Slashdot Mirror

A very moving story. Lets' stop this happening.
http://www.amnesty.org

I think it's important to note that China's government uses the censoring and the punishment of circumventing that censoring for different goals.

By censoring they try to keep the masses uninformed. Currently a bunch of websites is blocked and search engines are limited in their results. These messures can be avoided, but most users dont know how.

Cracks in the Great Firewall
Probing Chinese search engine filtering

In the punishing of circumventing these messures however, the government has simply found another excuse to put people who they don't like in jail. The people actualy being prosecuted for and convicted of these "crimes" are either members of the Falun Gong or the China Democracy Party.

List of People Detained for Internet-related Offences in China

With a bit of effort, you could probably enjoy everything the internet has to offer, logging in from China. And probably nothing will ever happen as a result. But when the authorities decide they don't like you they are going to hold it against you. Current sentences range upto 12 years or "unknown", while even capital punishment is a possibility.

All of these are basic rights for all human beings.

That has been wishful thinking of the western countries since 1945. While many countries have made impressive advancements in the development of west-compatible institutions and economies, this doesn't necessarily mean they adopted our cultural and moral values too.

Formal acceptance of the UN's human rights charter is necessary to participate in the "civilized world", but there's no need to actually implement and enforce them.

Heck, even the U.S. violate human rights on a daily basis.

What was her crime? He wanted to mail copies of publicly available news articles to her husband residing in the USA. The articles dealt with the plight of women in Chinese society. She is serving an 8 year prison sentence, starting in 2000.

Is anyone angered by this incident? I was infuriated when I received the documents from AI. Visiting China may be "safe" for foreigners, but should we not express our moral outrage by boycotting China and its products?

You know the saying "you can't fix a social problem with technological means"? Well, a government convinced that it deserves to survive by any means necessary, including censoring its citizens (and that's if they're lucky), might be the best example of a social problem. You don't fix that with anonymous proxies and l33t pr0n-over-ssl.

I'm not denying the importance of free speech, either in the absolute sense or as something important to bringing about the downfall of dictatorships; I'm saying that your assumptions about the utility of "getting around" the firewall are so very, very wrong. What good will your laptop do you when your door is kicked in at 3am by the police? Or when you're hauled before a judge, charged with crimes against the state, because you were looking at a non-approved news site? Why do you think that when They've got guns and police and armies and courts who will do what They want, that it's not that big a deal?

You know the saying "you can't fix a social problem with technological means"? Well, a government convinced that it deserves to survive by any means necessary, including censoring its citizens (and that's if they're lucky), might be the best example of a social problem. You don't fix that with anonymous proxies and l33t pr0n-over-ssl.

I'm not denying the importance of free speech, either in the absolute sense or as something important to bringing about the downfall of dictatorships; I'm saying that your assumptions about the utility of "getting around" the firewall are so very, very wrong. What good will your laptop do you when your door is kicked in at 3am by the police? Or when you're hauled before a judge, charged with crimes against the state, because you were looking at a non-approved news site? Why do you think that when They've got guns and police and armies and courts who will do what They want, that it's not that big a deal?

At least in China, they're nominally a dictatorship, but the average citizen gets left alone (if you guys know anyone there, you'll know the situation is way over-blown). Unless you do mass protests in public, you'll get no trouble.

There are currently 69 offenses punishable by death in China - the highest figure in any country in the world. These include many non-violent crimes and a range of economic crimes. Are all of these crimes "mass protests", Atomic Frog?

""Arresting authorities entered houses usually after dark, breaking down doors, waking up residents roughly, yelling orders, forcing family members into one room under military guard while searching the rest of the house.... They arrested suspects, tying their hands in the back with flexi-cuffs, hooding them, and taking them away. Sometimes they arrested all adult males present in a house, including elderly, handicapped or sick people. Treatment often included pushing people around, insulting, taking aim with rifles, punching and kicking and striking with rifles. Individuals were often led away in whatever they happened to be wearing at the time of arrest--sometimes in pyjamas or underwear--and were denied the opportunity to gather a few essential belongings, such as clothing, hygiene items, medicine or eyeglasses."

Furthermore, "certain CF military intelligence officers" told the ICRC they estimated that between 70 and 90 percent of those rounded up in these terror raids were arrested by mistake.

-FL

First, Chavez is not a dictator. He was democratically elected

, and recently won a referendum on his mandate

, which was endorsed by international observers.

