Slashdot Mirror
China Releases Cyber Dissident
Ridgelift writes "Reuters UK has the story on the release of three 'cyber dissidents' just one week before a trip by visit by Premier Wen Jiabao to the United States. One of the dissidents, 23-year-old Liu Di, aka the 'Stainless Steel Mouse,' had been detained since November 2002. She wrote political satire about the ruling Communist Party and posted messages in Internet chatrooms calling for the release of online dissidents. She was never formally charged, but kept at Qincheng Prison for over a year."
Don't forget that she asked to free online dissidents... asking such a goverment to stop it's actions (especially of this kind) online where it may be viewable from outside of China is a no-no. But still it's hard for us outsiders to see this as something to put someone in prison for.
Hmmm... Pie...
Also, we can note that the Chinese release political prisoners before a State visit, not after. (I'm talking about the UK detenus in Guantanamo Bay)
If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
...if not for the fact that it's probably just a PR move. It seems like every time the U.S. has something to do with China, human rights becomes the issue of the day. By releasing a couple of dissidents, China can say "Look, we respect human rights." It rings very hollow.
You have just inferred that the Guantanamo Bay prisoners are terrorists. How do you know this? Has a judge told you so? Perhaps it was a politician who told you so? Wouldn't being imprisoned by a politician make one a political prisoner?
Before we get all high and mighty, and conclude that we in the United States are so much better, superior, or luckier, remember about the prisoners the US is holding RIGHT NOW in Guantanamo Bay.
These prisoners of the US Government were held for a year or more.
Let's clean up our own act before we get all high and mighty about the Chinese, heh?
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
But Congress, having the sole authority to declare war on behalf of the United States, has not done so.
How do you figure there are "rules of war" to be followed at all?
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
Yeah, that's all well and good that they let her go and all, but what about the ones they haven't released? The ones nobody knows of, or remembers? What about the people the Chinese government has abandoned over the years, all the young girls sent off to learn the joys of Communism in the 40's, then abandoned to their fates when they decided the project sucked? How about the way women are viewed as third-class citizens, slightly above slaves, by both government and society? It's a worthless gesture on their part. Yes, they're so cool, ignore the fact that they hate us, and our wonderful Republic. Ignore the fact that they produce many of our import goods, and that every dollar we give them is another dollar they put towards bringing us down. Remember folks, America is the Evil Empire because we promote trade and capitalism. We don't hold our women down, like the Muslims and Chinese do (anymore). We have abundant natural resources under our soil, but if we tap them, we're greedy bastards hell-bent on the destruction of the environment. We are infidels, heretics, heathens, and our love of freedom is a threat to the rest of the world. And to make matters worse, every day more of our own citizens side with those who would see us fall. Other nations can feel pride for being born in their country, but don't you dare, because if you do, you're an evil capitalist bastard who takes perverse sexual pleasure in the oppression you force upon the rest of the world. The only reason those countries hate us is because we have the basic freedoms they lack, and their governments realize this. They encourage their citizens to hate us because if they would stop to think, they would realize that they themselves want these freedoms. This is very dangerous to the control a dictator exerts over his subjects. I apologize for turning this into a political rant, and I know it's all basically flamebait, but this stuff gets me pretty worked up. But anyway, we've worked very hard to become the great country we are today, and I'll be damned if I'm going to let some jealous asshole take that from me simply because he's pissed that I have more than he does.
"I like you, but I wouldn't want to see you working with subatomic particles."
When I hear about things like this it reminds of just how unusual and fragile freedom is in the world. It also makes me fearful because so few people in America are dedicated to the preservation of freedom. Instead they're either disinterested in what goes on or dedicated to furthering some ill-concieved and short sighted political agenda that they usually don't even understand. The rights and freedoms this country was founded upon are far more important to our collective future than red-herring issues like abortion. The abortion debate iself is little more than a battle-front in the cultural wars between the loony left and the religious right. As long as there are unwanted children being conceived abortion will exist regardless of whether it is legal or not. Arguing about something that cannot be stopped is futile and even counterproductive. Its like arguing about how people should wipe their asses. Its impossible to force anyone to follow whatever conclusions are reached, so why argue about it? Laws against abortion will work about as well as laws against Marijuana or Alcohol. Marijuana can be easily grown, alcohol can be easily fermented and distilled, and an abortion is only a coat-hanger away. The laws regarding all are in reality little more than proclamations of what the government would prefer you do. People get all worked up over abortion because it is a stand-in for all the other issues that don't get argued about directly. Ideological points that have been disproven or discredited but which the left or right doesn't want to let go of. It doesn't suprise me that so many people have forsaken the political process. If the choice is between a closet communist and a someone who is either a theocrat or owned by a bunch of fat-cats, there isn't really any way to make a good choice. So people don't vote and in doing so forfeit the very power that MUST be held by the people for democracy to truly exist. Every time a person disinvolves themselves from the political process they're letting the fate of this country be determined by idiots and ideologues. People who are either stupid or crazy or both.
