|
Banned
|
Was it More Balls or Hypocrisy to Publicly Lecture Putin About Democracy?
Considering the recent U.S. record, documented below, have time and events marginalized the ability of Presiident Bush to be taken seriously by Putin and the rest of the world when he made the comments to Putin, quoted below?
Is it a matter of degree? Does the argument that, under Bush's policies, the U.S. has only been complicit in the torture and or denial of the right of due process to only a relatively few number of suspects, and still conducts the business of government with enough transparency as to render Putin's response, mute?
How many can we ship to other jusrisdictions to be tortured, or held indefinitely without hearing and defending against charges of criminality in a legally recognized court of law, before Putin's rebuttal to Bush has merit, and before we lose the precepts for what we supposedly are fighting in combat for ?
How much more transparency and accountability of the U.S. executive branch and of the congress will have to be eroded before Putin is right?
Are we not already in a crises if it seems to some of us that Putin's responses to Bush's reprimands were less hypocritical and more accurate than what Bush had to say.....in front of the world ?
Bush has proclaimed an American mission of "bringing democracy to the world". Has he made decisions that have resulted in policies and in publicity that is too contradictory and damaging to his leadership in making his goal happen, to still make it possible to muster support here in the U.S. and in the western world?
Quote:
<a href="http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,343994,00.html">http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,343994,00.html</a>
Welcome to Bushland
.....Then the topic turned to freedom and democracy. Bush had mentioned deficiencies in this regard -- he was referring to Russia, not to the United States.
Russia, Putin answered, embarked on a road to democracy 14 years ago. "This is our final choice and we have no way back," he added. Bush said it was Putin's most important statement of the summit. It was exactly the sentence he had wanted to hear.
Had anything like this happened before? An American and Russian head of state discussing democracy and criticizing one another? Was it historic?
A Russian reporter took the opportunity to go on the counterattack against America. In a long-winded question he addressed the issue of democracy in America, but managed to say almost nothing. In fact, the Russian reporter could have saved his breath and mentioned no more than three words, "Guantanamo" and "Abu Ghraib." He might also have chosen to mention "Florida 2000."
When Bushland goes traveling, security is priority number one.
Zoom
DPA
When Bushland goes traveling, security is priority number one.
Put as it was, the question was easy for Bush. He was already grinning while listening, and then was clearly pleased to launch into a tribute to American values, human dignity and distribution of power. Nevertheless, it is possible that he sensed, at that very moment, that the new European-American relations will no longer be a one-way street, and that he can expect Europeans to be judging him in the future, even when it comes to his domestic policies.
Freedom and democracy are, after all, his values, his favorite catchphrases. George W. Bush had come to Europe to deliver a simple message: democracy begets freedom begets security begets a peaceful world. This is his belief.............
|
Quote:
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/28/opinion/28herbert.html">http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/28/opinion/28herbert.html</a>
It's Called Torture (Op Ed By BOB HERBERT Published: February 28, 2005)
................
Mr. Arar was the victim of an American policy that is known as extraordinary rendition. That's a euphemism. What it means is that the United States seizes individuals, presumably terror suspects, and sends them off without even a nod in the direction of due process to countries known to practice torture.
A Massachusetts congressman, Edward Markey, has taken the eminently sensible step of introducing legislation that would ban this utterly reprehensible practice. In a speech on the floor of the House, Mr. Markey, a Democrat, said: "Torture is morally repugnant whether we do it or whether we ask another country to do it for us. It is morally wrong whether it is captured on film or whether it goes on behind closed doors unannounced to the American people."
Unfortunately, the outlook for this legislation is not good. I asked Pete Jeffries, the communications director for House Speaker Dennis Hastert, if the speaker supported Mr. Markey's bill. After checking with the policy experts in his office, Mr. Jeffries called back and said: "The speaker does not support the Markey proposal. He believes that suspected terrorists should be sent back to their home countries."
Surprised, I asked why suspected terrorists should be sent anywhere. Why shouldn't they be held by the United States and prosecuted?
"Because," said Mr. Jeffries, "U.S. taxpayers should not necessarily be on the hook for their judicial and incarceration costs."
It was, perhaps, the most preposterous response to any question I've ever asked as a journalist. It was not by any means an accurate reflection of Bush administration policy. All it indicated was that the speaker's office does not understand this issue, and has not even bothered to take it seriously.
More important, it means that torture by proxy, close kin to contract murder, remains all right. Congressman Markey's bill is going nowhere. Extraordinary rendition lives.
<a href="
http://www.axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/article_15864.shtml">OUTSOURCING TORTURE</a>
By JANE MAYER
Feb 22, 2005, 22:05
On January 27th, President Bush, in an interview with the Times, assured the world that “torture is never acceptable, nor do we hand over people to countries that do torture.” Maher Arar, a Canadian engineer who was born in Syria, was surprised to learn of Bush’s statement. Two and a half years ago, American officials, suspecting Arar of being a terrorist, apprehended him in New York and sent him back to Syria, where he endured months of brutal interrogation, including torture. When Arar described his experience in a phone interview recently, he invoked an Arabic expression. The pain was so unbearable, he said, that “you forget the milk that you have been fed from the breast of your mother.”,,,,,,,,,,,
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,During the flight, Arar said, he heard the pilots and crew identify themselves in radio communications as members of “the Special Removal Unit.” The Americans, he learned, planned to take him next to Syria. Having been told by his parents about the barbaric practices of the police in Syria, Arar begged crew members not to send him there, arguing that he would surely be tortured. His captors did not respond to his request; instead, they invited him to watch a spy thriller that was aired on board.
