Human Rights and the GOP Rank and File

Published on July 1, 2007 By Gideon MacLeish In Politics

There's been a lot of talk about Guantanamo Bay. I find it quite disturbing that so many from the Republican camp believe that our government can do absolutely anything it wants to Gitmo detainees because they are terrorists, especially and most tellingly, without having to PROVE those allegations in a court of any standing.

What disturbs me the most is the issue of human rights. Do you believe in human rights as our founding fathers did? The simple, plain truth of the matter is this: IF you believe that human rights should not be afforded to the detainees at Guantanamo Bay because "they are terrorists", then you don't believe in human rights, you believe in human PRIVILEGES. You believe that power emanates from the government, not the people, and while that may be held to be true in other nations, it is not true of the philosophical basis on which the US is built.

Why is this so important, so critical as to "crusade" about? Because a privilege can be revoked at the discretion of the one granting it; a right cannot. So if human rights are voidable for those at Guantanamo Bay, then every single American should be on the alert. Oddly enough, a strong contingent of Bush Buddies are demanding for the rights to teach Bible in the schools, to allow churches to teach that homosexuality is wrong, to display articles of their faith on the courthouse square. This select group of people believes that their rights to religious expression are inviolable. And they are right!. But although exceptions to this may exist (please speak up if this is the case), I have yet to personally encounter one who equally believes in the rights of the Baptist Church and the Gitmo detainees. Every single Republican I have encountered who believes in the rights of the churches to express their faith denies rights to Gitmo detainees.

I believe that in this manner the single greatest threat to the United States Constitution may well be the citizens of these hallowed shores. What world wars could not do, what a civil war and a civil rights movement could not do, we are doing to ourselves. We are unraveling the very fabric of our Constitution thread by thread by denying basic rights to the most vulnerable. And it is to our national shame that we are so doing.

Comments (Page 2)

Big Fat Daddy

on Jul 02, 2007

I have to wonder if they would support the same techniques being used on our soldiers.

Good question...would you consider the opposite? Would you consider using the techniques on Gitmo detainees that ARE being used on our soldiers? Needless torture for the soul purpose of instilling fear...beheadings (taking twenty to thirty cuts to do the job)...gutting the corpse and stuffing it with explosives, using it for a booby-trap...sniping on camera for the folks back home??? The methods used at Gitmo are a far cry from those employed at the Hanoi Hilton, or any other prison camp going back as far as you wish into our history. I do not advocate torture of prisoners. I've seen no evidence that we do.

Daiwa

on Jul 02, 2007

From another discussion you participated in on this subject - quoting myself here:

I'm a compassionate person by nature and my livelihood depends on it, but I can't for the life of me understand why we should pretend these people deserve to be treated like citizens of our country. Same with illegal aliens. Sorry, but it makes no sense to me. If simply behaving in a civilized manner and being nice to everybody was all we needed to do to "win over" the rest of the world, we'd have all been singin' kumbaya long ago. Shit, the amount of money & good will we've flushed down the third world boggles the mind and what has it gotten us? Kofi Anan, among other highly beneficial things.

Like I said, I'm all for compassion where compassion is due, but let's not be terminally naive here.

I'll fight for your rights and the rights of any of our citizens, Gid. You're making more out of this than is there. This has become a chest-thumping exercise with each side claiming to be more American than the other, which misses the point altogether.

rather than the greatest single threat, i'd say it was a major component of a larger plan to subvert and gut the constitution in order to replace our democratic republic's three branches of government with autocracy in which what is now our executive branch is unrestrained (and probably renamed with some sorta deplorably clever euphemism such as 'Supreme Enlightened National Protectorate').

kb, you crack me up.

Jewbu

on Jul 02, 2007

Jewbu

on Jul 02, 2007

Jewbu

on Jul 02, 2007

Many of us here are assuming the people at Gitmo are terrorists, whatever the heck that is, but this is this issue, an allegation is not evidence. Evidence is useless unless tested in a court of law. Detaining people without trial is a major problem and I would say it is so regardless of whether we are at war or not. What is the fear we have of fair trials anyway? It would seem to me that by now we have spent far more money and good will detaining people without trial than the trials themselves would have cost.

Be well.

Dr Guy

on Jul 02, 2007

What disturbs me the most is the issue of human rights. Do you believe in human rights as our founding fathers did? The simple, plain truth of the matter is this: IF you believe that human rights should not be afforded to the detainees at Guantanamo Bay because "they are terrorists",

This is the nut of the issue, is it not? For if we then say they must all be free pending a trial - by our laws - then we are violating international laws and treaties. Would you have wanted the American POWs subject to Iraqi law in the first gulf war? Then they would have been eligible for execution by the very fact they did not kiss Saddams butt.

So by the nature that they were captured in armed conflict (or plotting there of) against the US means they cannot be subject to OUR laws (again we have not even scratched the issue of Human rights). And therefore, subjecting them to OUR courts would then be a violation and would open our own soldiers up to the same treatment. Hence, while it would be nice to PROVE they are guilty of plotting or carrying out terrorist acts - or in armed combat with the US, we cannot do that as we are bound by man made laws.

