page for Cuba
The Sinking of the "13 de Marzo" Tugboat
One of the many articles on the "Prisoners of Conscience"
Dozens of AI articles about Cuba

But that's beside the point. I'm well aware that the Castro regime has a brutal side. But it's a Care Bear convention compared to many regimes enthusiastically supported by the US - I'm thinking especially of Pinochet in Chile and of the Nicaraguan Contras, who routinely raped their democratic opponents, flayed them alive and left them to bleed to death hanging from trees by the roadside.

Those incidents in Nicaragua and Chile were not supported by the American public.. those were operations carried out in secret (by the CIA).

The abuses in Cuba are hardly unknown by Americans.. plenty of attention has been given to the subject. And while I'll agree we support some pretty despicable regimes, there are very few countries that have had more immigrants land on our shores asking for amnesty.

Over 1 millions people have fled from Cuba and are now living in the U.S. (mostly Florida).

So.. here's a rhetorical (and hypothetical) question for you:

If you lived in France, and every year people from Tunisia would risk death on rafts that barely float, starving, and damn near dead to arrive at your shores asking for amnesty..

What would you think about Tunisia? Because those feelings are how America feels about Cuba.

Uh huh. Your Wikipedia reference is somewhat selective - you ignore the paragraphs immediately following the section you quoted, which cast that section in a rather different light. The talk page for that article also disinclines the reader to take either side too seriously.

Fine.. Never did really like Wikipedia.. here are some links to Amnesty International:

The main page for Cuba
The Sinking of the "13 de Marzo" Tugboat
One of the many articles on the "Prisoners of Conscience"
Dozens of AI articles about Cuba

But that's beside the point. I'm well aware that the Castro regime has a brutal side. But it's a Care Bear convention compared to many regimes enthusiastically supported by the US - I'm thinking especially of Pinochet in Chile and of the Nicaraguan Contras, who routinely raped their democratic opponents, flayed them alive and left them to bleed to death hanging from trees by the roadside.

Those incidents in Nicaragua and Chile were not supported by the American public.. those were operations carried out in secret (by the CIA).

The abuses in Cuba are hardly unknown by Americans.. plenty of attention has been given to the subject. And while I'll agree we support some pretty despicable regimes, there are very few countries that have had more immigrants land on our shores asking for amnesty.

Over 1 millions people have fled from Cuba and are now living in the U.S. (mostly Florida).

So.. here's a rhetorical (and hypothetical) question for you:

If you lived in France, and every year people from Tunisia would risk death on rafts that barely float, starving, and damn near dead to arrive at your shores asking for amnesty..

What would you think about Tunisia? Because those feelings are how America feels about Cuba.

Uh huh. Your Wikipedia reference is somewhat selective - you ignore the paragraphs immediately following the section you quoted, which cast that section in a rather different light. The talk page for that article also disinclines the reader to take either side too seriously.

Fine.. Never did really like Wikipedia.. here are some links to Amnesty International:

The main page for Cuba
The Sinking of the "13 de Marzo" Tugboat
One of the many articles on the "Prisoners of Conscience"
Dozens of AI articles about Cuba

But that's beside the point. I'm well aware that the Castro regime has a brutal side. But it's a Care Bear convention compared to many regimes enthusiastically supported by the US - I'm thinking especially of Pinochet in Chile and of the Nicaraguan Contras, who routinely raped their democratic opponents, flayed them alive and left them to bleed to death hanging from trees by the roadside.

Those incidents in Nicaragua and Chile were not supported by the American public.. those were operations carried out in secret (by the CIA).

The abuses in Cuba are hardly unknown by Americans.. plenty of attention has been given to the subject. And while I'll agree we support some pretty despicable regimes, there are very few countries that have had more immigrants land on our shores asking for amnesty.

Over 1 millions people have fled from Cuba and are now living in the U.S. (mostly Florida).

So.. here's a rhetorical (and hypothetical) question for you:

If you lived in France, and every year people from Tunisia would risk death on rafts that barely float, starving, and damn near dead to arrive at your shores asking for amnesty..

What would you think about Tunisia? Because those feelings are how America feels about Cuba.

