Amnesty International HATES America

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: rahvin

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
sorry for not being up on my hillbilly heroin...sue me.

I guess I do not listen to (any) enough rush to be an expert it seems...😛

codine = opiate = strong ass pills and junk/smack...whatever...

Look, I'm a hard core libretarian when it comes to the drug laws in this country and ANYONE that starts talking about a medical conditions (drug addition) like it's a way to insult and degrade someone whether they are on the left, right or center comes off as a fvcking tool.

If you are insinuating that I am degrading him becasue he got hooked on something....why would I care?

He has the money to get off of it.

 

[imported_Tango]

Originally posted by: Crimson

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
oh waaah, poor rednecks getting labeled, act like an ass get called out...my tolerance level is almost nil with the hicks running the show and the genetic rejects apologizing in here like they don't have a single critical braincell left for anything except for anyone who talks sh1t back to them about their racism bigotry and homophobia.

Too bad you can only push so far before the people strike back.

And the new backwoods intolerant status quo is unacceptable. period.

noone cares what your heroin box feeds you, they are pissing in the wind and straight onto liberty and themselves in the end.

More tolerance from the left.. If you are gay and want to get married, everyone should set aside their beliefs and tolerate them.. But, you DARE to be a conservative and god forbid be from the south you are an EVIL REDNECK WHO SHOULDN'T HAVE ANY RIGHTS BECAUSE YOU ARE GENETIC REJECTS WITH NO BRAINCELLS!

You call THEM bigots?

You are right. Everybody deserves maximum respect. I guess most people would call me a liberal, but for sure I shared opinions with conservatives on some topics and some of my best friends are conservatives and I enjoy talking about politics with them.
I usually don't like to discuss with people who have too rigid preconcepts, and just repeat the official-point-of-view-of-their-party.. no matter what party are we talking about.

The problem with "rednecks" is that they usually pretend to have some kind of "truth-coming-from-heaven" giving them the right to impose their point of view on everybody else. One example: gay people want to marry. This affect in no way my life. So I basically don't see any reason why a government should forbid them to do so. It's their private life. You don't like the idea? Ok, let's discuss it. But, please, without quoting the Bible, because the personal religious beliefs of one shouldn't be used to impose something to everybody. It's just not pertinent to the discussion.

I'm fine with muslims not eating pig meat. Just as long as they don't try to forbid me eat it.
Each of us should be the only responsable for his private life. So.. the problem is not beeing conservative, it's believing that one's ideas are in some way morally superior to the others' ones. Otherwise no discussion is possible.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
it was in response to TLC and his elitest attitude and critisism of dissent like some fascist bully-boi , not you or anyone else.

He must be looking for his oxyocodine stash right now...either that or trolling freerepublic gathering all-american right wing talking points and hate to spew.

As I've always said - The left is all about Free Speech, just as long as they're the ones doing the talking.

Thanks for once again making that crystal clear to everyone.

BTW, I'm in Florida by way of Hawaii, California, and Washington D.C., so even your "redneck" claim misses by a mile, let alone the Freeper claim which isn't even worth addressing it's so far off base.

Congrats on being yet another glaring example of the hateful and spiteful self-deluded left though.

 

[Steeplerot]

sad you could travel so much and still be stuck in your box.
and you are one of the biggest freepers in here right down to being proven wrong time and time again.

cry me a river TLC your projections are unfounded except in your closed reality.

your claims as to me hating sre exaggersted like usual, but fed up, yeah very fed up.

enjoy your trip to the ussr or whatever hole you are headed to next...

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
sad you could travel so much and still be stuck in your box.
and you are one of the biggest freepers in here right down to being proven wrong time and time again.

cry me a river TLC your projections are unfounded except in your closed reality.

your claims as to me hating sre exaggersted like usual, but fed up, yeah very fed up.

enjoy your trip to the ussr or whatever hole you are headed to next...

Ah yeah baby. Such a free and open mind you have.

It wasn't travel, d00d. I lived in those places. I grew up in those places where my fertile mind was open to new and liberal ideas. You should try having an open mind some time. I beats being the bigoted fool you appear to be.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
sad you could travel so much and still be stuck in your box.
and you are one of the biggest freepers in here right down to being proven wrong time and time again.

cry me a river TLC your projections are unfounded except in your closed reality.

your claims as to me hating sre exaggersted like usual, but fed up, yeah very fed up.

enjoy your trip to the ussr or whatever hole you are headed to next...

Ah yeah baby. Such a free and open mind you have.

It wasn't travel, d00d. I lived in those places. I grew up in those places where my fertile mind was open to new and liberal ideas. You should try having an open mind some time. I beats being the bigoted fool you appear to be.