Also, I can personally tell you that the Venezuelan media enjoys a high degree of freedom and independence

I'll grant you that I haven't heard of Chavez cracking down on his nation's own media as badly as, say, Putin, but that statement's almost laughable. How much air time does Chavez demand from broadcasters for his longwinded speeches? How many stations really want to broadcast every pronouncement, every staged episode of Halo Presidente (a Sunday morning call-in show that somehow manages to only get calls from people who adore el presidente)?

I was in Caracas in the summer of 2001, and while I was there, Chavez threatened to deport any foreign journalist that wrote unfavorably of his administration. Maybe he has only threatened foreigners and you think that's alright. I don't.

, the opposition has never been outlawed,

and Venezuelans have all their civil rights protected by the Constitution.

I hope you're right about your second and third points -- this could turn out well for FOSS if Venezuela becomes a viable, convincing case study for the "open source" merits of FOSS. But I fear it's more likely to be (or at least be seen as) a political anti-US, anti-capitalist "free software" ploy by a socialism-spouting power-hungry tyrant (just 'cos Hugo won the election doesn't mean he's not a tyrant).

The problem for a lot of non-Americans, is that they want to fight the 'fascism and fundamentalism' that they see in the US as well as that in the Middle East. Just as you will be the first to counter that argument by saying this corresponds to only 'part' of America, so the same rationale can be used to say it is only part of the Middle-East. Perhaps it is (some of) those in power in the Middle East that propel this fascism, but are you really so sure that isn't the case in the US? And from some of the rhetoric that comes out of the US (especially the 'inner-circle' of Neo-Cons in power at the moment), it often seems that this US fundamentalism is only hindering any progress in the Middle East.

an entire country moves from fascism to political freedom under his tutelage

Saying that Bush is a moron, and yet also giving him credit for tutoring Iraq on democracy? From a man (or at least the neo-cons in total) that 'stole' one election by use of a State governed by his brother? How is that different from Saddam having his relatives in power? Specifically not how they got there, but their use of the power? Are you 100% sure that there was no pressure on the judges in 2000? None of my US friends are, let alone others elsewhere in the world.

In essence, making the statement that it is the US that gives democracy and freedom to the world comes across as 'arrogant' and 'not credible' (rather than incredible). Many arguments could be put forward against this, least of all that is always US military that imposes the 'freedom' and so on. Not that all other countries can claim to be better, but thinking that America is best doesn't help either.

I don't think you are wrong to have faith in your fellow humans; I do think your lack of humility in your patriotism blinds any eloquence in your arguments, because most of your argument needs no reference to the US at all. I will leave you with an example of how it comes across: look at the implication in this sentence following, that the US knows better than everybody else. Is that what you really really believe?

your fellow human being knows what is best for them, the whole world over

• Torture in the US
  
• Execution of foriegners in the US
  
• The spread of fundamentalism in the US
  
• Historical support for Terrorist Organisations in the US
  
• Suppression of Homosexuals in the US
  

I'm not saying that we can't criticise countries because of their human rights records, but we have to remember that the US is not whiter than white. By any stretch of the imagination.

Ask the family of Zhou Jiaxiong if Beijing's torture tactics are "subjective". Accuse me of hate and stupidity while Chinese subhumans are ripping off the genitals of their peers because they are suspected of having impregnated their wife a second time.

I only encourage embargoes against nations who engage, as a rule, in anti-democratic inhumane torturous methods, not only against their inhabitants, unfortunately, who sit idly by, but those of other regions as well.

Ask the family of Zhou Jiaxiong if Beijing's torture tactics are "subjective". Accuse me of hate and stupidity while Chinese subhumans are ripping off the genitals of their peers because they are suspected of having impregnated their wife a second time.

I only encourage embargoes against nations who engage, as a rule, in anti-democratic inhumane torturous methods, not only against their inhabitants, unfortunately, who sit idly by, but those of other regions as well.

I guess you're referring to this document. Let's read it again. Why do you need to misrepresent the thoughts of the author ?

Unlike China, Russia is destined to be a great ally of America.

For Fucking, Fuck Sakes. What is with the xenophobia on Slashdot against any country deemed as competitors with the USA? Is your only definition of an ally a lapdog? Or one which ceases to be a competitor? Is it "My country, right or wrong"?