It means that South Korea is obligated to recognize foreign copyrights, and stripping that protection for (arguably valid) nationalist reasons would almost certainly be in violation of international law.

In the other news, South Korean president announced that the nation must fight against the threat of terrorism and mmm.. next it was something about close connection between Microsoft and Al-Qaeda?

And wasn't that the acceptable exception to make any international law become a piece of paper you stick into detainee's ass?

Steve Ballmer, be prepared for a satellite-guided missile strike blowing your house or being captured by South Korean Central Intelligence Agency off your Redmond office. If you aren't already being interrogated in a dog-size cage while marines play their South Korean pop at 180dB and interrogators perform their sadistic experiments to you and anyone who happened to be around you at the moment of detention, hope you donated to Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch...

I agree with your sentiment, I'm no Bush hater or anti-America zealot. But the US doesn't really have such good record on human rights itself. Take a look at any Amenesty International report and you'll see the US right up there with the rest of them. Check out something like this.

Plus there's the whole problem Rumsfeld signing that document that authorized torture which he had to withdraw. Then you've got Guantanomo, etc.. I won't preach but check it out. Just thought I'd mention it. Like I say, I agree with your sentiment in general.

Peace.

• problematic human-rights records
• muted free-speech laws
• questionable taxation practices

Like it or not, we need to do business with people all over the planet.

Careful where you say that, you may find yourself on the midnight flight to Guantanamo!

China, the bastion for personal freedom in the eastern hemisphere, doesn't have a history of modifying the normal behaviour of its citizens. I'm frankly very surprised and dismayed that this is taking place.

And yes I'm being mostly sarcastic.

ICANN is contracted by the Department of Commerce, which is controlled by -- you guessed it -- Congress. Congress has several times in the past tried to make laws governing Internet content (Communications Decency Act, anyone?). Fortunately, thanks to a sane supreme court, the law was struck down and freedoms were preserved. Unfortunately, however, the Supreme Court isn't guaranteed to remain sane, and I (along with a not insignifican percentage of Americans, and most other people in the world) don't really trust the president to appoint non-wingnuts.

Also, just because political speech is generally protected at the moment doesn't mean our freedoms aren't being eroded. Certain political parodies can result nowadays in run-ins with the police. And if you're a member of the press, Don't try to take pictures of coffins coming home from Iraq. Oh, and if you try to pull any of that peaceful protest stuff where news cameras might see you near the president, don't be surprised if the police escort you off to a 'free speech zone.'

This gets its own paragraph because it's particularly worrisome.

As for other expression involving consenting adults, take a look at the War on Porn, for instance. Porn may not be political expression, but it is expression nonetheless, and tax dollars are being wasted trying to stamp it out because some people disapprove of it on religious grounds. That's to say nothing of the fact that in Texas, anal sex (once again between consenting adults) would still be illegal (yes, on religious grounds again) had the Supreme Court (which, again, isn't guaranteed to remain sane) not stepped in. Sex toys are still illegal in Alabama... what non-religious reason could there possibly be for banning them?

Also, the United States isn't one to talk about human rights violations (is it really just a few soldiers acting on their own, or does it go all the way to the top?). Or internment camps.

Other countries may also be nervous about our constant attempts at setting up massive surveillance networks.

You're right on a few counts: China and Cuba are a lot worse than we are. Also, European anti-hate-speech laws are a violation of free speech. That does not excuse this country's conduct. As long as we aren't the most free country in the world, America has a problem. Say it with me.

America has a problem.

The rest of the world sees it. Half of us see it. We're just not responsible enough to handle control of the internet right now.

My main point is not that things are currently the same in practice, or as bad in practice, but that if the underlying undemocratic tendancies are left to go unchecked, they might have a similar outcome as what we see in China today.

The link to the Amnesty International 2004 China page is here .

The equivalent link regarding the United States is here .

My main point is not that things are currently the same in practice, or as bad in practice, but that if the underlying undemocratic tendancies are left to go unchecked, they might have a similar outcome as what we see in China today.

The link to the Amnesty International 2004 China page is here .

