fearlessly proclaiming the truth & the other truth! voice of the teknoshamanic institute
The Most Offensive Defence is A Spun Offence.
Published on June 8, 2005 By kingbee In Politics

gulag.

amazing that one small word can be so powerful or evoke such a horrific response. 

i first became familiar with the concept while reading 'one day in the life of ivan denisovich' by alexander solzhenitsyn when i was still in grade school (clearly my recreational reading tastes were a bit precocious as well as extreme).  for a week during the summer between 7th and 8th grade, i shivered in the heat and humidity of late july in da motah city as ivan and i--convict slave laborers--endured the frozen extremes of siberia and the brutally inhumane excesses of a pitiless totalitarian state that had nullified our lives.

why were we there?  for how long would we remain?  there was no way of knowing.  worst of all, no one--least of all our former families and friends-- except those who kept us here and our fellow slaves knew for sure we even existed. 

amnesty international's international report, released on may 25, 2005, characterizes as a gulag the facility at guantanamo, cuba where the us holds some of  those captured in its war on terrorism.   not surprisingly, the current administration refutes that designation.  according to bush, it's an obvious case of disassembly (which he defines as lying).

not surprisingly, there are more than a few ju bloggers who are outraged by the amnesty international report.  

the war on terror is an honorable endeavor being waged against those who hate us and are willing to go to any length to destroy us because--as our president has proclaimed--they hate freedom.

finally  amnesty international has revealed its true agenda  and shown it hates us and our freedom as well.

how could we have been so foolish as to believe that an organization which has, for years, despised  the freedom enjoyed in north korea, china, vietnam, algeria, myanmar,  the maldives, turkey, morroco, today's russia, the former soviet union and its eastern european colonies, chile (under pinochet), argentina, cuba, the sudan and dozens of other bastion of freedom countries wouldn't eventually add us to the list.? 

fortunately we have plenty of examples on which to base our response---thanks to those nations for which this whole thing is old hat.

before we go there, let's clear something up.  guantanamo isn't a network of slave labor camps in the wilds of siberia into which millions of our own citizens disappear, most never to return.  hell, it's not even cold there.

on the other hand, perhaps amnesty international meant it figuratively.  after all, there are 500 people who've been locked up in gitmo for nearly 3 years without ever having been charged with any crime.  as far as they know, it could be another 20 years before they'll have a day in court.  their families have no clue as to their status.  no one except the force that's detaining them knows whether they're well or ill or alive.

nawwww.  that couldn't be it.

ai has a lotta nerve.  after all, didn't the president pledge in his 2nd inaugural address that the us was dedicated to spreading democracy and freedom.  aren't we spending billions and putting our military into harm's way to do just that in iraq?  if you can't trust our government, who can you trust?  

(who better to answer that question than those of you who join heston in announcing that they'll have to pry your gun outta your cold dead hands.  but then again, amnesty international doesn't own any guns huh?)

so anyway we're busy spreading freedom and democracy  not only by deed but by example--certainly there's no better advertisement than good example--and all amnesty international can do is criticize us.

no wonder cheney took offense and won't take ai seriously.  he's a flexible guy and just because he, the president and rumsfeld used to take them seriously enough to cite them multiple times in white house position papers  on hussein's iraq  Link  (In August 2001 Amnesty International released a report entitled Iraq -- Systematic Torture of Political Prisoners, which detailed the systematic and routine use of torture against suspected political opponents and, occasionally, other prisoners. Amnesty International also reports "Detainees have also been threatened with bringing in a female relative, especially the wife or the mother, and raping her in front of the detainee. Some of these threats have been carried out." ) , don't mean he cant change his mind.  or maybe his mind is the same but amnesty international is different. ( i can hear him singing along with joe walsh...'everybody's so different, i'm still the same.' )

fact is, amnesty international provided a good deal of the source material used by bush, cheney and rumsfeld to justify their planned invasion of iraq.  so having ai slam em now must really not bother them a bit because the organization just doesn't have any credibility

not that everything ai had to say about america was bad.  they approved the supreme court ruling that requires a court hearing for prisoners of the 'war on terror'.   big deal huh?

