Ok Superbelt, so what you are tellimg me is I am not allowed to post here because you say so? Or is it because I do not agree with you?

I have an idea why dont you tell me which countries that receive US dollars are OK in your book, and I will find examples of people dying and being murdered while in custody.

No, but it does irk me when you post blunderbuss. That article you posted had no relevance in even a passing way to what I started this thread as, or towards the discussion that ensued.

There is a direct link between Bush, money and Islam Karimov.

So, like I said in my last post. Either discuss our relations with Uzbekistan and Islam Karimov, or leave this thread. I don't want diversions from this topic. You bringing up Louima has no relation on anything discussed so far. It is as far away from what this is supposed to be as if someone else brought up the legion of malnourished children in america. They are both important topics, but have nothing to do with this. This is too important to be cast aside as you have tried.

I think he made a point that was very much relevant. While it's not the route I would have gone in discussing it, it has relevance. The point was the person in the article was killed in a police station and directly relating it to the leader of the country without evidence is akin to blaming Clinton for not enacting reforms that would have prevented the Louima crimes.

Certainly no leader can immediately stamp out all abuse especially when it has been widespread for so long. The article provides no data on the numbers of abuses in prior years and only points to the 5 documented cases in the past year as evidence of "insufficient" progress.

Certainly you can respond by pointing out that the torturers will likely not be held accountable, that the police actions of pointing a gun at the mother of the victim are unacceptable, etc, etc, etc. But there are sufficient reasons to offer a theory that abuse occurs in even the most civilized of systems.

Just my .02

Thanks for bringing this thread up again though SB as rereading it reminded me that civilized discussions are possible here in Politics. This one between us was downright chummy. :icare:

Well the point I am trying to make right now is, equating Louima to Clinton is just silly. But I think I did a fairly good job of showing the consequences of Bush giving money to Karimov, knowing his history, waiving the rules for him to have to improve their human rights record. In fact a large portion of that money is going directly to the agency that is responsible for most of the torture and murders.
I may only post up about 5 cases, but go to any human rights watch website or amnesty international and you will get your fill of it easily.

To me there is such a gulf between those two situations that to even try to equate them is foolish and really just detracts from the seriousness of it.

But let's say, for argument's sake, that Karimov did want to eradicate torture. There is a very good chance that he could not wipe it out altogether as even in our police stations it occurs.

I know it's a stretch but there is a valid point in there that should not be dismissed entirely. I don't think he was "wrong" in bringing up the point. It's a discussion path that the two of you could have gone down rather than dismissing each others points entirely. You could easily have brought up the other reports of torture and talked about how the torturers are not punished and that it seems to be a recurring theme under Karmimov unlike how it was a relative aberration in US society.

It's obvious this situation hits close to home for you. Is there a particular reason that this country's situation bothers you more than say a China, North Korea, et al?