Don't you ever tire of being insulting to everyone who disagrees with you? You with your "open, fertile, mind"?

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
sad you could travel so much and still be stuck in your box.
and you are one of the biggest freepers in here right down to being proven wrong time and time again.

cry me a river TLC your projections are unfounded except in your closed reality.

your claims as to me hating sre exaggersted like usual, but fed up, yeah very fed up.

enjoy your trip to the ussr or whatever hole you are headed to next...

Ah yeah baby. Such a free and open mind you have.

It wasn't travel, d00d. I lived in those places. I grew up in those places where my fertile mind was open to new and liberal ideas. You should try having an open mind some time. I beats being the bigoted fool you appear to be.

WAS open, being the operative word. Now, you can't even see the obvious -- that the U.S., while a great nation no doubt, isn't 100% perfect. And our role in the torture, indefinite imprisonment without charges and killing of prisoners from Guantanamo to Abu Ghraib is an appalling stain on our nation's reputation as a bastion of freedom and democracy.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
sad you could travel so much and still be stuck in your box.
and you are one of the biggest freepers in here right down to being proven wrong time and time again.

cry me a river TLC your projections are unfounded except in your closed reality.

your claims as to me hating sre exaggersted like usual, but fed up, yeah very fed up.

enjoy your trip to the ussr or whatever hole you are headed to next...

Ah yeah baby. Such a free and open mind you have.

It wasn't travel, d00d. I lived in those places. I grew up in those places where my fertile mind was open to new and liberal ideas. You should try having an open mind some time. I beats being the bigoted fool you appear to be.

Don't you ever tire of being insulting to everyone who disagrees with you? You with your "open, fertile, mind"?

He calls that his "belligerent fvckwit" act.

Oops, my mistake. That's what he calls others who return his insults.


(Edit: Chicken admitted he was a fraud and a hypocrite a few months ago. Remember when he used to insist he was a liberal? I suggest not taking him too seriously. It's probably just more empty posturing.)

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
He calls that his "belligerent fvckwit" act.

Yeah, he's got that part nailed.

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
sad you could travel so much and still be stuck in your box.
and you are one of the biggest freepers in here right down to being proven wrong time and time again.

cry me a river TLC your projections are unfounded except in your closed reality.

your claims as to me hating sre exaggersted like usual, but fed up, yeah very fed up.

enjoy your trip to the ussr or whatever hole you are headed to next...

Ah yeah baby. Such a free and open mind you have.

It wasn't travel, d00d. I lived in those places. I grew up in those places where my fertile mind was open to new and liberal ideas. You should try having an open mind some time. I beats being the bigoted fool you appear to be.

WAS open, being the operative word. Now, you can't even see the obvious -- that the U.S., while a great nation no doubt, isn't 100% perfect. And our role in the torture, indefinite imprisonment without charges and killing of prisoners from Guantanamo to Abu Ghraib is an appalling stain on our nation's reputation as a bastion of freedom and democracy.

yes democracies aren't perfect,but they do tend to fix their problems once they leak out or are reported. the problem is the strained moral equivalency perpertrated by groups like amnesty international that flat out refuse to actually judge political systems let alone acknowledge the fundamental differences.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
sad you could travel so much and still be stuck in your box.
and you are one of the biggest freepers in here right down to being proven wrong time and time again.

cry me a river TLC your projections are unfounded except in your closed reality.

your claims as to me hating sre exaggersted like usual, but fed up, yeah very fed up.

enjoy your trip to the ussr or whatever hole you are headed to next...

Ah yeah baby. Such a free and open mind you have.

It wasn't travel, d00d. I lived in those places. I grew up in those places where my fertile mind was open to new and liberal ideas. You should try having an open mind some time. I beats being the bigoted fool you appear to be.

WAS open, being the operative word. Now, you can't even see the obvious -- that the U.S., while a great nation no doubt, isn't 100% perfect. And our role in the torture, indefinite imprisonment without charges and killing of prisoners from Guantanamo to Abu Ghraib is an appalling stain on our nation's reputation as a bastion of freedom and democracy.

yes democracies aren't perfect,but they do tend to fix their problems once they leak out or are reported. the problem is the strained moral equivalency perpertrated by groups like amnesty international that flat out refuse to actually judge political systems let alone acknowledge the fundamental differences.

They Judge Actions, not systems. If the US(or other Democratic systems) was perfect, they wouldn't be criticized. Besides, you say problems will be fixed, good, but until they are AI will make comments on those problems.