the final straw has to be ai's outrageous demands that the us stop secretly holding prisoners incommunicado (ghost prisoners), permit the international red cross access to all prisoners, ensure due process for all prisoners, implement an independent investigation of all allegations of torture and prosecute all who cause detainees to be brutalized or tortured while in the custody of the us. 

if that sounds familiar, it's probably cuz those damn amnesty international freedom-haters stole it directly from past presidents who demanded the soviet union do the same thing at their gulags.

if all of this pisses you off, you're not alone.

i'm pissed off too.  pissed off really badly that my country has engaged in the type of thing for which we used to condemn rogue states like north korea and the soviet union.   pissed off that my president says he wants to promote democracy and freedom throughout the world while eroding the essentials of democracy and freedom at home. pissed off that such blatant hypocrisy is ignored and--even worse--approved by those who claim to be the most stalwart advocates of the rule of law and our constitution.

one final note: in another thread, one commentor said he was dismayed because amnesty international had diminished the horror of the gulag in its report.  after all, there's no comparison.   this same commentor claims to be a student of history.  not a very good student in my opinion or he'd remember that gulags--like rome--aren't built in a day.  once you lay the first stone, the next one is a little easier. 


Comments (Page 2)
13 Pages1 2 3 4  Last
on Jun 09, 2005
I guess the Democratic and obviously European approach would be to simply let them go about the business of blowing up buildings and killing innocent people and make the job of the government to merely eulogize and mourn the dead. Go forbid we actually do anything about it.


I was thinking more of arresting them and then allowing them a fair trial and then keeping them detained once they had been proven guilty. Its a crazy idea, I know!

merely suffering the sort of terrorism as seen in Northern Ireland


You seem to be completely passing over the fact that the terrorism merely suffered in Northern Ireland went on for 30 years and caused the deaths of countless civilians, police, army and paramilitaries. Whereas the US has had, what, two terror attacks in recent memory? I'm not meaning to do down the horror of these attacks, just comparing them to what you dismiss as not important.

The big difference, of course, was the funding of the terrorism in NI by the Irish American community.

There has been overwhelming support for our mission in Afghanistan and no question as to the terrorist status of those held.


Let them face trial then. If there is no question there should be no problem with putting it beyond doubt!
on Jun 09, 2005

#15 by kingbee
Thursday, June 09, 2005





Excuse me but since when are trails held for POW's unless they're charged with war crimes? Since they are not charged with that, there WON'T be any trials.


the president's position--which was denied by the courts but is now being appealed by the president--is they are not pows.


Then they can NOT be given geneva convention status, can they?
on Jun 09, 2005
Then they can NOT be given geneva status, can they?


i'm gonna go really slow here so you don't get confused. let's say one of your neighbors is found walking down the road with a bloody axe and when the cops try to ask him what the fuck is up, he does his best to damage as many cops as possible. let's say he succeeds and does in the town's favorite cop. once they get the axe away from him and he's handcuffed & hogtied, detectives begin following a trail of gore to see who else had the bad fortune to run into the axeman.

turns out he'd started at the holy child orphanage where he tortured and then dispatched all the lil unfortunates living there after using the crucifices off the altar to do horrible perverted things to the nuns who took care of em.

he'd even chopped up the orphans shetland pony and slowly hacked apart the smartest, most loyal collie ever to walk the earth.

with me still dr???

despite having done all those horrible things, it is neither ethical nor moral for you--the good citizens of your formerly peaceful lil village--to dispense with the formalities and beat him to death with bats. whether he deserves that isn't important.

if you are an american citizen, it is not legal for to you to transport this man to a little island you've leased from dr. evil so as to deny him the right to a trial.

if the president gets a couple corrupt attorneys to provide him assurances it is legal for him to prevent this man from being charged...or to prevent him from being informed of the charges against him...or to bar him from legal representation...or to refuse him the right to confront his accusers...the president may be violating his oath of office, and he's certainly acting in a manner inconsistent with the rule of law. realisticaly, that president's no better than any other tinhorn dictator who disappears people.

same thing goes for trying to invent new rules to cover someone captured half a world away for doing the same horrible things and then transported to an offshore facility operated by the us government.

even if it is eventually determined to be technically legal, it still aint right and it aint the american way.
on Jun 09, 2005