The equivalent link regarding the United States is here .

Corporate control? Where? "Enron!" No. Every country has corporate interests fighting for control on issues. Lobby groups lobby people, and if our congressman/senator/president agrees with the lobbyist and you do not, then we vote for someone else (that's called Democracy, and we're a Republic anyway). Sometimes for better, and sometimes for worse, but that is life.

Torturing people? I am sure it was a direct order from the president to tie up and scrutinize prisoners, as those rediculous MPs did. They did not even hurt them, they simply humiliated them. Sorry, but give me that as opposed to having my hand(s) chopped off for using US currency, probably by those people. Or maybe at Guantanamo Bay? Ya, terrible! They label the boards on the floor to avoid disturbing the prisoners while they are praying with squeeks. HORRIBLE! Or maybe you mean, how they lowered the AC to a very cold (almost out doors in late Fall cold) and made him sit there! Hitler would be proud!! Maybe some people do not get it. I mean it is a hard concept. Asking a question over and over to a person whose beliefs fall somewhere around desiring to kill me, and the person asking the questions (not for imprisoning him, but rather for living) is not going to break because you asked it 3 times in a row. This is not Austin Powers. We cannot beat the hell out of these people, so what do we do? We make them uncomfortable. We get their minds on something else so they do not realize they are slipping up. We are not beating them uncontrollablely, and be happy I am not in charge because we would be, and there would be no word of it either.

That 4 year wait in France is so wonderful compared to our standards, I guess. Anyone arrested is given a trial, here, even the terrorists. Awesome, isn't it? On the other hand, we are idiotically giving trials to people we caught on the battle field (AKA, Prisoners of WAR, AND they do not get any rights because they are not uniformed! It works out legally written, in our favor, even if no one wants to recognize it).

This organization, which believed that the judicial proceedings had violated a number of international norms relating to fair trial, noted that 24 defendants had been held in provisional detention for over four years before the opening of the trial, and of these a large number had reportedly been held in isolation.

I am not one of those friends of yours.

Sure.

How about the erosion of the 4th Amendment with the USA Patriot Act?
Or perhaps the human rights violations in Guantanamo bay?
Or the government intervention in something as personal as marriage?
Or the War on Privacy, err War on drugs?
Maybe the widening gap between the rich and poor? Perhaps the government endorsing religion?

Is that a good enough start?

...I just visited the Beijing offices and they were just like ours in the Redmond...

Jail for anyone speaking about freedom or human rights ? http://web.amnesty.org/report2004/chn-summary-eng/ ...

You didn't see our country piling innocent arab-americans into prisons after 9/11??

Erm, yes I did.

In short, no, we don't go after commies anymore.

Oh, and yes , you do.

I have to assume you are referring to human rights violations under Mao

You might want to look at their current practices a little closer.

Definition of Complacent: Contented to a fault; self-satisfied and unconcerned: He had become complacent after years of success.

US involvement with broad international affairs was not really active until after WWII.

http://www.answers.com/topic/isolationism

The Marshall Plan was enacted BECAUSE europe was totally destroyed in the power play between Britain, the US, Germany and the Soviet Union. The US/Britain conquered Germany, divided up europe with the soviets, and then rebuilt the place. So what? Thats what the winners do in war, rebuild their newly found economic sub-states.

Vietnam? What did that conflict have to do with the United States? It was a country trying to wrestle freedom from the French imperialists. I thought the US supported this. Where did you learn your history anyway?

The Korean conflict was a "police action" fronted by the UN in order to allow the US to send troops without a declaration of war, as called for in our constitution. Again, what threat did this war pose to the United States? Who exactly were we helping? The folks we killed, or the folks who shared our economic ideals?

Umm.. The US leads the world in prison population and has for many years:

http://www.kcl.ac.uk/depsta/rel/icps/worldbrief/hi ghest_to_lowest_rates.html

What "communists" funded the "insurgent rebel groups" in South America? They fought their civil wars with shitty weapons, no funding and little but idealogical support. Fortunately for the US, the fascist despots won most revolutionary wars in south america due to our heavy involvement.