 

[Czar]

http://www.ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=28897
good article on the subject

RIGHTS-U.S.:
Bush, Cheney Attack Amnesty International
Jim Lobe

WASHINGTON, May 31 (IPS) - Stung by Amnesty International's condemnation of U.S. detention facilities in Iraq and elsewhere overseas, the administration of President George W. Bush is reacting with indignation and even suggestions that terrorists are using the world's largest human rights organisation.

The latest denunciation came from Bush himself during a White House press conference Tuesday. ''I'm aware of the Amnesty International report, and it's absurd. The United States is a country that promotes freedom around the world,'' he said, adding that Washington had ''investigated every single complaint against (sic) the detainees.''

''It seemed like (Amnesty) based some of their decisions on the word and allegations by people who were held in detention, people who hate America, people had been trained in some instances to disassemble (sic) -- that means not tell the truth'', Bush went on. ''And so it was an absurd report. It just is''.

At issue is an Amnesty report released last Thursday that assailed U.S. detention practices. Since its release, a succession of top administration officials and their right-wing backers in the major media has denounced the London-based group in what appears increasingly like an orchestrated effort to discredit independent human rights critics. A similar campaign appeared to target Newsweek magazine earlier this month.

''It looks like a campaign,'' Human Rights Watch advocacy chief Reed Brody said Tuesday. ''There's been a real drumbeat since Amnesty published the report. It seems like there's an attempt to silence critics.''

Bush's reaction Tuesday largely mirrored that of Vice President Dick Cheney in an interview taped on Friday and broadcast Sunday evening by CNN.

''For Amnesty International to suggest that somehow the United States is a violator of human rights, I frankly just don't take them seriously,'' the vice president said in response to Amnesty's report.

''Frankly, I was offended by it. I think the fact of the matter is, the United States has done more to advance the cause of freedom, has liberated more people from tyranny over the course of the 20th century and up to the present day than any other nation in the history of the world.''

As to allegations of mistreatment of detainees, Cheney argued that ''if you trace those back, in nearly every case, it turns out to come from somebody who has been inside and been released to their home country and now are peddling lies about how they were treated.''

Other senior officials have also weighed in. Like Bush, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice called the Amnesty report ''absurd,'' while the military Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman, Air Force Gen. Richard Myers, said it was ''absolutely irresponsible'' and insisted that the detention camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, was a ''model facility'' where prisoners have been treated ''humanely.''

Amnesty's Secretary General, Irene Khan, made the specific allegation against which the administration has unleashed its fury.

She referred to the overseas network of U.S. detention facilities established by Washington in Iraq and elsewhere as part of what it calls its ''global war on terror,'' as ''the gulag of our times,'' a reference to the system of prison and labour camps run during the Stalinist period of the former Soviet Union.

While the Washington Post, normally a defender of independent human rights groups, objected to her characterisation as counter-productive, the Wall Street Journal's neo-conservative editorial staff jumped on it as ''one more sign of the moral degradation of Amnesty International.''

The Journal, which often reflects the views of influential hard-line policymakers like Cheney, called Amnesty a ''highly politicised pressure group'' whose latest accusations ''amount to pro-al Qaeda propaganda.''

Anticipating the vice president's CNN's remarks, the Journal, which also has campaigned against the International Committee of the Red Cross for criticising Washington's treatment of detainees, added that ''a 'human rights' group that can't distinguish between Stalin's death camps and detention centers for terrorists who kill civilians can't be taken seriously.''

David Rivkin and Lee Casey, two lawyers who often reflect the views of other members of the right-wing nationalist Federalist Society who hold senior legal positions in the administration, soon joined the Journal.

In an article published by the National Review Online entitled 'Amnesty Unbelievable,' the two men charged that the organisation's critical report ''says much more about the nature of Amnesty International -- and the agenda of similar left-wing non-governmental organizations (NGOs) -- than it does about the human-rights record of the United States.''

Like the Journal, Casey and Rivkin said they were incensed at the suggestion by the head of Amnesty's U.S. section, William Schulz, that Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld and other senior U.S. officials who had a role in authorising abusive interrogation practices should be prosecuted in foreign jurisdictions for violations of the Geneva and torture conventions committed against detainees if the administration continued to reject calls by human rights and lawyers' groups for an independent investigation.

In their view, Amnesty, ''is trapped in a 20th-century mindset where the greatest threat to individual life and liberty stemmed from the actions of sovereign governments. That is simply no longer the case.'' NGOs, they added, ''simply do not consider that the defence of the American population, and the vindication of each individual's right to live without the threat or actuality of terrorist attack, is their problem -- and it is time they did.''