So in Gitmo must they sit. Then we can discuss Human Rights. Of course it is against HUMAN rights to imprison someone against their will. Should we let them go? Well, we have prisons full of US citizens that are imprisoned against their will. Why? Because many broke man made laws (some having nothing to do with Human rights or natural law, but of laws that society has made to keep society from devolving into an anarchy).

And thus the easy sound bite is broken down into just that - a sound bite. We cannot try them - that is a violation of law. We must detain them, or they will (we assume) do their best to deny others of their human rights.

That is the crux of it. The rest - allegations of abuse torture and nude pictures - are just that. Allegations and those can be demonstrated against and argued about (which would go towards the issue of Human rights - but not Law as non-uniformed combatants are the same as spies and according to law, they have no right to any redress).

While some would love to argue that the latest administration loves to grab a bag of popcorn and watch the latest torture techniques done in secret, and have alleged that this is approved all the way up to the white house, the facts are far different. When routed out, mis-treatment (I will not be so shallow as to call it torture) of POWs and enemy combatants have been investigated and when found to be true, the perpertrators have been punished in accordance with laws.

But when the international media and some here in the US decide that mis-handling a Koran, showing nudy pictures to prisoners, and lying to them is torture, that is where I basically part ways and tell them to get a life. Those things are not depriving them of any rights - human, natural, or man made - nor is it torture (except those that think subjecting rats to a Ramones concert is torture).

In short, yes, you can argue that depriving them of freedom is against human rights. But then depriving them of freedom, with or without a trial is that as well (it is a HUMAN right). Yet I dont hear many (some yes) demanding that. So we are left with what is prevalent in this world. Living by man made laws that are imperfect in order to guarantee most the rights they were born with.

danielost

on Jul 03, 2007

all a guard has to do is eat a ham sandwich

to the Muslim this would be torture because they might come in contact with pork and condemned to hell

Gideon MacLeish

on Jul 03, 2007

When we begin prosecuting this as a war, we can treat it as one. But a war has specific, definable objectives, this one does not. It will be over when a talking head with the presidential seal behind his head says it is over and not before. It is not a war against a nation, but against an ideology and as such a war that cannot be won.

I'm afraid the war on terrorism has, unfortunately, already been lost, and the majority of these posts serve as evidence. Because we no longer hold the Constitution sacred, nor respect the dignity and rights of humans, we have shredded the Constitution far worse than any terrorist bomb ever could have. If these posts in any way represent the majority American viewpoint, there remains little hope of restoring our rights, rights that the government was never meant to be able to deny us.

Gideon MacLeish

on Jul 03, 2007

For if we then say they must all be free pending a trial - by our laws - then we are violating international laws and treaties.

No, that is not true. The law provides for bail, not automatic release, and bail may be denied if certain circumstances apply. In this circumstance, you would have little trouble convincing most people (myself included) that these circumstances apply. If nothing else applies, these detainees certainly present a flight risk.

There IS a way to see that justice is done and rights are respected without risk to our country. And it is our responsibility to find it.

all a guard has to do is eat a ham sandwich

to the Muslim this would be torture because they might come in contact with pork and condemned to hell

I am not convinced that true torture has taken place at Gitmo, danielost. To me, that is not the primary issue. If torture has taken place, we need to bring those who inflicted the torture to justice, but our soldiers deserve due process as well before that is determined.

I am concerned about the indefinite detention of these individuals without trial, without benefit of counsel, based solely on the word of the government. A government that LIED to us at Waco. A government that LIED to us at Ruby Ridge. A government that has proven itself consistently unworthy of our trust.

danielost

on Jul 03, 2007

this war is the same as all other wars have been

good vs evil

well sometimes it is the less evil against the more evil

Disturbedcomputer

on Jul 03, 2007

Ok, I say Let them go free!

Right after, we (the USA) put tracking devices in them. Track them, hope they take use to a shit load of terrorists and bomb the HELL out of them.
(Knock them out with a sleeping gas, and then inject them with a tracker (Low-jack their ass))

Other note:

Why should they even have the luxury of our laws anyway?

If they were caught red handed with Bomb making stuff and /or planning attacks on the USA then they should have not been detained but SHOT.

(Note and I am not for killing and /or Murder).

But they should not have any Right as for they want to take the right of life away from others.
And we should not feed, them but once a day as for we will keep them detained.

They do not hold life too much if they are willing to kill them self and others in the first place. So why should we hold their life any better?
These people are scum cowards and have to hide to kill us. I have, no pity or sympathy for theses cowards.

I hate tha fact I state this, that they deserve to die.
I just don’t get it the USA will and dose bend over backwards to help other countries and most hate us.

Disturbedcomputer

on Jul 03, 2007

Disturbedcomputer

on Jul 03, 2007

Gideon MacLeish

on Jul 03, 2007

Why should they even have the luxury of our laws anyway?

You didn't read a flipping WORD I said!

Dr Guy

on Jul 03, 2007

There IS a way to see that justice is done and rights are respected without risk to our country. And it is our responsibility to find it.

Here is where we part company. For I see the current administration trying to find it, but being blocked by courts that have in effect become a dictatorship. Bush has tried twice now to create a method by which justice can be served. Once by executive decree, then by legislation. And in both cases the courts have stopped him.

It is not for a lack of trying that Bush and Co. have allowed some of the detainees to sit in Gitmo. It is due to judicial legislating that it has happened.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!