The United States INVENTED nuclear weapons (oh - and used them, btw). China did not. The Russians did not. Something is only invented once you know. Information from the manhatten project filtered into russion hands, which is what fueled their nuke program. China obtained the information in the same way.

Anyway I'm really not interested in arguing this with you. Check out Amnesty International's report on North America:

http://web.amnesty.org/report2005/2am-index-eng

I've had this same tired argument on the internet for over a decade. Do I dig US foreign policy? No. Do I think we are an admirable nation? No. Do I think the US government is evil? Yes. So, there you go. You're not going to convince me otherwise. So go buy your "support the troops" stickers or whatever, and I'll continue to keep saying "NUKE THE TROOPS."

No need for the flamesuit, at least not from me. As I've noted a couple of times in this thread, I don't personally believe all of those devil's advocate positions and none of the pro-US ones, I was simply presenting the opposite extreme in the debate.

To address a couple of your points where I do happen to agree with some of the criticism of the US, though:

State sponsor of Terror - My favorite line from Anti-Americans. What airplanes have we blown up or rammed into buildings, what Walmart sells bomb jackets, and what car bombs do we drive down the street?

I was surprised to see so many people object to this one, since to me it seems to be one of the most true-to-life.

The US has supplied training and military equipment to many dubious regimes, not least several in the Middle East. The US supports the administration in Saudi Arabia, one of the biggest shelters for terrorists in the world. The US trained and equipped Osama bin Laden a few years ago, and IIRC supported Saddam and Iraq at one time, too. Israel, Pakistan, the list goes on.

Moreover, the US itself has engaged in direct military action and invading foreign countries in a manner I'm sure many of their citizens would describe as terrorist, with only the thinnest veil of international support, most recently in Iraq of course. The fact that they drop thousands of leaflets condemning the ruling party and then use carpet bombs/cruise missiles/gunships instead of blowing themselves up and then praising their cause on Arab TV is more an indicator of US military superiority than of inherently higher moral standards in the eyes of an Iraqi civilian who lost three family members since the US invasion started.

All in all, for a country that claims to be fighting a war on terror, the current US administration does look pretty hypocritical from the outside right now.

Constitution for big business - If you're talking the Kelo decision, yes, but Merck is paying a 1/4 of a BILLION for one death. Big tobacco is still paying for anti-smoking ads 7 years after the decision.

I think this criticism is usually more about extending copyright, reducing privacy, and the like.

Gitmo - I'd love to talk in detail about this, but the short of it is - the legal arguments don't exist, the moral arguments do.

Just ask any international aid agency. In fact, as I write, the very first link at Amnesty International is about Gitmo and "coercive interrogation".

If the US legal system provides convenient loopholes that offend the moral standards of the rest of the world, then that pretty much confirms that the criticism is valid, doesn't it?

North Korea...simply that the government is too oppressive.

That is certainly true, but it kind of displays Kim in a rather friendly light; considering http://web.amnesty.org/report2005/prk-summary-eng one might feel compelled to use stronger words.

for a long time most of Europe was composed of peasants (ie: mindless slaves)

So peasants == mindless slaves? What time period are we talking about, exactly? Before the Roman Empire, in the Middle Ages, before the French Revolution? Can you imagine that people actually thought in older times? Maybe they often faced harder cirumstances, thus spending more time on mere survival but that doesn't make them less civilized; do you actually think the actions of mankind in the last few years/decades earn the word "civilized"?

"Innocent until proven guilty. Although that statement is ignored just as often in the US as it is in England, laws that we pass try to at least give the impression that we respect it."
umm, Guantanamo Bay?

Being fair and balanced and all, I thought I'd remind everyone of a few similar things that have been brought to you by the US government recently.

Bullshit. British police are more brutal than most American ones. From Amnesty International:

In May an inquest jury returned a verdict of ''accidental death'' in the case of Glenn Howard, but added that the police officers had used excessive restraint and had subsequently failed to provide medical care. He died in January 1999 after being in a coma since December 1997. There were no prosecutions or disciplinary action.