It's pure FUD -- Fear, Uncertainly and Doubt. It used to be Japan in the 1980s, it was France and Germany for daring not to kowtow to the US. India for daring to participate in globalisation of the world's economy (of which US is a leading proponent) and likewise China for daring to have cheap labour and trying to raise their living standards above poverty level.

Okay, here's some stuff about Russia...still your allies? You might also want to look at your own backyard.
Human Rights Watch - Torture 1
Amnesty International - Torture 2
And you can bloody well Google for more.

BTW I am not saying Russia is evil. Please don't even think about liberating them. But please stop seeing the world in black and white. The US-conception of freedom is not necessarily the "One True Way".

Checking a few articles, it looks like you've been trolling every other story here on Slashdot (for moderators: just browse at -1 threshold, and look for comments containing "China", or the same link from the parent post). Can't you read the title: "News for Nerds" ?

If you really feel strong about the subject, just go make your own site, or contribute to other sites on the subject, okay? Slashdot moderators will have spotted this by now, and just mod you out of sight, so you're wasting your time. Otherwise, get a life!

(some ugly namecalling deleted)

Take the case of Tibet. Why do the folks in Hong Kong, mainland China, and Taiwan province support integrating Tibet into "One China"? Why are engineering classes overflowing with Chinese folks and Amnesty International meetings being nearly devoid of Chinese?

What is the name of this Chinese emergence? It is "Chinese culture". The god of Chinese culture is Chinese nationalism. Visit the link about Taiwan. It has been updated within the last 24 hours, and there is an interesting statistic (courtesy of "The New York Times"): 1 million Taiwanese (about 4.3% of Taiwan's population) have emigrated mainland China. Of course, the Taiwanese are responsible for their behavior even though we can ascribe it to "emergence". (I know. I know. I was shocked by the statistic too, and I have a Ph.D. in Political Science.) The Taiwanese are responsible for insisting, via their constitution, that Tibet is part of "One China".

The Taiwanese, the Hong Kongers, and the mainlanders all do not give a damn about Tibet.

But that remains ahead, and meanwhile Mr Bush's credibility has been considerably undermined not just by Guantánamo but also by two big things: by the sheer incompetence and hubristic thinking evident in the way in which his team set about the rebuilding of Iraq, once Saddam Hussein's regime had been toppled; and by the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, which strengthened the suspicion that the mistreatment or even torture of prisoners was being condoned.

Claiming that the Rev. Moon-owned Washington Times, the long-time Conservative lap-dog The Wall Street Journal, and most especially Fox News (which Rupert Murdoch explicitly founded as a right-wing news channel) are "less bias[ed]" simply reinforces the perception of your poor judgment one would form from your bizarre claim that running stories about Abu Ghraib would affect a newspaper's circulation to its detriment while at the same time singling out The Economist for "experienc[ing] strong growth." (By the way, the magazine that published the source material for most of the Abu Ghraib stories, Seymour Hersh's superb series of articles, the New Yorker, saw its circulation increase to 1,000,000 for the very first time in its 79 year history.)

So I think we can all pretty much assume that you have no idea what you're talking about. By the way, you know how many times the Abu Ghraib story ran on the Times front page - not sure where it appears on this Physicians for Human Rights page about Tibet which you cited, nor could I find anything on their page about Abu Ghraib - I would guess that the link here is a red herring. What I really want to know, though, is where you got your figures for how many times Hussein's very real acts of genocide (hey, look, Physicians for Human Rights were talking about Hussein's use of weapons of mass killing back in 1993, and they talked about Abu Ghraib!), extra-judicial execution, torture, violence against women were covered. I was not surprised to see that you have no figures or links to back up your assertions on that! I chose to link to Amnesty International coverage, by the way, because they are an organization that was heavily criticized for its response to the Abu Ghraib scandal as being too liberal and ignoring Hussein's mistreatment of the Iraqi people.

This is not a competition, "whose the bigger torturer?" This is not a case in which we can apply a calculus of torture and murder and use of weapons of mass killing and determine that so much torture in Abu Ghraib is justified because we are preventing the far greater tortures that Hussein committed. President Bush himself denounced the abuse of US prisoners at Abu Ghraib. Do you wonder why? It's because he at least realizes that the US has a responsiblity to rescue the people of Iraq from Hussein in a way that will not make them think there is no qualitative difference between us and Hussein, only a quantative one - which is something some of his most ardent supports do not seem to grasp. And people think GWB is stupid!