If things keep going like this then America is doomed to die from collapse from within. Unfortunately for all our "friends" in other places who would like to see that happen, America's collapse will likely pull them in with it, or at least place them upon the very precipice of collapse just like the collapse of Rome sent all of Western Europe into the dark ages, only this time on a global scale.
Lee
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
the war is not (formally) over in Afganistan yet.
Since it never (formally) started, I guess we're in for a bit of a wait.
and according to the laws of war rules and laws are not applicable on illegal combatants;
Nope. Looks like you're repeating an invention of Donald Rumsfeld.
Laws of war cover combatants. The idea of an "illegal combatant" was only recently invented by the US. There is no such distinction in any Geneva or similar conventions.
I notice people are willing to fight for freedom for the Iraqis, for the Chinese, for every country imagineable but in the USA we want a police state to protect ourselves from the terrorists? I'm confused, someone please explain this to me. We pass the patriot act, and make it possible to toss anyone in prison who even resembles a terrorist with no trial, nothing. I'd be worried about the USA.
People don't exist to serve systems, systems exist to serve people.
Why are so many Americans in prison, under third world medical conditions? The war on drugs, primarily, but also idiotic minimum sentencing laws. Where China executes people as a "deterrence", the US lock them up for decades for the same reason, while still retaining a provably flawed capital punishment system. And, by the way, according to Amnesty International:
There are many other very serious social issues in the US (insufficient health care, police brutality, religious fundamentalism, sexual hysteria ..), and just waving the finger at China and shouting "Woo, we're so great" is not going to cut it. The US needs to get serious about cleaning up at home before trying to impose itself as the world police elsewhere. Getting rid of your idiot president would be a good start.
Republican hawks believe that using Guantanamo Bay "sends a message of strength." They make no secret that they want to continually push the boundaries of acceptable U.S. military behavior in many respects, from ignoring international laws (remember, Reagan's Navy mined Nicraguan harbors) to the occasional unilateral invasion now and then (Granada, Panama, Lybia, Iraq, etc.), and to make a big show of it. In doing so, they lower the acceptable standards of behavior of the U.S. so they can get away with more when it serves their purposes.
Some of us in the U.S. consider that kind of thing dispicable and against everything this country was founded to protect, but most people don't learn enough to care either way.
Japan, up until the past year, was more-or-less the opposite, where politicians could score points by arbitrarily constraining the JDF in some abstract way.
Because people are used to seeing this sort of shit from China?
"Someone explain to me how
* the US is never right about anything it does,"
* Europe calls it a "crime against humanity" when the US executes 71 people in 2002
* groups like our faithful slashdot posters and Amnesty International constantly bitch and whine about how evil the US is, and
* basically ALL the problems of the world are America's fault"
Yeah, whine, whine, whine. Basically, a lot of people in the world who used to admire USA are getting more and more disappointed. America is getting worse quickly. Since the Sep. 11 attack you guys have been behaving like spoiled brats and shown all the world that you are immature, selfish, manipulative and don't care bloody shit about other people and nations.
Ok, so the actions of your government isn't necessarily in 100% agreement with the opinions of the average American citizen; but you people are ultimately responsible for your government, no matter whether they got to power because you elected them or because you didn't care enough. You've got DEMOCRACY, right?
And just to remind you:
- The US waste resources at an absurd rate. Fossil fuel, drinking water, minerals etc; these are all 'the planet's savings', and you are flushing them down the drains.