#18 by kingbee
Thursday, June 09, 2005





Then they can NOT be given geneva status, can they?


i'm gonna go really slow here so you don't get confused. let's say one of your neighbors is found walking down the road with a bloody axe and when the cops try to ask him what the fuck is up, he does his best to damage as many cops as possible. let's say he succeeds and does in the town's favorite cop. once they get the axe away from him and he's handcuffed & hogtied, detectives begin following a trail of gore to see who else had the bad fortune to run into the axeman.

turns out he'd started at the holy child orphanage where he tortured and then dispatched all the lil unfortunates living there after using the crucifices off the altar to do horrible perverted things to the nuns who took care of em.

he'd even chopped up the orphans shetland pony and slowly hacked apart the smartest, most loyal collie ever to walk the earth.

with me still dr???

despite having done all those horrible things, it is neither ethical nor moral for you--the good citizens of your formerly peaceful lil village--to dispense with the formalities and beat him to death with bats. whether he deserves that isn't important.

if you are an american citizen, it is not legal for to you to transport this man to a little island you've leased from dr. evil so as to deny him the right to a trial.

if the president gets a couple corrupt attorneys to provide him assurances it is legal for him to prevent this man from being charged...or to prevent him from being informed of the charges against him...or to bar him from legal representation...or to refuse him the right to confront his accusers...the president may be violating his oath of office, and he's certainly acting in a manner inconsistent with the rule of law. realistically, that president's no better than any other tin-horn dictator who disappears people.

same thing goes for trying to invent new rules to cover someone captured half a world away for doing the same horrible things and then transported to an offshore facility operated by the us government.

even if it is eventually determined to be technically legal, it still aint right and it aint the american way.


And I'll try going even a little slower for you. You obviously did NOT comprehend my last post at all! You say that they are not POW's. Ok, fine! Then if they are not to be considered POW's then they can NOT claim protection under the Geneva convention! The convention is for POW's!


if the president gets a couple corrupt attorneys to provide him assurances it is legal for him to prevent this man from being charged...or to prevent him from being informed of the charges against him...or to bar him from legal representation...or to refuse him the right to confront his accusers...the president may be violating his oath of office, and he's certainly acting in a manner inconsistent with the rule of law. realistically, that president's no better than any other tin-horn dictator who disappears people.



The key word here as far as we're concerned is "maybe". Until such said time that a ruling is passed giving credence to wether or not they are POW's then we are treating them as we should. If it is ruled that they are indeed not POW's then things have to change!


same thing goes for trying to invent new rules to cover someone captured half a world away for doing the same horrible things and then transported to an offshore facility operated by the us government.


And just where in hell would you have us put them? And what's the difference?
on Jun 09, 2005
You seem to be completely passing over the fact that the terrorism merely suffered in Northern Ireland went on for 30 years and caused the deaths of countless civilians, police, army and paramilitaries. Whereas the US has had, what, two terror attacks in recent memory? I'm not meaning to do down the horror of these attacks, just comparing them to what you dismiss as not important.


When I used the word merely it was in no way to diminish the horrific nature of what has happened in NI. The comparison I was drawing was that in NI there was a solution, there was a reason for what was happening that went beyond mere hate of a race or religion. There was the possibility of going to the table and working out a peaceful arrangement. The IRA considered themselves an army fighting a foreign occupation. There's the big difference; we don't hold any land of these guys, we have nothing they want. In Northern Ireland it was a freaking battle over land, rule and unification. Was the loss of life any less tragic? No, but a solution existed the whole time. Hell, the US has been involved in the peace process in NI; we know a little about fighting colonial rule ourselves. Unfortunately, we are fighting an enemy against whom there is no solution. The only peaceful arrangement we could make with these bastards is if we were willing to lay down and die. Were the soldiers of the IRA willing to bomb themselves as martyrs thinking they would be received in heaven by 70 virgins? NO!! Again, they considered themselves an army fighting an enemy occupation, they saw no glory in dying in the name of Allah and they were not dead set on killing every Brit walking the face of the earth!!

Let them face trial then. If there is no question there should be no problem with putting it beyond doubt!