The US can

But that remains ahead, and meanwhile Mr Bush's credibility has been considerably undermined not just by Guantánamo but also by two big things: by the sheer incompetence and hubristic thinking evident in the way in which his team set about the rebuilding of Iraq, once Saddam Hussein's regime had been toppled; and by the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, which strengthened the suspicion that the mistreatment or even torture of prisoners was being condoned.

Claiming that the Rev. Moon-owned Washington Times, the long-time Conservative lap-dog The Wall Street Journal, and most especially Fox News (which Rupert Murdoch explicitly founded as a right-wing news channel) are "less bias[ed]" simply reinforces the perception of your poor judgment one would form from your bizarre claim that running stories about Abu Ghraib would affect a newspaper's circulation to its detriment while at the same time singling out The Economist for "experienc[ing] strong growth." (By the way, the magazine that published the source material for most of the Abu Ghraib stories, Seymour Hersh's superb series of articles, the New Yorker, saw its circulation increase to 1,000,000 for the very first time in its 79 year history.)

So I think we can all pretty much assume that you have no idea what you're talking about. By the way, you know how many times the Abu Ghraib story ran on the Times front page - not sure where it appears on this Physicians for Human Rights page about Tibet which you cited, nor could I find anything on their page about Abu Ghraib - I would guess that the link here is a red herring. What I really want to know, though, is where you got your figures for how many times Hussein's very real acts of genocide (hey, look, Physicians for Human Rights were talking about Hussein's use of weapons of mass killing back in 1993, and they talked about Abu Ghraib!), extra-judicial execution, torture, violence against women were covered. I was not surprised to see that you have no figures or links to back up your assertions on that! I chose to link to Amnesty International coverage, by the way, because they are an organization that was heavily criticized for its response to the Abu Ghraib scandal as being too liberal and ignoring Hussein's mistreatment of the Iraqi people.

This is not a competition, "whose the bigger torturer?" This is not a case in which we can apply a calculus of torture and murder and use of weapons of mass killing and determine that so much torture in Abu Ghraib is justified because we are preventing the far greater tortures that Hussein committed. President Bush himself denounced the abuse of US prisoners at Abu Ghraib. Do you wonder why? It's because he at least realizes that the US has a responsiblity to rescue the people of Iraq from Hussein in a way that will not make them think there is no qualitative difference between us and Hussein, only a quantative one - which is something some of his most ardent supports do not seem to grasp. And people think GWB is stupid!

The US can

But that remains ahead, and meanwhile Mr Bush's credibility has been considerably undermined not just by Guantánamo but also by two big things: by the sheer incompetence and hubristic thinking evident in the way in which his team set about the rebuilding of Iraq, once Saddam Hussein's regime had been toppled; and by the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, which strengthened the suspicion that the mistreatment or even torture of prisoners was being condoned.

Claiming that the Rev. Moon-owned Washington Times, the long-time Conservative lap-dog The Wall Street Journal, and most especially Fox News (which Rupert Murdoch explicitly founded as a right-wing news channel) are "less bias[ed]" simply reinforces the perception of your poor judgment one would form from your bizarre claim that running stories about Abu Ghraib would affect a newspaper's circulation to its detriment while at the same time singling out The Economist for "experienc[ing] strong growth." (By the way, the magazine that published the source material for most of the Abu Ghraib stories, Seymour Hersh's superb series of articles, the New Yorker, saw its circulation increase to 1,000,000 for the very first time in its 79 year history.)

So I think we can all pretty much assume that you have no idea what you're talking about. By the way, you know how many times the Abu Ghraib story ran on the Times front page - not sure where it appears on this Physicians for Human Rights page about Tibet which you cited, nor could I find anything on their page about Abu Ghraib - I would guess that the link here is a red herring. What I really want to know, though, is where you got your figures for how many times Hussein's very real acts of genocide (hey, look, Physicians for Human Rights were talking about Hussein's use of weapons of mass killing back in 1993, and they talked about Abu Ghraib!), extra-judicial execution, torture, violence against women were covered. I was not surprised to see that you have no figures or links to back up your assertions on that! I chose to link to Amnesty International coverage, by the way, because they are an organization that was heavily criticized for its response to the Abu Ghraib scandal as being too liberal and ignoring Hussein's mistreatment of the Iraqi people.