- The US have for at least half a century used their powers (political, economical, military) to try to control international affairs as well as internal affairs in individual countries, and you guys are not at all above such means as selling weapons to both sides in a conflict, outright and shameless lying, and general bullying.
- These factors as well as others combined with your oh-so-holy stance on such issues as human rights, freedom, democracy and religion (as long as it is ultra right wing 'Christianity') make it hard for the rest of the world to take you serious when you air your high and mighty opinions about how other countries ought to manage their own businesses.
In short: clean up own act! You are not an iota better than China.
As for China: Yes, they still have many problematic issues. But they, as opposed to USA, are improving things day by day. The way things are going, they will soon become better than USA on all counts; they already are on some. Eg. how many dirty tyrants are supported by China compared to USA?
People in the world outside America notice these things, you know. If you want respect, be respectable; if you want admiration, be admirable; and if you want to be 'the leaders of the free world' - prove that you are worthy.
You sound like a product of Chinese (re)education.
Which is exactly why those in power in China don't want the Chinese people exposed to free thinking and the outside world.
Quick story. Six hundred years ago, China kicked ass in pretty much everything. Zheng He's fleet of ships discovered the world in Junks that were probably 500 years ahead of anything anyone else had* - so when they got back, China decided the world had nothing to offer them and prmptly closed up the borders... Anyway, my point is that Chinas leaders have a history of overly controlling it's people and it's a strategy that clearly doesn't work. In those 600 years, the world has caught up and China is renowned for cheap labour. Nice going guys. Imagine where both the world and China would be today if the borders had been open and knowledge flowed freely. Imagine the world a couple of hundred years from now - that's where we might have been if a bunch of old men hadn't got it wrong.
China has a billion people, many of whom could do amazing things given the opportunity, but some small minded politicians are too scared of losing power money control and face, that they oppress and brainwash the masses into thinking it's for the best. Nice plan, but it won't work for ever - it never works for ever.
I hope the Chinese people take control back soon, so China can regain some of its former glory.
* Had floodable compartments for fishing / washing, navigated with a compass, huge hull size, etc, etc.
Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
Actually, we do. A lot. It just never gets to the news. I'm too young, but my parents have spoken up on every conflict there was.
In the case of Iraq, Amnesty International had a huge body of knowledge about the atrocities committed by Saddam.
Unfortunately, when Ronald Reagan decided Saddam was the good guy, and sent Donald Rumsfeld to shake hands with him, it gets really, really hard to say otherwise. Furthermore, when Saddam gassed the Kurds at Halabja, the Reagan administration blamed Iran, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, and voted down every condemnation of Iraq, but inside and outside the US.
OK, but that's history. How about today? Now that Saddam's gone, there are other dictators that should follow. For example Islam Karimov of Uzbekistan. The democratic opposition had great hopes when America entered Central Asia. Unfortunately, you let them down. Islam Karimov is now one of the cherished allies in the "coalition". With US support, he has semented his power. Perhaps it is not too much to ask that you at least stop supporting the worst dictators on the planet, and let the people have a chance to get rid of them themselves?
Uhm, no, you missed the point. It's not anti-americanism to tell America it's wrong. OK, you can find anti-americanism, and it is a fair amount of around, on the form: "America is headed for the quagmire (hehe)". But it is not anti-americanism to say that "America is headed for the quagmire, and we have to work with america to change its course". The latter is far more common than the former.
The difference between America and China is that America is a democracy and it has a free press. Those two things should make it possible to get through to America far more easily than to China. So, the reason why America is addressed is that there are certain values it tends to uphold. That's not anti-americanism, to the contrary, it is recognition. But it also demands of you that you realize that your current President is wiping his ass with your constitution, and that you get rid of him. Nobody else can do that but you.
Employee of Inrupt, Project Release Manager and Community Manager for Solid
Odd how China releases these 'cyber dissidents' less than a week before Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao visits the US.
Hoist Number One and Number Six.
How is this "insiteful"?
But Congress, having the sole authority to declare war on behalf of the United States, has not done so.
Apparently you are under the impression that any use of force by the Executive Branch must be authorized by the Legeslature and prefaces with some sort of magic words like "We hearby formally and absolutely declair war on the parties causing us so much unpleasantless" or somethinig similar? You are at odds with Thomas Jefferson and anybody else who knows the first thing about war powers.