In June an inquest jury returned a verdict of unlawful killing in the case of Christopher Alder, a black former paratrooper who died in April 1998 in Hull police station. A videotape showed how officers ignored him as he lay on the police station floor for 10 minutes before they realized he was unconscious. The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) was considering whether to bring prosecutions against five officers.

In June the High Court instructed the prosecution authorities to re-examine their decision not to prosecute seven prison officers involved in the death in prison of Alton Manning, who died in 1995 after being restrained.

In November the CPS decided that no criminal charges would be brought against eight police officers reportedly involved in the restraint of Roger Sylvester in January 1999. The exact cause of his death remained disputed; an inquest was pending.

In December the CPS decided that no criminal charges would be brought against the police officers who shot dead Harry Stanley in September 1999. Harry Stanley was walking home carrying a repaired table leg in a bag. He had stopped in a pub, where another customer mistook his Scottish accent for Irish and the table leg for a shotgun and alerted the police. Armed police officers approached Harry Stanley from behind and reportedly shouted a warning. Harry Stanley did not stop, and when he turned around, reportedly after another police shout, he was shot dead.

In February, a coroner's jury issued a verdict which effectively rendered the killing of unarmed IRA member Diarmuid O'Neill lawful. Diarmuid O'Neill was shot dead during a police raid in west London in September 1996.

Link

1. I said If things continue as they are, in 20 years

You answered the statement you WANTED to answer by saying

There simply is not censorship here even remotely similar to the horrible things that take place elsewhere

I was not using the present tense - YOU WERE. I was saying that IF THINGS CONTINUE ALONG THE PATH THEY ARE AT PRESENT, we won't have much, if any alternative press in this country.

YOU decided that I was saying that the USA is like Iran TODAY, and responded using such a presumption. Why? Because you're a typical ninny.

2. You're wrong.

Have you been arrested and thrown in prison and then beaten for suggesting you do not like the president? I don't think so.

No, but many people have been arrested and then beaten or tortured or faced with asymmetrical application of state force for much less. Proof?

Here:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0407-06.ht m

Take a look at her face and tell me that isn't torture.

http://www.constitution.org/ghansen/conghansen.htm

He wasn't tortured? He wa a former CONGRESSMAN (even)!

http://web.amnesty.org/report2005/usa-summary-eng

Oh - I guess you didn't read the Amnesty International Report, either...

I could go on and on about the evils of the American Government, but I won't. Suffice to say, you're wrong. RIGHT NOW most of the torture and fascist repression our government does (but not all) is visited upon our victims through proxies - client states and corrupt governments supressing their people in the interests of the local ruling class who support the insane and destructive American lifestyle and get rich in the process.

SOME of the torture is handled here, and is dished out as described above.

Make no mistake about it: the USA is quickly sliding into a new and unique form of "pseudo-democratic fascism" in the form of a 1.5 party state. The "winner take all" structure of the election system prevents third parties from getting any real daylight, and the power duopoly has been so eroded in the past several years by the neocon thugs in the Republican party that it is more of a monopoly of government by and for the corporations.

RS

Consider Microsoft's recent censoring of the words "democracy", "human rights", "freedom for Tibet", and any other character strings that affront Chinese culture. As we in the SlashDot community discovered, Microsoft is not the only culprit. Both Google and Yahoo! have behaved similarly and submitted to the draconian will of Chinese society.

The motto at these companies is "Profits before democracy or human rights".

I am not buying what these mercenaries are celling are selling.

- reporter, member of Amnesty International since 1984

It's just a local ordinance. If you can afford a new heart, you can afford a plane ticket to a free country. Are there any?

If the government (all three branches) were to actually act in the interest of the people and not the corporation, this would not really happen. IMHO, the current government "leadership" is not just acting like a bunch of thugs, they ARE a bunch of thugs.

And yes... this is a flame. I have had enough of these people.

Almost forgot... http://www.petrifiedtruth.com/archives/000505.html Of course the International Organization Human Rights Watch is a propaganda machine right? and His Holiness the Dalai Lama lies??? http://www.tibet.ca/en/wtnarchive/1997/3/12-2_9.ht ml Derechos.org is one of the most respected Human Rights organizations.. but they too must be lying... http://www.derechos.org/news/archives/000776.html Oops almost forgot Amnesty International... http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/ENGASA1705319 99 http://web.amnesty.org/report2005/chn-summary-eng But heck, you know where to look if you are interested....