This is not a competition, "whose the bigger torturer?" This is not a case in which we can apply a calculus of torture and murder and use of weapons of mass killing and determine that so much torture in Abu Ghraib is justified because we are preventing the far greater tortures that Hussein committed. President Bush himself denounced the abuse of US prisoners at Abu Ghraib. Do you wonder why? It's because he at least realizes that the US has a responsiblity to rescue the people of Iraq from Hussein in a way that will not make them think there is no qualitative difference between us and Hussein, only a quantative one - which is something some of his most ardent supports do not seem to grasp. And people think GWB is stupid!

The US can

Then we wouldn't have the shame of incarcerating more of our population than any country, even china or russia.

Don't forget killing children...you are the clear winners on that. USA No 1

Finding the link that explains Reebok's strong support for human rights and corporate social responsibility (CSR) is relatively easy. Chinese folks have trouble in finding the link because they are lying.

By the way, Amnesty International itself gave Reebok an award for its excellent commitment to human rights and CSR.

Chinese culture and Western culture are very different.

Further, at the web site for the Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition, you will find that all the companies which received a passing grade on the environment are American and Japanese companies. There are several American companies that failed. However, all the Korean and Chinese companies flunked.

Also, many American companies are committed to corporate social responsibility (CSR). The best example of their commitment to CSR is the Sullivan Principles. All American companies, with the exception of Marathon (now bankrupt), in South Africa abided by the Sullivan Principles to hire and promote employees without regard to their race or ethnicity. The Sullivan Principles helped to end apartheid in South Africa.

Indeed, Chinese culture and Western culture are very different.

Im very surprised that noone has replied to you yet on this matter, but the gas and bio weapons Saddam used in 1991/1992 against the Kurds was purchased from the US and the UK in the 1980s, including the ability to produce more of them. Yes, the vast majority of WMD that we are looking for in Iraq are tehre because we sold them to Iraq. It is true that Germany and France also took part, as did Russia and China, but for the 1980s WMD were commonly traded arms, and the US was one of the biggest traders in them.

Source
Source
Source
Source
Source
Source
Source
Source
Source
Source

Rape isn't funny

Amnesty International don't think so

Neither do these guys

Nor does Human Rights Watch

A quarter of prisoners aged 18 to 25 claim they have been sexually assaulted while in custody

"The current government is doing the right thing...but you could do a lot worse. China is a police state? The US is MUCH more heavily policed, although if you DO manage to catch the attention of the real Chinese police they WILL shoot you in the head."

The Chinese government is doing the right thing? Tell that to the families of the hundreds of people slaughered in the Tiananmen Square protests, not to mention the people dissapeared or otherwise imprisoned for doing little more that speaking their mind or speaking the truth. Look, you want to say engagement is a more productive policy than isolation, fine, that's a reasonable stance, but don't try to claim the Chinese government really isn't so bad. The Chinese government is still a brutal group of thugs that do unconscionable things to their own people regularly.

To say that the US is no better on human rights is firstly beside the point and secondly false. That the Chinese government's actions are immoral stands independantly of how bad the record of any other government is. Clearly if a black person in South Africa during apartheid were to say that the shooting of a protester in the USSR was bad, no one would say to him, "Oh, you have no place to talk because your country treats you like shit."

I certainly won't claim that the US has a perfect record on human rights or civil liberties. That's why I am very vocal on the subject and have been a member of the ACLU here in the US. The difference, however, is that I am free to say that and free to continue that fight. I can go out and spread that message and those that are convinced can vote to change the government's policies. None of that is true in China, which is one reason why it is false to say the US is no better. Both nations have much room to improve.

As I said, I think there is an argument to be made that engagment is more effective than isolation, but engagement does not have to mean endorsement. Engagement is only a rational method of prompting change if we use that relationship as leverage to continue to fight for those improvements.

"Nothing ever shows up in the Chinese media that's critical of the government? SO what?! Nothing ever shows up on the USA's useless fucking media that hasn't been approved by the station's marketing department."

First of all, we're talking about Google news here, which includes many stories from domestic and international press, some of which are very critical of government, media conglomerates, and corporations. It's true that if you look at TV news its all mostly harmless, but the whole reason this is a big deal is because the internet is a mechanism to largely circumvent those controls and get at all the information. That's precisely what makes it so vital. Secondly, there's a big difference between "Rupart Murdoc doesn't choose to spend his money to criticise X" (the case in the US) and "if I criticise X I can be thrown in prison for years" (the case in China).

I mean if it is moral to kill a murderer, something that will not save anybody's life, why would the death of a baby (or fetus) that could save 100 people be considered immoral?