Oh, one not-so-minor item, the Congress DID authorize the President to use force in Afghanistan AND Iraq. They have continued funding too.
How do you figure there are "rules of war" to be followed at all?
Well, because they actually are being followed. Please, point to some article or treaty that we are not following? We are, in fact, following all of the Laws of War and Peace where we are a signator as well as the UCMJ (the applicable US law).
Eve Fairbanks says I drive a hybrid!LOL
asking such a goverment to stop it's actions (especially of this kind) online where it may be viewable from outside of China is a no-no.
I can only assume that by "no-no", you mean "a human right, which is viciously punished by the thugs who seized China in a putsch in the late 1940's".
But still it's hard for us outsiders to see this as something to put someone in prison for.
That would be because it's not something to put someone in prison for, even under the "laws" that the commie thugs claim to follow. Hypocrisy abounds in communist countries.
China does not live under the rule of law, it is under the yoke of the Mao dynasty, which has vastly outdone all previous Chinese dynasties for the brutality it has shown to the Chinese people.
Say what you like about the Ming's corruption, they never murdered thirty million people through deliberate starvation.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Secondly, China's former glory was based on exactly the kind of repressive system that is in place today: indeed at the height of China's power, the repression was even more extreme. None of China's peoples, apart from a tiny elite, ever had any power. The time in history when power was distributed a little more widely was during the Cultural Revolution: not exactly a ringing endorsement for student power, Chinese style.
Does this mean that I approve of China's system? Absolutely not. But I do recognise that it is nonsense (except as a propoganda ploy) to demand that China adopt a system that would lead to its self destruction. If China's current economic progress can be leveraged to directly benefit the population at large (and people become overwhelmingly satisified with their lives personally) tolerating most forms of dissent may become practicable. As things stand today, allowing political pluralism would probably result in violent upheaval in the short term interests of nobody.
China's problems are complex.
Frankly, the US is not well placed to criticize those in other countries for trying to conserve their power by improper means.
I hope you don't think I'm American do you? Anyway, no system works forever, and the political structure needs to reflect that. In my country we've moved through a couple of methods already, because that what the people wanted. Amazing stuff, and nobody even got overthrown.
Firstly, and most important, there is no single Chinese people.
No kidding. I have friends who are Mongolian, and friends from Beijing. Yes, things is different.
On that note, take a look at the EU, and imagine that being run in a totalitarian manner. No, it won't work, yet the Chinese government want it to work in China. Hmmm, no, not a good idea. But maybe using the provincial governments better could work, if central government was prepared to relinquish some power... Let the people elect their own representatives who then have voice in the central government.
China's problems are complex.
Nice cop-out.
Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
Instead they're either disinterested in what goes on or dedicated to furthering some ill-concieved and short sighted political agenda that they usually don't even understand. The rights and freedoms this country was founded upon are far more important to our collective future than red-herring issues like abortion. The abortion debate iself is little more than a battle-front in the cultural wars between the loony left and the religious right.
Before criticizing others for not understanding the issues, you might want to learn about them a little more deeply yourself. The abortion debate goes to the heart of the preservation of freedom. In short, here's the crux of the debate.
The left is influenced by the relativistic materialist philosophy that Lenin combined with with Marxism and Hegel's dialectics to create Soviet Communism. Relativism holds that there is no absolute truth or standard of morality, and that what is right and wrong is only what each society in each instance of history decides is right and wrong. Materialism holds that human beings are nothing but organic machines, and that whatever free will we think we have is a mere illusion. Every action we perform, every decision we make, is not a result of our own voltion, but rather a mechanical reaction to a complex combination of outside stimuli.
For example, if I decide to kill someone, it's not b/c I'm an inherently evil person, but rather b/c I have experienced a confluence of environmental stimuli that have essentially "programmed" me, or pushed the right buttons so to speak, which have caused me to inexorably kill a person. I am an automaton with no control over my actions, and free-will is merely the delusion of a mind unable to understand the complex and subtle stimuli that have caused my action.