Amnesty, however, has stood its ground. ''At Guantanamo, the U.S. has operated an isolated prison camp in which people are confined arbitrarily, held virtually incommunicado, without charge, trial or access to due process. Not a single Guantanamo detainee has had the legality of their detention reviewed by a court,'' despite a Supreme Court ruling last year that provided grounds to do so.

''Guantanamo is only the visible part of the story. Evidence continues to mount that the U.S. operates a network of detention centres where people are held in secret or outside any proper legal framework -- from Afghanistan to Iraq and beyond,'' it added, noting that Bush had failed to respond to these ''longstanding concerns.''

''It is worth also worth noting,'' stressed Schulz, ''that this administration never finds it 'absurd' when we criticise Cuba or China, or when we condemned the violations in Iraq under Saddam Hussein.''

Bush's and Cheney's insistence that the detainees themselves concocted the reported abuses also drew criticism.

''You really don't have to look further than the Pentagon's own reports,'' said Elisa Massimino, Washington director of Human Rights First, formerly the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights. ''There's ample substantiation of serious abuses,'' she said, adding that the administration's ''ostrich approach'' was ''dangerous. The problems are there, and they're going to continue to pose a risk to U.S. lives and policy until they're dealt with.''

HRW's Brody echoed that view. ''What is sad is that this effort at damage control may work in the U.S.,'' he said, ''but unless the administration addresses the real issues of concern -- torture, rendition, disappearances, systematic humiliation of Muslim prisoners -- then the U.S. image in the world will continue to erode.''

(END/2005)

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
yes democracies aren't perfect,but they do tend to fix their problems once they leak out or are reported. the problem is the strained moral equivalency perpertrated by groups like amnesty international that flat out refuse to actually judge political systems let alone acknowledge the fundamental differences.

Torture is torture -- and so are the other assorted human rights violations -- REGARDLESS of who's doing it or what their underlying political systems happen to be. That should be self-evident to you. In fact, it worries me that you don't see this fact as clear as day.

 

[Amplifier]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
yes democracies aren't perfect,but they do tend to fix their problems once they leak out or are reported. the problem is the strained moral equivalency perpertrated by groups like amnesty international that flat out refuse to actually judge political systems let alone acknowledge the fundamental differences.

Torture is torture -- and so are the other assorted human rights violations -- REGARDLESS of who's doing it or what their underlying political systems happen to be. That should be self-evident to you. In fact, it worries me that you don't see this fact as clear as day.

The AI has nothing to back up their claims, that's the point.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Amplifier

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
yes democracies aren't perfect,but they do tend to fix their problems once they leak out or are reported. the problem is the strained moral equivalency perpertrated by groups like amnesty international that flat out refuse to actually judge political systems let alone acknowledge the fundamental differences.

Torture is torture -- and so are the other assorted human rights violations -- REGARDLESS of who's doing it or what their underlying political systems happen to be. That should be self-evident to you. In fact, it worries me that you don't see this fact as clear as day.

The AI has nothing to back up their claims, that's the point.

The Pentagon isn't a reliable Source?

 

[Vic]

Hmmm... Has anyone ever read AI's Universal Declaration of Human Rights? I'd like someone here to explain how Articles 22-26 are not in direct and obvious contradiction with all the other articles, especially Article 17.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Torture may be torture and human rights violations may all be equal, but that still doesn't qualify the comparison between Gitmo and a Soviet gulag. That's just pure hyperbole and that's where AI screwed up. Such overstatement erodes their credibility similarly to making the tired old Bush-->Hitler comparison. If they'd have stated their report in a more rational maner, then they could have made their case. As it is they come off looking like the Democratic Underground is now the driving force behind their organization.

 

[chcarnage]

Originally posted by: Vic
Hmmm... Has anyone ever read AI's Universal Declaration of Human Rights? I'd like someone here to explain how Articles 22-26 are not in direct and obvious contradiction with all the other articles, especially Article 17.

This is the Human Rights Declaration of the United Nations Organization, it was not written by AI. And I don't think Article 17 and 22-26 are contradictionary. In all probability you enjoy all of them right now 😉

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Vic
Hmmm... Has anyone ever read AI's Universal Declaration of Human Rights? I'd like someone here to explain how Articles 22-26 are not in direct and obvious contradiction with all the other articles, especially Article 17.

Direct and Obvious? No, I'm sure Libertarians think so, but that does not make it so.

 

[Taejin]

Originally posted by: Amplifier

Originally posted by: Crimson

Originally posted by: Amplifier
No the problem is that AI is exaggerating the conditions of our prisons for their own benifit.