In the case of a murderer you are punishing the guilty for the crime of murder for which the penalty from ancient times has been a life for a life. It is the guilt that makes the punishment, the killing, acceptable, not expediency.

The baby, on the otherhand, is innocent and worthy of no punishment. The only basis for you to kill it is expediency, or utility. If it is acceptable to kill the baby to save 100 lives, it is just as acceptable to kill you to save 100 lives. There is little difference morally.

I wouldn't want to go down the path of establishing killing for the sake of utility. The state already has the power to "take" some of your life via conscription, or your goods by condemnation or confiscation. The state has this power even if it results in your being killed or ruined. If there is no inhibition in taking life, except those of murders, who knows what may happen? With the spectre of state run socialized medicine, the huge costs, and shortages of certain valuable... commodities, troubling things could occur. Perhaps there will be an "organ draft" with random citizens being selected for forced organ donation, perhaps so far as the entire body. ( 2% of 50 people, or 100% of 1 person... eh.) In China today, it is reported that executed prisoners have their organs removed for medical use. Finding your way into prison in a regime that would do this sort of thing is likely to be far too easy.

We should stay far, far away from that world.

Take it elsewhere, troll.

Actually, I recommend you read the whole of the report (here's the table of contents). The report is very strongly critical both of the PKK and the Turkish authorities.

You're decontextualizing this whole issue. Both sides here have plenty of blood on their hands.

Many Turks claim that they are excluded from the EU because the majority of the population are Muslim. Personally I don't care what relgion they are, we shouldn't be admitting reigemes such as this into the EU.

I don't approve or say its ok to jail someone because he wrote something on the web.

I just want you to know that PKK is not a "Worker Party" but a Terrorist Organisation.
So you should call them so.
If you don't believe me check Amnesty.org website here

Stop trolling and read http://www.amnesty.org/ailib/intcam/turkey/turk3.h tm

Of course I do not wish this upon anyone but compared with the record of China, this is a far more tame sentence.

but at least he'll be out (hopefully) in 10 months. Abuses of power are rampant throughout the globe.

The failure of Chinese society is the failure of its culture. Look at Taiwan and Singapore, both being Chinese states. In the latter, the Chinese practice eugenics and have repeatedly banned or censored journals like "The Economist". In the former, the Chinese actually support all the geopolitical objectives of Beijing, including the integration of Tibet into "One China".

Stop the pacifist plague. Ask your representative to bring home US criminal heroes. Not let them being judged by non neutral international tribunals.

The Guardian - Marines defend soldier's killing of Iraqi

UN News Centre - Iraq: UN human rights chief concerned over plight of civilians in Falluja

Amnesty International - Iraq: Urgent action needed to prevent war crimes

Stop the pacifist plague. Ask your representative to bring home US criminal heroes.

The Guardian - Marines defend soldier's killing of Iraqi

UN News Centre - Iraq: UN human rights chief concerned over plight of civilians in Falluja

Amnesty International - Iraq: Urgent action needed to prevent war crimes

Support the Iraq genocide

Stop the pacifist plague. Ask your representative to bring home US criminal heroes.

The Guardian - Marines defend soldier's killing of Iraqi

UN News Centre - Iraq: UN human rights chief concerned over plight of civilians in Falluja

Amnesty International - Iraq: Urgent action needed to prevent war crimes

"The USSR is dead."

And of course, all their missiles just up and vanished, right? Lets not forget the two countries you listed are the only ones that have missiles. While we're at it, thank you for banking the security of the United States on the sanity of somebody like Kim Jong Il. Frankly you're missing the point of having defenses such as these at all. they are for the off chance that some world leader psycho does decide to play your odds and pops a missile off because they don't think we'll call their bluff. After all, that's what N. Korea is betting on. They don't think we'll do anything after telling them to halt production. It's what Saddam betted on. Frankly, I think the cost of prevention is well worth guarding against the cost of letting even one slip through.

Besides, last time I checked, we were spending money on measures besides a missile defense program. Namely the retaliation against Afganistan, premptive strike against Iraq, disarmament of Libya, and from now on, a large hammer over the heads of those who would use less conventional means against us in the middle east. money equally well spent, IMO.

coming from a country that executes children in prison while having the highest prison population in the western world

perhaps you are not ready for the whole "freedom thing" just yet

i think he read it in that ultra right wing publication called AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL see this link for some facts :
Here Sorry to get in the way of your W bashing

You see, we have no right being scared, trying to hold back other countries. You cannot be anti-monopolistic and worry about China at the same time.

