Iranian mindgames

[SUBMAN1]

Hmm. Wasn't the US criticized for using the same interrogation techniques? How come no one is jumping up and down about it?

-S

[fatty]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

Hmm. Wasn't the US criticized for using the same interrogation techniques? How come no one is jumping up and down about it?

-S

Human rights organizations do pick up on these things. The reason why there won't be a huge stink about it is that Iran is practically an authoritarian state. Articles like the OP are just icing on the cake; we have come to expect this kind of treatment from Iran. It's not news. Was anyone expecting the prisoners to be treated better than they actually were? I expected worse.

The US, on the other hand, is imbued with liberal principles - e.g. life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness - and other certain "unalienable" rights which, well, start edging on alienable when people get locked away and tortured without being given a reason. This is not really congruent with these principles, so it's more shocking for the public.

[JSLTIGER]

Originally Posted by fatty

Human rights organizations do pick up on these things. The reason why there won't be a huge stink about it is that Iran is practically an authoritarian state. Articles like the OP are just icing on the cake; we have come to expect this kind of treatment from Iran. It's not news. Was anyone expecting the prisoners to be treated better than they actually were? I expected worse.

The US, on the other hand, is imbued with liberal principles - e.g. life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness - and other certain "unalienable" rights which, well, start edging on alienable when people get locked away and tortured without being given a reason. This is not really congruent with these principles, so it's more shocking for the public.

However, this raises the unanswered question, which is, are non-US citizens protected by the freedoms granted in the Constitution? This question has not yet been resolved, and until it is, the Bush administration will probably continue to operate under the assumption that non-US citizens do not have the Constitutional guarantees.

[Ishmael]

Originally Posted by JSLTIGER

However, this raises the unanswered question, which is, are non-US citizens protected by the freedoms granted in the Constitution? This question has not yet been resolved, and until it is, the Bush administration will probably continue to operate under the assumption that non-US citizens do not have the Constitutional guarantees.

No. Technically they are not protected under the constitution. However, They are protected by the UN's Human Rights Charter, of which the US is a signatory and therefore bound by under international law. But then, what does this admin. care about human rights or international law?

[Yahoshua]

What does the U.N. care for human rights unless it is about condemning Israel while ignoring the greater problems in Darfur?

[STEED]

Originally Posted by Yahoshua

What does the U.N. care for human rights unless it is about condemning Israel while ignoring the greater problems in Darfur?

I see you spotted the UN flaw. :hmm:


This country must in sure this sort of thing never happens again.

[GlobalExplorer]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

Hmm. Wasn't the US criticized for using the same interrogation techniques? How come no one is jumping up and down about it?

-S

C'mon, you can take this as a compliment. Despite the recent developments the US is still perceived as a pillar of civilization. That's why the current government won't get away with what they've done.

Only if torture and disregard for foreigners becomes accepted in the most civilized countries, we are in real trouble.

[fredbass]

If those who were detained were terrorists or prisoners of war then maybe I wouldn't object to the way they were treated, but Iran is not at war with Britain.

IMO, there's a big distinction between that situation and a few others that some people are so quick to compare.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by fredbass

If those who were detained were terrorists or prisoners of war then maybe I wouldn't object to the way they were treated, but Iran is not at war with Britain.

IMO, there's a big distinction between that situation and a few others that some people are so quick to compare.

Nevertheless you must proove that they are terrorists - instead of holding them for years and years without court procedures. When you are basing your argument on "If those who were detained were terrorists or prisoners of war then..." - you still must make sure that there are counter-checkable procedures to examine if they really are what you imagine they are.

I suspect you of being a terrorist, fredbass. I send you to jail that is not operating by legal standards, because I label you to be an illegal terrorist. I am accepting that you will be tortured, and call that alternative interrogations. Because if you were not a terrorist, you wouldn't be in jail. - Is that the kind of "logic" you want your legal system being run by? Do you want your children being made subject of such procedures? What separates you from your enemies being mislead by similiar queer distortions of logic, caused by their inhumane religious beliefs? You two are of the same kind if you both behave in the same way.

Imaginations, assumptions, hear-say - all that does not and cannot replace the need of evidence and prooving the guilt of the accused - within reasonable time-frames. Not years and years.

[Godalmighty83]

the iranians are now ask for a goodwill gesture of britian for thanks for releasing the 15.

how about -'in thanks we promise not to go into iranian waters kidnap sailors and use them for idiotic and obvious political posturing'

[fredbass]

Originally Posted by Godalmighty83

the iranians are now ask for a goodwill gesture of britian for thanks for releasing the 15.

how about -'in thanks we promise not to go into iranian waters kidnap sailors and use them for idiotic and obvious political posturing'

How about this gesture:

-Don't take our soldiers again because we won't be so nice next time-

[1mPHUNit0]

Nevertheless you must proove that they are terrorists

Ummmm
It's a political question.
They are political Prisioniers.
And USA have a lot of political Prisoners jailed

[fredbass]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Imaginations, assumptions, hear-say - all that does not and cannot replace the need of evidence and prooving the guilt of the accused - within reasonable time-frames. Not years and years.

Yes, I am making some assumptions as you have. It's just that my assumptions are somewhat different that yours. People have been released without spending years and some have not. I have much more faith in what my government does to its prisoners than what most other governments would do, though I'm sure you would disagree.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by fredbass

Yes, I am making some assumptions as you have. It's just that my assumptions are somewhat different that yours. People have been released without spending years and some have not. I have much more faith in what my government does to its prisoners than what most other governments would do, though I'm sure you would disagree.

You just have given up the traditional basis of legal system in a democratic environment. You are accepting to run justice by hear-say and imagination - instead of evidence, checks and balances. However you call it - it has nothing to do with a democratic understanding of a "state", but a tyranny. believing you can a lot. What you actually can gain knowledge about - this is what decides democracy. A president ruling that certain checks and balances are no longer conducted, and shall be unavailable to the people, the public, the outside - such a president has striking similiarities with Big Brother, and should make you worry about your country.

Such thinking has not much to do anymore with the America of the past that came to help to defeat the Nazis. Maybe exactly the opposite.

Democracy is not about blind belief, or blind trust. It is about this: checks and balances, the majority deciding the general course, justice oin the basis of what is to be proven, not on the basis of trusting hear-say of lobbies. What you just said is calling for the strong Führer whom you believe in. And that is alarming an attitude.

In the past, I sometimes was rethoricallyy asked how it could have happened that Germans fell for their Führer, and did not perceive the truth and acted while their still was time. Look at what Bush is doing to your country, then you know the answer.

[fredbass]

Originally Posted by Skybird

You just have given up the traditional basis of legal system in a democratic environment. You are accepting to run justice by hear-say and imagination - instead of evidence, checks and balances.

Don't assume what I am assuming.