Almost forgot... http://www.petrifiedtruth.com/archives/000505.html Of course the International Organization Human Rights Watch is a propaganda machine right? and His Holiness the Dalai Lama lies??? http://www.tibet.ca/en/wtnarchive/1997/3/12-2_9.ht ml Derechos.org is one of the most respected Human Rights organizations.. but they too must be lying... http://www.derechos.org/news/archives/000776.html Oops almost forgot Amnesty International... http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/ENGASA1705319 99 http://web.amnesty.org/report2005/chn-summary-eng But heck, you know where to look if you are interested....

"I find it pleasant to work in a homogeneous environment where everyone looks the same." Did you skip that all those classes in elemtenary school where they teach tolerance, what prejudice is, that its bad, and about diversity. Perhaps you'd be happier in a slave labor camp in some foreign country where everyone looks the same, or is forced to lest they be persecuted, segragated or killed for doing so.

The glory of America is that A. we all dont have to think like you, and B. that we dont all think like you. People fought and died for these rights. Whether or not you or I have any opinion as to their appearance is irrelevant.

Yes, it is a human rights violation, and not the first perpetrated by the american government against its own citizens either. Have a look at the latest Amnesty International yearly report http://web.amnesty.org/report2005/2am-index-eng before you go waving your flag the next time.

...the worst stuff doesn't happen at Gitmo. Allegedly the CIA has a small fleet of executive jets including the legendary N379P that regulary overfly Europe on their way to Egypt or some other place where people are still allowed to conduct what the KGB used to call 'Efficient interrogations' Amnesty international (quoting ex CIA employees) call it torture but who listens to them?.

No, I am just saying that there must be a reason why communism became popular, why Castro became popular, and why they Castro is still popular.
...
And it's not just because Castro is good at controlling Cubans with an iron fist.

Then why is the iron fist necessary? It isn't necessary in many other countries. It's necessary in Cuba because it's more important to Castro and his regime to retain their own power than to act in the true interests of the Cuban people. Castro and his regime's tactics are holding the Cuban people back, it is not a question of them getting a government that is suited to their situation.

Regarding elections in Cuba, I followed the April election with interest, but if you believe that this is an example of what participatory democracy is about, you don't understand democracy at all. I grew up in a country which had joke elections, and I know all about it. All the signs are that Cuba's are worse. It's like the old Ford line about being able to have any colour you like as long as it's black. You can have any president and party you like as long as it's Castro's Communist party. If a candidate for local office arose who differed significantly from the party position, he'd be arrested as a dissident, for crimes which are not considered crimes in any free country. The courts in Cuba are not independent, they're controlled by the executive government. According to Amnesty International, Cuba has one of the highest rates of political dissidents, i.e. "prisoners of conscience", in jail. To achieve this, Cuba shares one of the worst characteristics that the old South Africa had: informing by ordinary people on their neighbors. That might seem relatively benign to the uninformed, but it forms an important part of some of the most repressive social control tactics imaginable. I imagine you have some experience with that, I'd be interested to hear your spin on it.

You pointed to Cuban propaganda about their elections, but that's just as silly as if I pointed you to American propaganda. That's why the link I posted in my original message was to an international human rights organization based in Germany. However, you say you have a problem with the position of Western governments in general, and presumably by extension, the various human rights organizations. So let me ask you this: what relatively independent organization can you point to which analyzes the Cuban situation in a favorable way? All I see when I look are human rights organizations, many of which are often thorns in their own governments sides, like Amnesty International, which make the same criticisms of Cuba. Here's Amnesty's Cuba Summary, and a summary of the 2003 dissident crackdown. Amnesty hasn't been allowed in Cuba since 1988, but that itself is a sign of a problem. The UN Human Rights Commission has to pass resolutions to force Cuba to allow human rights investigators to visit. Even many of Cuba's Latin American allies vote in favor of such resolutions, much to Cuba's anger. Why the anger, why the attempt at secrecy? Evil flourishes in the darkness.