There you go with the liberal crap again. Okay we put them on trial for what? For hating us? How do we prove under the standards of a court of law that we know they will kill us if we do not detain them? Your logic is like saying that we should not trap an alligator loose in the public unless we put it on trial and prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it will eat us if we don't detain or move it. Also, let us not forget that these guys from Afghanistan were not swept up in house to house raids, these were guys from the field of battle. You people are mixing up your facts here and can't lay off Iraq. Iraqi prisoners are in Iraq. Yes, lot's of the Iraqi prisoners were swept up in house to house raids and many innocent people may be being held, but this is not the case of the men being held at Gitmo. The place being called a Gulag is Gitmo and even Amnesty International is mixing it in with Iraq in order to take a swipe at Bush.

I was thinking more of arresting them and then allowing them a fair trial and then keeping them detained once they had been proven guilty. Its a crazy idea, I know!


You don't detain a man that has been found guilty, you imprison him. You detain someone that you suspect of being guilty.

Whereas the US has had, what, two terror attacks in recent memory? I'm not meaning to do down the horror of these attacks, just comparing them to what you dismiss as not important.


Correct, the US has been attacked on it's own soil twice; the first Trade Center bombing and then 9/11. However, these are just attacks on our on soil. If I must give a history lesson then I will go and look up every embassy bombing, every hijacking, every ship that has been attacked, every hostage situation, etc...

Again, you liberals talk a lot but you offer no real solution. I am talking about a solution to the fact that their are a good many fanatical Muslims that will stop at nothing, including martrydom, in order to kill as many Americans (and now Iraqi Shiites as well) as they possibly can. I repeat, the liberal party of this country was crushed because they have no solution. The politically correct liberals are mad because we have a president who is saying and doing what must be done. Let me use the alligator analogy again; if I have an alligator in my backyard, I am going to kill it or put it in a cage. If I come across the realization that alligators not only want to eat me, also that their is nothing I can do to appease them and furthermore they are willing cross oceans to find me and kill me; then I am going to start hunting down alligators and putting them in cages and killing them before they can kill me.

on Jun 09, 2005

well no wonder we havent had any trials since you've decided theyre all guilty.

POWs do not get trials.  Why should armed combatants, the equivalent of spies, get a trial? You shoot at our troops and are not killed, you get penned up.  No questions, and no trials.

on Jun 09, 2005
"do the japanese hate us now? the germans? the russians?"


I could concede the point had I said 'nations'. I said 'people', though. Frankly, yes, many of the people who survive in Japan and Germany that hated us then still voice the same opinions of us now.

What the Dr. and others are trying to point out is that you are imposing a standard that simply doesn't exist. We don't consult a judge before we shoot someone on the battlefied, and we don't bring terrorists into US courts and treat them like ordinary criminals. The system wasn't made for it.

I suppose the only way to remain safe and please people who hate what we are doing now would be to just shoot them and have it over with before the press finds out. Kind of sad. At least this way they have hope.
on Jun 09, 2005
kingbee:

i'm gonna go really slow here so you don't get confused


Ok kingbee, you've bored us all to tears with the "we aren't true Americans" if we don't give these guys due process crap. So please, regale us with your solution. I'm not talking about a solution to Gitmo; for goodness sake at this point I would say just set them all free to shut you bleeding heart liberals up, but what then? How do we protect ourselves from them? Jose Padilla who is at the center of all this enemy combatant crap is a perfect example. Look, we know beyond doubt that he attended an al quaeda training camp with the express purpose of learning to build and use a "dirty" bomb on American citizens. Do we have enough evidence to pass the stringent tests afforded our citizens to prevent innocents being held? Hell no. Has he done it yet? No. So we just wait for him to do it.

I'm going to go slow just like you did. In your example, we have a guy with the bloody axe, we have evidence, he's killed a few cops. So we put the guy on trial, decide a sentence and he serves it. Mr. Padilla is only guilty at this point of WANTING or DESIRING to kill us. That is why we give him enemy combatant status, because he cannot be convicted of a crime that he has not commited yet. But let's be reasonable, anyone in this country that has attended an al quaeda training camp is not here to further the American way and go out and eat hot dogs and apple pie with us. While they have not commited a crime they are a real and imminent threat to many lives. That is why we have the enemy combatant status. They are not POW's and they are not guilty of a crime,yet, unless we make attending al quaeda camps and hating Americans enough to kill us a crime.

