United Nations & Guantanamo

[Crazy Cooter]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4448420.stm

The UN has formally rejected a US invitation to visit the Guantanamo prison camp, saying it cannot accept the restrictions imposed by Washington.
...
UN officials have been trying to visit the camp since it opened in January 2002.
...
UN human rights experts said the US had refused to grant them the right to speak to detainees in private.
...
"It is particularly disappointing that the United States government, which has consistently declared its commitment to the principles and of independence and objectivity of the fact-finding mechanism, was not in a position to accept these terms," a UN statement said. 

Seems stupid to not let them talk in private.  Why would it matter?  There was also an issue about letting 5 UN inspectors in instead of only three.  Again, who cares?  I don't see how we can jump up & down demanding every other country in the world do what the UN says if we can't adapt to these simple requests.  What am i missing?

[ChadTower]

You're missing that they don't trust the UN inspectors to tell the truth.  If they speak to the detainees in private, it can't be recorded or witnessed, and thus the inspectors can say anything they want came out of those conversations.

[Crazy Cooter]

If we don't trust them, why do we demand they go into ther countries?

[ChadTower]

I don't understand the question.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

You're missing that they don't trust the UN inspectors to tell the truth.

Well, at this point...the U.N. has more credibility than the U.S. government.  For example, Resolution 1440 was essentially abused by this administration when, immediately after it was passed, they yanked the inspectors out and declared "diplomacy has failed."

Personally, I don't think this administration has much merit for lecturing others about truth and honesty.

[Grasshopper]

You're missing that they don't trust the UN inspectors to tell the truth.  If they speak to the detainees in private, it can't be recorded or witnessed, and thus the inspectors can say anything they want came out of those conversations.

That's easily verified. All the US has to do is get a transcript of what the UN inspector claims was said, then take it back to the detainee and ask him whether it was accurate.

But let's face it the real reason the US authorities are placing unreasonable obstacles in the UN's way is because they're afraid there may be embarrassing revelations about how the detainees have been treated, and how flimsy in some cases the evidence against them is.

[ChadTower]

Well, at this point...the U.N. has more credibility than the U.S. government.

[fredster]

Well, at this point...the U.N. has more credibility than the U.S. government.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

You assume they give a crap what anyone thinks about what they do.

They have proven over and over and over again that they do not.  Credibility is only relevant when the person speaking cares whether or not you believe them.

heh. Actually I assume just as you do, that this administration couldn't give one whit about what anybody thinks. We've been a rogue nation since Cheney's coup in 2000.


mrC

[fredster]

 

[ChadTower]

You can have your rouge, you pinko Francophile.

 

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Damn it!!! I just fixed the spelling...you must just sit there and refresh every frickin' thread...

[ChadTower]

Not usually, no... but there was a window of like two minutes on that one.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

fredster, you don't find it odd that Cheney, after being asked to head Bush's VP search committee, eventually just said, "Whelp, I looked at a plethora of potential VP candidates, and, um...I'm the best...so I'm appointing myself as your new Vice Presidential candidate?"

There's a reason Bush is one of the most fit Presidents in recent history, Cheney has let him play outside and ride his bike, for 5 years now, while he takes care of all the heavy political maneuvering!

I watched the Manchurian Candidate (the recent one) the other day, and I realized, hell, Cheney and his boys didn't need to go through all that trouble of building a secret lab in order to practice experiments that alter the neural wavelengths of presidential candidates so they could be brainwashed into pushing a secret agenda...all they had to do was find an idiot like Bush. So far, the plan has worked perfectly. Cheney's stock has matured nicely, and he can just eventually bow out (citing a bum ticker) and leave Boy Wonder to face the firing squad.

heh.




mrC

[ChadTower]

Hey, look at all the steaming credibility in that post.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Hey, look at all the steaming credibility in that post.

Are you saying that Cheney didn't appoint himself?

If so, whose that snarly guy that's been running the country for the past five years?

[fredster]

Me 

[ChadTower]

Are you saying that Cheney didn't appoint himself?

If so, whose that snarly guy that's been running the country for the past five years?

The VP does not have the authority to appoint himself.  He may have told someone else to do it but it was not him that made the final decision.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Are you saying that Cheney didn't appoint himself?

If so, whose that snarly guy that's been running the country for the past five years?

The VP does not have the authority to appoint himself.  He may have told someone else to do it but it was not him that made the final decision.

Well now you're just ChadTowering, ur....splitting hairs for the sake of argument. You know full well that a guy like Cheney, with his long career in Washington and deeps roots in the neo-conservative enclaves there, completely had the power to pull the strings and get himself the big cushy chair.

I mean, the guy got himself FIVE deferments at the height of Vietnam...


mrC

[ChadTower]

He can pull the strings to have someone else do it.

Yet, still, it is someone else doing it.  If someone else with access to more strings didn't want it to happen, it would not happen.

No one has so much power that they can simply declare themselves VP without others agreeing to it of their own volition.

[fredster]

C, Please stop, you are cracking me up.

Hey, I heard Chaney's grandparents had an insurance policy on the Titanic.  That's how they made their money.  Is that true?

Is it also true that neo-conservatives are never seen in the daylight? 

Dude, you should have taken the red pill.

[ChadTower]

But the red pill makes him larger...

[Crazy Cooter]

I don't understand the question.

If we don't trust the UN, why do we say that Iran has to let them in for inspections?  Why do we say any country has to let them in?  Either they know how to do inspections/interviews or they don't.

I don't see what harm it would do to let them interview detainees... we don't plan on keeping them there forever do we?  Seems like at some point they'll be telling whatever truths/lies they want.  I just don't get why it's a big deal?

