Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

USA: Legal Frankenstein? Dehumanisation.

  1. May 4, 2004 #1
    It becomes clear to the whole world that Americans do dehumanize other people. Not all American of course ... but a number. It's because of the ideological and even racial supremacy newcons give to Jews and to the New Fundamental Christians, a natural brotherhood. Killing is allowed in a number of cases, since it's the will of God. (you can google on that ... and you will find out).
    That dehumanization is part of military strategy of newcons in Government and Pentagon. It's like the legal Frankenstein. (See lower).

    President Bush's nomination of William Haynes to be a federal judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit puts squarely before the Senate the administration's flagrant rejection of even the most basic principles of the rule of law in the war on terrorism.http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/w...node=&contentId=A43571-2004Apr1&notFound=true. This guy has developed and defended three of the administration's most controversial policies: the refusal to treat any of the hundreds of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay as prisoners of war under the Geneva Conventions of 1949; the department's military tribunal plan for trying suspected war criminals; and even the incarceration of U.S. citizens without counsel or judicial review.

    But first about some damage control from the white house:

    http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=5038963&pageNumber=0

    Secretary of State Colin Powell, at the United Nations for consultations on the Middle East, said only a "small number" of American troops had been involved and vowed wrongdoers would be quickly brought to justice.

    "I can assure you that no stone will be left unturned to make sure that justice is done and to make sure that nothing like this ever happens again," he said.

    President Bush, campaigning in Ohio, did not mention the abuse but his National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice again said the president was disgusted and outraged and had demanded those responsible be held accountable.

    "The president has told the secretary of defense that he expects people to be held accountable, and that he wants, too, to know that this is not a systemic problem," Rice said.

    "In other words, quite apart from the specific cases of those particular photographs, Americans do not dehumanize other people. That is not why we're in Iraq. We're in Iraq to liberate a people, to help them," she added.
    ....
    Rumsfeld refused to use the word "torture."

    "I'm not a lawyer," he said. "My impression is that what has been charged thus far is abuse, which I believe technically is different from torture ... And therefore I'm not going to address the 'torture' word." end quote.
    ----

    So my first conclusion would be "Bush, Cheney, Condi, Rumsfeld have clean hands!
    But that might because they use blue rubber gloves, but that a technical thing .. isn't it?
    Only what was photographed ... happenend. Thank you Condi, a beautiful twist.
    The Blue Rubber Gloves Club.

    ----
    But here you can read more about the systematics.

    http://www.nationinstitute.org/tomdispatch/index.mhtml?pid=1355

    Into the shadows: the franchises

    snip

    Now, let's plunge deeper into the shadows and consider places where the word "Orwellian" comes naturally to mind. The "war on terror" began in Afghanistan as a proxy war -- we hired the Northern Alliance on the theory that the enemy of our enemy's friend was our friend. They were to be our proxy force in destroying the Taliban. We then supported them massively from the air, via our Special Forces, and with bundled American bills in suitcases. The "war" ended quickly with thousands of foot soldiers of the Taliban and of al-Qaeda as well as whomever else happened to be on hand swept up and shuttled into a grim penal no-man's land, where, for instance, painkillers were withheld from the wounded to ensure that they would talk. At the same time, most of the leadership of both groups escaped.

    Afghanistan then became the initial ground zero of our new offshore penal landscape and Bagram Air Base evidently the center of that.
    Though Guantanamo would become the half-hidden "face" of the new system, Bagram was at the heart of what Priest and Gellman dubbed in that December 2002 Washington Post piece, "a brass-knuckled quest for information, often in concert with allies of dubious human rights reputation, in which the traditional lines between right and wrong, legal and inhumane, are evolving and blurred." They added that "while the U.S. government publicly denounces the use of torture, each of the current national security officials interviewed for this article defended the use of violence against captives as just and necessary." And so it proved. Torture became part of the "package." ("Package" turns out as well to be a new term of the trade: "The take-down teams often ‘package' prisoners for transport, fitting them with hoods and gags, and binding them to stretchers with duct tape.")

    In her recent piece, Isabel Hilton claims that there are still an estimated 6,000 prisoners detained without charge, no less a trial, in Afghanistan "of whose fate almost nothing is known." And, of course, such systems have a way of refusing to be contained within bounds or borders. So, though Guantanamo was built for the supposed "hardest of hard cases," the more important captured al-Qaeda (and allied) figures never made it there at all. They passed instead from Afghanistan, or wherever captured, onto American aircraft carriers or, evidently in some cases, onto the "British" Indian Ocean Island of Diego Garcia.
    Priest and Gellman mentioned the island in their 2002 report. In December 2003, Mark Seddon wrote a piece for the British Independent entitled, Is there another Guantanamo Bay on British soil? http://argument.independent.co.uk/commentators/story.jsp?story=472751
    There he recorded reports that, on part of the 17 square-mile island, a "permanent floating aircraft carrier" whose native inhabitants the British had shuttled elsewhere years before, an American support area dubbed "Camp Justice" -- I still want to know who makes up names like this -- held terrorist suspects and possibly members of the Iraqi leadership beyond the reach of anyone at all. (For an aerial view of Camp Justice, thanks to Globalsecurity.org,http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/diego-garcia-imagery-2.htm

    But -- and here's where "franchising" comes in -- even that kind of control and isolation evidently wasn't enough for those running our shadow penal colonies. According to Priest and Gellman, "In addition to Bagram and Diego Garcia, the CIA has other secret detention centers overseas, and often uses the facilities of foreign intelligence services." It seems that the CIA is running a complete "outsourcing" program that goes under the strange rubric of "extraordinary rendition" (which I've written about before). It basically means that we -– the CIA in particular -– transfer potentially resistant prisoners from whom we want information to the agents of countries where there are no qualms whatsoever about using far more brutal methods of interrogation. It's essentially outsourced or franchised torture.
    ...
    ----
     
    Last edited: May 4, 2004
  2. jcsd
  3. May 5, 2004 #2
    Take a guess, what is the number one reason Americans are targeted today?
    Dehumanization. Americans are rich infidels, oil robbers, conspirators, a war ppl, conquerers and muslim haters.
    And take another guess, who created this image?
    I have a feeling youre going to say Bush. But Bush is not the target, ALL Americans are target.