Fact: China will become a (the) world super power within 40 years, and export technology, culture and politics around the world.

It's not China's culture or economy Americans fear, it's their speech-censoring, thought-controlling Communist government that bothers us. Get rid of the latter and we'll unreservedly welcome the former.

Please do not twist the statements of Amnesty International. Here is what Amnesty International really says about Leonard Peltier.

When did Iraq Attack Us??? I must have been drunk that day.... oh wait I don't drink.....

Also I do believe that the most vlnerable humans should be protected but that is NOT what we are doing, first off lets talk about Afghanistan where over 90% of the population is dying because of hunger and starvation, we had to send less troops then there are police in the city of Detriot to take over that country, to take out the Axsis of Evil there, and somehow miss the person who actually did attack us... oh and lets talk about Iraq (who has NO connection with Bin Laden), there are countless innocent people there who have been killed by our "War on Terror" people, but we are there to liberate those people right?

Well our BEST friends the Saudi's are known for 10x worse crimes then the Iraq Govt http://www.amnesty.org/ailib/intcam/saudi/ but we won't talk about them because we like them so let them do what ever they want to their people and we will turn the other cheek....

Ok. Following that logic, I'm sre that you agree that it's high time that America unilaterally invade:

- Sudan: to stop the Genocide in Darfur and the civil war in the South (FYI the UN Charter *mandates* military action in cases of Genocide, how come the US isn't pushing this harder?)

- North Korea: Kim Jong-Il is a nucular-armed (sic) madman who oppresses and starves his subjects while maintaining a massive military complex and threatening his neigbors

- Iran: A major sponsor of global terrorism, has its own nuclear program, and has been working covertly to undermine US efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan

- Myanmar: A brutal, bloody and tyrannical regime by any standard

- Syria: Fellow Baathists, also tyrannical, also supporters of terrorism (Hamas, hezbollah, Islamic Jihad). Somehow our friends in the War on Terror (?!). Oh yeah, they're the US torture outsourcer of choice!

- Pick any one of at least a dozen regimes in Africa that are as Brutal as the Iraqi Baathist regime. Or more so.

Y'know what I find funny? Many of the same people who are now saying that it was good for America to invade Iraq to liberate its people would have said the exact opposite a few years earlier. I remember much grouching about the 'new world order' and America's role as 'Global Cop'. I remember a presidential candidate who said he would not be a nation builder. I guess it's ok to change your philosophy ('flip-flop') once your guy's in power, though, right?

Don't get me wrong. Even though I knew, in March 2003 (it was well-knowneven then) that the rationale for going to war (WMD's *NOT* liberation) was a sack of BS and that the war had been predicided by mid '02, I thought the war was a good thing: Saddam was a monster and his kids were even worse. If the American's are even halfways competent the Iraqis would be free and it would all be worth it. But they weren't. And it wasn't. And now Iraq is a far more dangerous place than it was before 03/03.

... somehow faked his way through being a fighter pilot...

a Harvard MBA

Governor

and President?

Do you really believe Bush is dumb and ...

Not that this isn't an extremely impressive move, but seriously - they're going to spend all this money trying to compete with NASA to get to Mars? Yes, the fulfilment of human greatness, scientific forethought and everything, but c'mon - I could think of a thousand better ways of spending that money. This is sad.

• America has a problem Canada's lax laws regarding pot, and Canada has a problem with drugs coming in from the U.S. It seems that the issue works both ways, and our two countries seem to be working together

• Iranian officials have stated that they don't feel the least but guilty about stealing

Hmm, let's see. In the past 225 years, America has managed to enslave, impoverish, and oppress one race, yet still have time to commit genocide on another. Oh yeah, our track record is way better than China's when it comes to basic human rights. But wait, we're a kinder, gentler America now, aren't we?

If trials were always fair, the world a nice place to live and nobody ever lied, the death penalty might be a realistic, but imho somewhat crude/barbaric option. Unforunately that is not the case.

Read this, text if you have the time and ability. Then tell me again what the difference is between murder and an execution after a trial.

It looks to me like France is violating human rights.

Almost any country is in violation of the universal declaration of human rights. E.g. the US of A violates at least articles 3 (death penalty) and 10 (Guantanamo Bay). In this case France is indeed in violation of article 19.