You want the truth? It knida like the good old "A few good men" truth, you obviously can't handle it. The truth is we have people who are willing to fight for the right to hold this Padilla and many other people just to keep them from killing us. I agree with you, are they convictable in a court of law? No way. But would they kill you if given a chance? Hell yes, and that is why he is being held on a military base without the right to an attorney. Because he is not charged with anything and he is not getting a day in court. Although his greatest desire is to kill as many Americans as he possible can, we are feeding him, clothing him and giving him a roof over his head. He is not in anyhting close to a gulag as Amnesty International would have us believe, but yes he is being held and no charges will probably ever be filed against him unless we create a law making it illegal to hate Americans enough to kill us.

Consider it one hell of a restraining order that he is under. If a man gives someone a reason to believe that he wishes to harm them, can we arrest the guy? Can we put him in jail? No, we just create a restraining order keeping from contact with that person he wishes to harm (which I consider to be laughable, how many women have been killed by husbands that have restraining orders against them?). Just consider the guys at Gitmo and Mr. Padilla at the base in SC to currently be under one whopper of a restraining order.

While you, kingbee, cry for these guy's rights at night, I am sleeping better knowing that one less man who wants to kill me and my family is being detained.


on Jun 09, 2005
You don't detain a man that has been found guilty, you imprison him. You detain someone that you suspect of being guilty.


Ok, point taken, but you knew what I meant, I'm sure.

When I used the word merely it was in no way to diminish the horrific nature of what has happened in NI.


Again, point taken and well made, in some ways.

Again, you liberals talk a lot but you offer no real solution.


Its funny that you have labelled me a liberal with no other evidence to go on, but I suppose if I am found in a certain place, at a certain time, I can be nothing else than what you decide me to be and therefore deserve to be labelled that way (hmm, sounds spookily like Gitmo)

You people are mixing up your facts here and can't lay off Iraq.


I seem to not have mentioned Iraq at all in this discussion.


Getting away from trialing the prisoners then, there is still the treatment issue and the conditions n which they are forced to live in by a self-proclaimed flag bearer of freedom and democracy.

Please don't use arguements that imply that they would do it to us, given half the chance, or similar. You should be above their tatics and methods
on Jun 09, 2005
I seem to not have mentioned Iraq at all in this discussion.


The fact the you are using the Amnesty International reports lumps you right in with them in my humble opinion. It is Amnesty International that has blended true enemy combatants from Afghanistan with the prisoners in Iraq. No pictures of abuse have come out of Gitmo as did from some of the facilities in Iraq. No evidence of mistreatment has come to light, unless you consider the crap about the Koran abuse to be a credible story and therefore abuse of the prisoner. I mean think about it, if the most scandalous abuse story to come out of Gitmo is about flushing a freaking book down the toilet, then conditions must not be all that bad. I mean I can just see it, "hey the infidel's food is decent, the beds aren't half bad, it's not cold to speak of, but Allah forbid, they flushed my freaking Koran down the toilet.

The only credible arguemnet against Gitmo that I have seen is the status of the detainees there. See my last post to kingbee to see how I feel about that. I don't believe in abusing these guys, simply, I think they should be dropped on a desert island with no chance of escape or humanely executed. Again, if you want to cry due process, then see my last post and how I feel about due process for these guys.
on Jun 09, 2005
No evidence of mistreatment has come to light


Link

Link

Link

Link

I didn't have to look hard to find these
on Jun 09, 2005

I didn't have to look hard to find these

The prisons are full of innocent people.  Just ask them.

Not hard to find those stories either. But I do beleive the original poster said Evidence. Can I take your word for it that you were also mistreated? Surrreeeeee

on Jun 09, 2005
Link

Link

Link

Link

I realise these are all from the same newspaper site, but I didn't really need to go to another site to find stories
on Jun 09, 2005
The prisons are full of innocent people.


Well, might as well treat them like crap then, deny them their rights, torture them...........
on Jun 09, 2005

realise these are all from the same newspaper site, but I didn't really need to go to another site to find stories

So if I claim you beat your wife, and that I have video tapes, but just cannot show you, that is evidence? 

13 Pages1 2 3 4  Last