Perhaps this discussion ultimately comes down to irreconcilable political differences about attitudes to human rights and the importance of the state vs. the individual. You call what the Western governments say about Cuba "lies", but some of those "lies" are things which I believe deeply, starting with the importance of human rights that go beyond just the basic necessity, and extend to rights of political and intellectual freedom. By my definition, a healthy state cannot exist when its people aren't allowed to exercise such basic freedoms. Many Cubans feel this way too, and are simply having such rights suppressed. That's what I say cannot be tolerated. Such repression is a sign that something is seriously wrong. You can put all the political spin on it you like, and it still stinks.

The symbol for copyright should be a burning candle with a cage of barbed wire around the flame, symbolizing that though you could light your candle at mine without diminishing mine's light, I'm still not going to let you copy my fire.

Hey! THEY STOLE YOUR IDEA!

"It has the same power as a stun gun. It knocks you down."

Will giving the poorer nations "more just representation" in these policies improve anything?

I am dead-seat against giving the UN any role similar to that of ICANN because of things like Robert Mugabe showing up at WSIS. Mugabe's attitude towards media is to control it utterly and completely, and I'm kind of nervous that involving the governments of the poorer countries will lead to even more control over what goes on the internet than there is now.

The big problem with the UN is that the idea behind is that human rights could be ensured worldwide by the action of governments which will still remain sovereign, and some of those governments (the winners of WWII) count for more than others. Even if there was no Security Council, you'd still have the spectacle of asking governments like Mugabe's to help spread ideas that would put an end to them.

That's not even getting into other problems with the UN, like its propensity to be an employment agency for the discarded lackeys of dictators (hello, Boutros-Boutros Ghali!), first world politicians whose careers are over (why do you think Bill Clinton wants to be Secretary General of the UN?) and the massive bureaucracy that envelops everything the UN does.

I haven't heard about this before, but I know it's illegal to listen/watch anything but the state's broadcasts

links:
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/asiapcf/02/24/nk orea.tv/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4157121.st m
http://www2.gol.com/users/coynerhm/north_korea_tv_ nation.htm
http://nkfreedom.org/important_nk_topics.html
http://web.amnesty.org/

You need to look at this from the position of an individual in a minority group that has historically been oppressed. That is what the school board did, and that is why they suspended the teacher.

I thought that this particular example was a little extreme, but you leave me no alternative. Think about what the teacher wrote, and replace the word homosexual with black or woman or jew. Then tell me if you still think if his actions were appropriate for a teacher who worked in the public school system. Would his punishment be equally unjust?

They shouldn't!

Teachers are there to teach, not indoctrinate. Biases should be left at home.

There are lots of stupid things that are well within my rights to do. But if I choose to do something stupid, I must accept the responsibilities and consequences of my actions.

So, even though it was within his rights to publish an intolerant opinion, he should have known that it was incompatible with his position as a teacher in the public school system. He also should have known that the school board could not turn a blind eye to his actions and that there would be sanctions.

No, he is not. Head on over to Amnesty International if you want to read about people who are. I think you will find that his situation is trivial in comparison.

So what? Even if most Christians believe as you suggest, it alters nothing. If 100% of the heterosexual population believed that homosexuality was immoral and a sin, we would still be obliged to extend the same rights and privileges to gays and lesbians that are afforded to everyone else. It's a binary proposition, we either believe in human rights for all people, or we don't.

You are forgetting about the reasonable limits clause. Section 15 can be invoked (as per the reasonable Limits clause) to limit fundamental freedoms.

Reasonable limits. Section 15. Check it out. While it does not apply to this particular discussion, Section 318 and 319 of the criminal code *does* give the state the right to shut people up.

Have I suggested otherwise?

People are entirely free to make controversial statements. However, they must be prepared to accept the consequences of their actions - particularly if they are employed by a public institution. If that is unacceptable, than that person is entirely free to seek employment at some private institution that better reflects their opinions.

Life is not consequence free, no matter your religious convictions or the sincerity thereof.