|
Quote:
<a href="http://makethemaccountable.com/articles/Ohio_s_Odd_Numbers.htm">http://makethemaccountable.com/articles/Ohio_s_Odd_Numbers.htm</a>
Vanity Fair
March 2005
CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS
OHIO’S ODD NUMBERS
No conspiracy theorist, and no fan of John Kerry’s, the author nevertheless found the Ohio polling results impossible to swallow: Given what happened in that key state on Election Day 2004, both democracy and common sense cry out for a court-ordered inspection of its new voting machines
........................................Whichever way you shake it, or hold it to the light, there is something about the Ohio election that refuses to add up. The sheer number of irregularities compelled a formal recount, which was completed in late December and which came out much the same as the original one, with 176 fewer votes for George Bush. But this was a meaningless exercise in reassurance, since there is simply no means of checking, for example, how many “vote hops” the computerized machines might have performed unnoticed.
There are some other, more random factors to be noted. The Ohio secretary of state, Kenneth Blackwell, was a state co-chair of the Bush-Cheney campaign at the same time as he was discharging his responsibilities for an aboveboard election in his home state. Diebold, which manufactures paper-free, touch-screen voting machines, likewise has its corporate headquarters in Ohio. Its chairman, president, and C.E.O., Walden O’Dell, is a prominent Bush supporter and fund-raiser who proclaimed in 2003 that he was “committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year.” (See “Hack the Vote,” by Michael Shnayerson, Vanity Fair, April 2004.) Diebold, together with its competitor, E.S.&S., counts more than half the votes cast in the United States. This not very acute competition is perhaps made still less acute by the fact that a vice president of E.S.&S. and a Diebold director of strategic services are brothers..............................................
I am not any sort of statistician or technologist, and (like many Democrats in private) I did not think that John Kerry should have been president of any country at any time. But I have been reviewing books on history and politics all my life, making notes in the margin when I come across a wrong date, or any other factual blunder, or a missing point in the evidence. No book is ever free from this. But if all the mistakes and omissions occur in such a way as to be consistent, to support or attack only one position, then you give the author a lousy review. The Federal Election Commission, which has been a risible body for far too long, ought to make Ohio its business. The Diebold company, which also manufactures A.T.M.s, should not receive another dime until it can produce a voting system that is similarly reliable. And Americans should cease to be treated like serfs or extras when they present themselves to exercise their franchise.
|
Quote:
<a href="http://www.amnestyusa.org/countries/usa/document.do?id=569CFC5E8511F73585256FB60053F851">http://www.amnestyusa.org/countries/usa/document.do?id=569CFC5E8511F73585256FB60053F851</a>
AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL
PRESS RELEASE
February 28, 2005
Detention and Torture Outsourced to Countries Condemned by US Report
Presidential Pledge to Not Excuse Oppressors Compromised
(Washington, DC) – Amnesty International warned today that, while the Department of State Country Reports on Human Rights Practices are consistent and comprehensive, the Bush Administration's practice of "rendering" detainees to countries that the report cites as having abysmal human rights records, runs the risk of turning the report into a guide to overseas torture subcontractors.
Although President Bush, in his inauguration address, stated that "all who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know: the United States will not ignore your oppression, or excuse your oppressors," Amnesty International's analysis reveals that the US may be continuing to subcontract detention and interrogation to those very same oppressors. The organization called on Secretary of State Rice to state unequivocally that no agent of the United States government has the authority to participate in delivering detainees to countries where torture is practiced and that any such participation will be investigated and prosecuted.
"Just as many corporations monitor wage rates worldwide to shift their operations to the lowest-cost producers, the Bush Administration has demonstrated a keen appreciation for the torture skills available for hire in certain nations. The State Department's carefully compiled record of countries' abuses may perversely have been transformed into a Yellow Pages for the outsourcing of torture," said Dr. William F. Schulz, Executive Director of Amnesty International USA (AIUSA). "The government's integrity is damaged if with one hand it collates a detailed index of human rights abuses and with the other mines that data as it plots arrests, detentions and interrogations. This administration is apparently dealing from both sides of the deck, condemning countries for their use of torture while simultaneously delivering detainees into their prison cells."
..............Amnesty International also reiterated that in contrast to the country reports, the Administration's policies on human rights are inconsistent and inattentive with an increasingly myopic policy focus on some states to the almost total exclusion of others.
..........."US pressure can be highly effective in winning progress both in individual human rights cases and in ending oppressive polices, but there is a lack of interest in applying that pressure to foreign governments who fall outside the scope of the current Administration's priorities," said Alexandra Arriaga, Director of Government Relations for AIUSA. "Equally, criticism of the catalogue of abuses committed by US allies will be muted after today's release of the report, with human rights concerns sacrificed for political expediency."
|
The U.S. State Department issued it's own "human rights" report today,
criticizing Russia and Saudi Arabia.
I trust what my research shows our "democracy president's" administration to
actually be doing, instead of what these unindicted war criminals in the executive branch are saying. |