    I think the fact that the last hundred threads (with exception of a neglegable few) you posted were only about America speaks for itself.
     
    Last edited: May 5, 2004
  4. May 5, 2004 #3

    Njorl

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    And thus, Pelastration contributes to the dehumanization of Americans.

    Njorl
     
  5. May 5, 2004 #4
    Or perhaps the positive spin the Whitehouse tries to put on all its dehumanising activities simply needs to be balanced.
     
  6. May 5, 2004 #5
    There's dehumanizing going on, on both sides. People have to stop generalising about other people they have never met before.
     
  7. May 5, 2004 #6
    Unfortunately, the 25+ POWs executed by USA soldiers don't have the choice to stop generalising. They're dead.
     
  8. May 5, 2004 #7
    Its striking you only mention the Americans Adam. A pattern begins to emerge!
     
  9. May 5, 2004 #8
    Well, duh! This thread IS about the USA. If you wish to start a thread about human rights abuses by my own crappy government, feel free.
     
  10. May 5, 2004 #9
    Australia - why isn't it Ever on the news?....
     
  11. May 5, 2004 #10
    Headlines for our news always involve John Howard (our Prime Minister) being a lying scumbag.
     
  12. May 5, 2004 #11
    The Bali bombing was set up by John Howard i once heard...
     
  13. May 5, 2004 #12
    I once heard it was communist aliens.
     
  14. May 5, 2004 #13

    Njorl

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    I once thought Australia was all about hyperactive bleach-blonde guys with buzz cuts singing about batteries. Fortunately, Crocodile Dundee set me straight!

    Njorl
     
  15. May 5, 2004 #14

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Thanks for being so frank about which direction you're coming from. My only comment is: wow.
     
  16. May 5, 2004 #15
    He Russ ... I am not inventing those things. You want the 'religious' websites links to read it for yourself?
    When I was reading them I said: WOW.
     
  17. May 5, 2004 #16
    Not at all Njorl. But I invite you to explain me your above statement. Maybe it's ironic, maybe not.

    1. I just think it's time that the real democratic people in USA stand up and react (i.e. like those 60 diplomats).

    2. Now with elections approaching it's important to remind some people facts from reality, and how Europeans interpret them. A second opinion may be interesting.

    3. Some people may believe that I am anti-american but I am surely not. I visited numerous times US and have a lot of friends. I admire US for a number of achievements, but I am sad when I see how a majority (?) of Americans is manipulated by a few leading for-profit people, and indeed your President is one of them. (i.e. a new $25 billion please). Some people may find that a insult but I think that a growing number of your fellow American taxpayers understand that too.

    4. I am also sad to see that religious arguments determine the decisive political process in USA. The separation between religion and politic is one of the cornerstones of democracy. When fundamental decisions are taken based of divine information and enlightening then you get a dangerous situation. And indeed your President believes God made him President, and God advises him daily.

    5. I have argued logically in every post a number of critical points. If there is a growing number of failures of the US government ... I am not responsible for that. If it's related to abuse and crimes about human rights and against humanity I have all reasons to react in a sharp way. If I see hypocrisy and bad faith, and difference between the word and the deed, and see immorality and amorality I will call it that way.

    6. It seems that some posters are uncomfortable with my continuos attacks on the newcons and their agenda. What I hope is that Americans do something about the "fundamentalistic" problem in DC.

    7. If some posters want to know my ideas about the fundamentalists of the other side, please start a thread on Islam and their respect of human rights. You will see that I am consequent.

    I put my arguments in a numbered way (and will do that also in the future) so defenders of the newcons can answer them point by point instead of answering them with a simple one-liner.
     
  18. May 5, 2004 #17
    Discussing any facts is welcome. Until you discuss facts that make USA citizens uncomfortable about their nation, at which point you are labelled "anti-American", as thought that negates the facts. Rational people, however, are capabale of discussing the USA government without applying it to every individual citizen. Some folks can't tell the difference.
     
  19. May 6, 2004 #18
    America has had many sucesses, and many failures. We have also done many good things, and many bad things. If you intend to make me uncomfortable, you have your work cut out for you. You haven't even come close yet. I could care less if you are "anti-American" or not. Most people automatically ignore your opinion because of your rhetoric, so your arguments are not very effective anyway. I will point out however, that no one has ever accused you of being pro American; on that point, we CAN tell the difference.
     
  20. May 6, 2004 #19

    kat

    User Avatar

    could you define what you mean by "a number" here?
     
  21. May 6, 2004 #20

    Njorl

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    This statement:

    Replace "American" with another group and you have the dehumanizing generality of any prejudiced individual. The qualifier you tack onto the end is no different than when Archie Bunker would talk about "One of the good ones" in reference to black people.

    I am an American. While I like who I am, I don't think of myself as "One of the good ones." I think of Americans as being human, with good and bad individuals like every other group in the world. Your statement implies that Americans are less than human, but some exceptions are as good as human.

    We are all prejudiced. I hope I didn't come across too harshly. I wouldn't normally point it out, except that you expressed your prejudice in an ironically hypocritical way.

    Njorl
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: USA: Legal Frankenstein? Dehumanisation.
  1. Legal Terrorism (Replies: 2)

  2. Legalized Corruption (Replies: 18)

Loading...