Since people have no free-will (and no soul), and are simply organic automatons, then no individual human being is special or valuable in and of himself. All that matters is the overall happiness of society. Such is the relativistic end that justifies all means to the left, and Soviet Communism took that to its terminal conclusion by murdering or brainwashing all those that they thought detracted from the overall happiness of society, eg. people of Capitalist/bourgeousie bent or those who simply spoke or acted in ways not in accordance with state idealogy. In the USSR the tally came to around 40 million people. According to Relativism, murdering such people was not only not wrong, but right, b/c it contributed to the happiness of those who were left, and according to Materialism those individuals had no innate value anyway.
So, the Relativistic Materialist influence on the left leads them to the view that overal social happiness is the end that justifies the means, that no one is responsible for his or her actions b/c we're all just automatons, and that there is no absolute right or wrong. Therefore, abortion is merely a function of social happiness, and as such women who want it should clearly be allowed to "chose". Unborn babies make no contribution to social happiness (or economic production, which is one factor of social happiness), and since no individual human has value anyway, aborting an unborn baby is no more or less a transgression than clipping your toenails.
The right on the other hand takes the traditional Classical Liberal/Englightenment view, in that individual human beings have innate value and that there is an absolute truth and absolute right and wrong. Some on the right believe that value is endowed by God, (as America's founders did, hence "inalienable God-given rights"). Others are less religious and believe in the European Enlightenment and German idealist philosophies that man has free-will, and as such is an indenpendent, innately valuable individual, and that the protection of the individual against the tyranny of others is the highest goal of society. Regardless which method of reasoning is used, both agree that protecting the life of the individual is the en
Flying is easy, just throw yourself at the ground and miss. -Douglas Adams
Actually, it's easy to find specific allegations of torture. It's also quite easy to find that the international and US courts have no control over guantanamo bay prisoners. And it's easy to find this from multiple sources. To me the very fact that the US government doesn't want courts to get involved signifies they're likely doing stuff that can not see the light of day. If there's nothing to hide, why are they hiding it?
Ofcourse, you could argue that these are all lies and hearsay, and that the US government would never ever use torture. But it is a fact that prisoners on guantanamo bay are held illegally (according to the geneva convention they should be pow's, but the US claims they aren't), and that they do not have due process rights (inalienable human right). If the US is breaking the law anyway in their detainment of these prisoners, would it be such a stretch to imagine them using torture as well?
There is such a thing as psychological torture by the way. If you're being held without accusation, without promise of release, ever (despite that the war in afghanistan is over, pow's haven't been returned or formally accused of a crime), and without even access to counsel or basically the outside world, would you feel ok? I'd feel downright miserable in such circumstances, even if they did not lay a hand on me. The geneva convention's definition of torture is "cruel and unusual treatment", which does not need to have a physical component involved.
I see no need for guantanamo bay. If the people there did something wrong, the regular US judicial system should be able to handle it. If they didn't do something wrong (and no, fighting for your country is not a crime), they should be freed. The very existance of guantanamo bay is a slap in the face of justice.
I would argue that strength of mind is not how strongly you are convinced you're right, but how easily you can be convinced if you're wrong. Actually thinking about things, and reaching your own conclusions, means you can't be persuaded easily of things that are wrong, and won't hold onto mistaken beliefs. If everyone in the US did this, there would be no war with terrorism.
BTW, hooding prisoners is NOT torture and neither is shackeling for transport, both accusations tossed about by the hysterical Left.
And the Geneva Convention is still binding law in the US, something forgotten about by nutcase right-wing neocons like yourself.
With people like you living in it, it is no fucking wonder the entire world hates this country.
Karma: Excellent Birds (mostly as a result of listening to Laurie Anderson)
Typical Anit-Chinese-without-rationale Troll. Well, I'll bite.
... by the thugs who seized China in a putsch in the late 1940's".
I can only assume that by "no-no", you mean "a human right, which is viciously punished...
Where in the world would it be safe to speak of things sensitive to the government, and not be hassled in one way or the other? Perhaps pulling the offender into prison without reason seems somewhat "brutal", but how is it different from making up some fancy charges and then still putting the person into prison? What, "terrorism"?
On what basis are you saying that they are "thugs"?
That would be because it's not something to put someone in prison for, even under the "laws" that the commie thugs claim to follow.
And you bet that hasn't happened in places, say, the United States?
Hypocrisy abounds in communist countries.