Why? Because AI, like alot of people, follows the mob mentality. They see a way to look big and self rightous by attacking the US. They aren't even bothing to check facts. They just need to prove we are the bad guys because that's the popular thing to do.

Where is AI criticising what was going on in Kosovo, Bosnia, Africa, Iraq under Saddam, etc?

Wasn't the in thing to do.

whoa, look at em tag teamin' each other..what a sausage fest.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Torture may be torture and human rights violations may all be equal, but that still doesn't qualify the comparison between Gitmo and a Soviet gulag. That's just pure hyperbole and that's where AI screwed up. Such overstatement erodes their credibility similarly to making the tired old Bush-->Hitler comparison. If they'd have stated their report in a more rational maner, then they could have made their case. As it is they come off looking like the Democratic Underground is now the driving force behind their organization.

swooosh---the sound of flight over head

The similarities are there, they even explain what they mean. Note they didn't say they were exactly the same, but that there were many similarities, which can not be denied. They also specifically used the term "of our time" which also denotes a distinct difference between the 2. Times change and what constitutes "worst" also changes, if it didn't there would be no Progress. Despite Progress there is never Perfection and there is still Immoral Practice. For Progress to continue, a Progression must also continue.

I suppose the common Wifebeater could have defended his actions because in X(insert other Nation here) it would have been acceptable for him to Kill his Wife?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Vic
Hmmm... Has anyone ever read AI's Universal Declaration of Human Rights? I'd like someone here to explain how Articles 22-26 are not in direct and obvious contradiction with all the other articles, especially Article 17.

Direct and Obvious? No, I'm sure Libertarians think so, but that does not make it so.

But it IS so in all reality. If someone would receive something unearned, then the cost of that something MUST be taken from someone else who did earn it. This is reality. There is no "free" in this world regardless of how much your thinking might want to make it so. And this taking, which must be involved into for all this giving to occur, would have to be an abritrary deprivation of property rights from those taken from.

Originally posted by: chcarnage
This is the Human Rights Declaration of the United Nations Organization, it was not written by AI. And I don't think Article 17 and 22-26 are contradictionary. In all probability you enjoy all of them right now 😉

Ah yes, "Adopted and proclaimed by General Assembly Resolution 217 A (III) of 10 December 1948"
I'm sure Stalin, the petty dictator and murderer of millions, was quite amused to be involved in the drafting of such a grand and noble document.
I cannot enjoy ALL of a group of "rights" when several of them are in contradiction.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Vic
Hmmm... Has anyone ever read AI's Universal Declaration of Human Rights? I'd like someone here to explain how Articles 22-26 are not in direct and obvious contradiction with all the other articles, especially Article 17.

Direct and Obvious? No, I'm sure Libertarians think so, but that does not make it so.

But it IS so in all reality. If someone would receive something unearned, then the cost of that something MUST be taken from someone else who did earn it. This is reality. There is no "free" in this world regardless of how much your thinking might want to make it so. And this taking, which must be involved into for all this giving to occur, would have to be an abritrary deprivation of property rights from those taken from.

Originally posted by: chcarnage
This is the Human Rights Declaration of the United Nations Organization, it was not written by AI. And I don't think Article 17 and 22-26 are contradictionary. In all probability you enjoy all of them right now 😉

Ah yes, "Adopted and proclaimed by General Assembly Resolution 217 A (III) of 10 December 1948"
I'm sure Stalin, the petty dictator and murderer of millions, was quite amused to be involved in the drafting of such a grand and noble document.
I cannot enjoy ALL of a group of "rights" when several of them are in contradiction.

Like I said, "I'm sure Libertarians think so, but that does not make it so." Though I find some Libertarian thought to have insight, it is not the Alpha/Omega of thought. There are No Contradictions in the mentiontioned Articles.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: sandorski
Like I said, "I'm sure Libertarians think so, but that does not make it so." Though I find some Libertarian thought to have insight, it is not the Alpha/Omega of thought. There are No Contradictions in the mentiontioned Articles.

Did you not read what I posted? How can one be protected from the abitrary deprivation of one's property if the government can, at its own discretion, take that property in order to give it, at its own discretion, to someone else? Don't pussyfoot around in obscurities, explain it.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sandorski
Like I said, "I'm sure Libertarians think so, but that does not make it so." Though I find some Libertarian thought to have insight, it is not the Alpha/Omega of thought. There are No Contradictions in the mentiontioned Articles.

Did you not read what I posted? How can one be protected from the abitrary deprivation of one's property if the government can, at its own discretion, take that property in order to give it, at its own discretion, to someone else? Don't pussyfoot around in obscurities, explain it.

It is your assumption that's what is meant. You assume too much. There is no contradiction.