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Dude, you should have taken the red pill.

oh..---steaming pile of meadow muffin---. I took a little pink one, then I felt sleepy.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

C, Please stop, you are cracking me up.

hey...my two rules in life:

Never trust anyone who doesn't swear, anyone with a tenured position, or a politician.

Or Dick Cheney.


mrC
I'm drunk...and I still type better than Seph.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

But I just realized that's more than two rules...but it's funny enough to just leave it. It's cracking me up.

[Crazy Cooter]

Like this is a PRIME example of what I'm talking about:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4449860.stm

I realize it's the IAEA that does the inspections, but their results are turned over to the UN.  So how do we demand Iran let the IAEA inspectors free access, so they can report to the UN... but we put conditions on the UN when all it wants to do is check up on some prisoners?

If your neighborhood watch wanted to check to see how many guns you had and how your security system worked... and the police wanted to see how your kids were doing... which would you be more resistant to?

[fredster]

Never trust anyone who doesn't swear, anyone with a tenured position, or a politician.

From your drunken haze comes wisdom. Keep drinking and give us more....

I'm adding that to my list.

I realize it's the IAEA that does the inspections, but their results are turned over to the UN.  So how do we demand Iran let the IAEA inspectors free access, so they can report to the UN... but we put conditions on the UN when all it wants to do is check up on some prisoners?

Possibly because Gitmo doesn't have nuclear material?  Or that the Red Cross and everybody else that checks it are using it as a tool to bash the US.  Or possibly that it doesn't serve the interests of the US?

Cooter, what crisis in the world has been solved by the UN? Ever?  What "team" are they sending in?  Who's on the team?

If you are concerned about it, have you written your senator and congressman to inspect it and turn you over a report?  That's why you hired them, ask them and see if you get a response. 

[ChadTower]

Fredster basically has it... we demand Iran let the UN in because it serves our interests.

Letting them into Guantanemo Bay does not serve our interests.

No country in the world, ours included, is interested in what is fair. 

[Crazy Cooter]

So basically we have nothing to talk about when other countries deny access to their stuff.

Maybe that's why the UN doesn't work right.  Nobody lets them.

--- edit ---
There used to be a time when the US stood for something.

(fredster, our congressmen want to know what's going on in there too!)

[ChadTower]

So basically we have nothing to talk about when other countries deny access to their stuff.

Maybe that's why the UN doesn't work right.  Nobody lets them.

--- edit ---
There used to be a time when the US stood for something.

(fredster, our congressmen want to know what's going on in there too!)

It did stand for something.  It did usually do the right thing.

The problem was that we were the only ones standing for something and doing the right thing.  When you are the only one doing that you tend to get ---fouled up beyond all recognition--- in the ass a lot.  That is pretty much the result of our last 25 years or so involvement with the UN.

At some point you have to tell the users to smeg off.  That is one, and possibly the only, good thing Bush has done for America.  He has separated us from that leeching pack of garbage called the UN.

[fredster]

Cooter, if he doens't know, then fire him. He's not doing his job.  He voted for something that he doesn't even know about?  What's up with that? Looks like CYA to me.

And Chad, AMEN.

[shmokes]

I don't understand the tenured position part.  I'm at an extraordinarily conservative school.  A school where a professor was fired last year for saying the "f-word" in class.  The same professor was voted Professor of the Year in 2004.  I've known a lot of professors here that hold back on what they say until they're tenured because they know that they can be dismissed at any time, or simply not be granted tenure when the time comes.  At seven years an associate professor here either gets tenure or is fired.  It seems to me that in many schools the professor only steps out of the shadow of censorship when he/she becomes tenured.

[ChadTower]

That's one place... many other places, they will do or say whatever they want once they are tenured.

[Crazy Cooter]

Cooter, if he doens't know, then fire him. He's not doing his job.  He voted for something that he doesn't even know about?  What's up with that? Looks like CYA to me.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/28/AR2005042801639.html
The U.S. military staged the interrogations of terrorism suspects for members of Congress and other officials visiting the military prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to make it appear the government was obtaining valuable intelligence, a former Army translator who worked there claims in a new book scheduled for release Monday.

Former Army Sgt. Erik Saar said the military chose detainees for the mock interrogations who previously had been cooperative and instructed them to repeat what they had told interrogators in earlier sessions, according to an interview with the CBS television program "60 Minutes," which is slated to air Sunday night.

Who's doing the CYA though?

[Dexter]

The problem was that we were the only ones standing for something and doing the right thing.

[ChadTower]

No idea.


When you get that count, make sure you get a similar count for how many Iraqi civilians have been killed by Iraqis, one count for Hussein's administration and one for during our occupation.

[Dexter]

When you get that count, make sure you get a similar count for how many Iraqi civilians have been killed by Iraqis, one count for Hussein's administration and one for during our occupation.

Classic non-answer there, well done. You expect admiration for the troops because they've killed less innocents then Saddam (for now anyway)?

http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0401c.asp

Don't forget the sanctions. Who kept them in place and caused the death of an estimated +500,000 iraqis?

How many Iraqis have to be killed by the invading force before the bush apologists decide the cost is too high. My guess is there isn't a number, because the bush apologists get selective amnesia about the reasons given for having to invade Iraq in the first place.

[ChadTower]

Yeah, sanctions were the cause of Hussein using chemical weapons on Iraqi citizens. 

Good call.

[Dexter]

Yeah, sanctions were the cause of Hussein using chemical weapons on Iraqi citizens.