Hypocrisy is in every political group. Why does it only apply to communist countries? Or does the term "hypocrisy" only apply to those that you dislike, and everything else, no matter how self-contradicting it is, is all correct if the person/group in question is those of your liking?
China does not live under the rule of law, it is under the yoke of the Mao dynasty, which has vastly outdone all previous Chinese dynasties for the brutality it has shown to the Chinese people.
How is it under the rule of the "Mao Dynasty"? The current leaders are apparently quite different from Mao in their attitude and actions. China isn't even strictly a communist country now, though it still claims it is.
Don't quote me on this.
Please define "illegal combatant". If by this term you mean "person whom we suspect of involvement in 9/11 but may have been apprehended in countries such as Pakistan, Bosnia-Herzegovina, and Gambia" (ie not just engaged in combat in Afghanistan) then you are totally justified. They may not deserve POW status as they are not being held for military action, but since they are being held in relation to crimes committed on US soil they should be subject to the laws and procedures of the US, as any other criminal would be. The idea that this crime was more heinous or that foreign nationality is relevant is a red herring. Timothy McVeigh had a trial, was he any better than these people? Oh, I forgot, he was an American, which apparently does make him better...
/ fu ll/llan.362.9383.talking_points.26874.2: //web.amnesty.org/library/index/engamr5114120 036 3.html8 26939.html
Or are you saying that an accusation alone is sufficient justification to allow the removal of human rights? In that case, why should any alleged criminal be entitled to legal defence? Perhaps everyone, upon reaching 16, should spend 6 months in federal-pound-me-in-the-ass prison, just to give authorities time to establish they haven't done anything illegal. That is the ultimate extension of the "we decide what laws apply and when" philosophy being espoused currently by the US.
The ugly precedent that you miss about this is that the US is deciding who is or isn't an "illegal combatant", and whether or not they were involved in combat even if they weren't actually on any battlefield. Technically, there is nothing stopping the US declaring anyone, anywhere in the world an illegal combatant (of course, the CIA has never fabricated evidence against anyone...) and holding them without trial for an indefinite time. Also, declaring a "war on terror", but then saying your enemy is engaged in "illegal combat" is totally hypocritical and indefensible to anyone who is capable of recognizing paradoxes.
No, I'm sorry, arbitrarily deciding BEFORE ANY KIND OF TRIAL that a person has no rights is precisely what other countries do. Exerting that principle by force in other sovereign nations is exactly what an imperialist dictatorship does.
Either human rights and rule of law are universal, or the notion of a "fair and free" country is a sham. You can't have it both ways.
For reference of human rights violations at Guantanamo Bay (although you may not have learned this from playing with kittens as a child, not all forms of torture are physical):
http://www.thelancet.com/journal/vol362/iss9383
or
http
or
http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_8415
or
http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_
or just google. They're there, just get off your smug ass and find them and stop parroting CNN.
Pretty lame solution. You break the law, so make up a different definition for things so that you are NOT breaking the law by definition alone. I remember Bill Cliton doing the same thing with regards to having sex with an intern.
Once you start doing crap like that, lets just say it should be a warning sign. When you actually start to believe in your semantics shell game... all hope is lost.
This is what always happens. China sends the US messages this way. When China releases dissidents right before a visit it means "we're progressive and want to talk about loosening trade restrictions." When China arrests dissidents right before a visit, it means "we're an independent country and we're not going to take any shit about our human rights abuses. Stop giving aid to Taiwan or suffer the consequences."
"The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
That's a personal attack and not a logical argument.
You know, ever few years there is a big public scandel and we discover that some local police department has corrupt officers. Common sense suggests that there remain corrupt officers throughout the country. Do we dismiss out of hand the statements of the law enforcement community as a result? The same goes for, say, your elected officials. There have been and likely will continue to be dirty politicians; do I dismiss the statements of the US Congress out of hand?
There are 53 member countries in the commission. Might any of Austria, Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, Poland, the United Kingdom, or even the United States have had a say? Are you implying that a majority of the member states are corrupt and actually condone human rights violations?
Search 2010 Gen Con events
How do you know they are "unlawful" combatants if they don't have a trial?
---
Never criticize religion on Slashdot. You will be modded down for "Troll" no matter how factual it is.