Bush: Amnesty report 'absurd'

blackcrown · Post by **blackcrown** » 31 May 2005 16:33

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/05/31/ ... index.html

http://thinkprogress.org/index.php?p=979

Eric

HighDemonslayer · Post by **HighDemonslayer** » 31 May 2005 17:28

That CNN story is kind of dull, but it demonstrates another , more interesting point about the administration, which i'll detail.

-n

NotHisRealName · Post by **NotHisRealName** » 31 May 2005 17:29

In that first article, Bush states (about former oil tycoon Mikhail Khodorkovsky),

"...it looked like he had been judged guilty prior to having a fair trial."

Ummmm. What about all those people held in Guantanamo who have not had any sort of trial?

And this...

"Here, you're innocent until proven guilty and it appeared to us, at least people in my administration, that it looked like he had been ajudged guilty prior to having a fair trial," Bush said.

That guy must be fucking insane! Does he really know what he's saying?

And this on Social Security:

"The easy path is to say, `Oh, we don't have a problem. Let's ignore it -- yet again."

I'm sorry to all the US citizens out there. Our leader is a dick head. He's Bush's little lap dog. But you've got the full shit sandwich, and I can tell you it looks pretty nutty from here.

NotHisRealName · Post by **NotHisRealName** » 31 May 2005 17:34

(Sorry for the double post, but I can't edit my last.)

But Australia is not innocent, either. Our Manditory Detention policy is a damned disgrace. There are children being born and spending the first 6 years (in one case) imprisoned in 'Detention' centres across the country.
Fortunately there's talk of the government reviewing the policy, in order to allow mothers and children a little more freedom.

slapdash21 · Post by **slapdash21** » 31 May 2005 18:16

i dont understand why so many other countries seem to be obsessed with analyzing America and its leader. you dont see America constantly bashing Australia and scrutinizing its leadership or policies. i have a sneaking suspicion that many other nations (none specified here) are in less than perfect economic situations, and would like nothing better than to see the US fall apart even further.

all heresay, but what the hell.

sPinko-Mania · Post by **sPinko-Mania** » 31 May 2005 18:35

slapdash21 wrote:i dont understand why so many other countries seem to be obsessed with analyzing America and its leader.

The US is the world's lone superpower that's why, and worse it can't seem to keep its hands to itself under this administration. That's why people seem to be obsessed - making the precedent of 2 pre-emptive wars is going to get a lot of looks.

It's that whole spiderman quote - more power, more responsibility y'know? I'm not saying that other countries would do a hugely better job if they were the world's superpower, but that shouldnt stop people from viewing the situation critically.

junkyardjew · Post by **junkyardjew** » 31 May 2005 18:42

you dont see America constantly bashing Australia and scrutinizing its leadership or policies.

not australia, no. australia toes the party line. but russia, iraq (before), afghanistan, venezuela (especially now), cuba, most african nations.

Of course, if a represive autocracy has something america wants (can I hear you say uzbekistan?) then it's all fine and dandy to maintain preferential trade relations, but if you're north korea it's a different matter.

people will stop criticizing america when america stops ruling the world.

i have a sneaking suspicion that many other nations (none specified here) are in less than perfect economic situations, and would like nothing better than to see the US fall apart even further.

Unfortunately the american economy IS the world's economy - that's why China keeps buying american debt - if america tanks, so does the rest of the world. it'll make the "asian flu" of the nineties look like a sneeze.

Tsiangkun · Post by **Tsiangkun** » 31 May 2005 19:32

Look, AI deals with human rights. The inhabitants of cells in gitmo and elsewhere are terrorist, insurgents, and enemy combatants. Bush's America doesn't consider these humans, thus AI is absurd to even question his methods... I mean really, The guy upstairs has instructed Bush to capture, restrain, torture and kill them in his name, freedom and liberty around the world.

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 31 May 2005 20:28

"God has a hard on for Marines, because we kill everything we see."

Getting slightly off topic and probably only Australians will understand this - but is anybody else disgusted by the media coverage of Corby while there are people in Australia who have been locked up for over 6 years without any kind of charge or prosecution. And what about David Hicks - another Australian locked up in a repressive jail - probably with conditions a lot worse than in Indonesia - again without any kind of charge or prosecution for 4 years.

Perhaps the Hicks thing might be one of the many reasons why people dis the US. Countries resent having their citizens locked up illegally and without charge and tortured indefinitly.

While the Australian Government "toes the party line" - the Australian people do not. A recent survey showed that majority of Australians consider US foreign policy as big a threat to world peace as Islamic fundamentalism.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/03/28/ ... ralia.html

You only need to look at the conflicts of the last 60 years to see that that fear is well grounded. I mean lets face it - no other country in the world can "boast" anywhere near as long as this one - I think Russia would be second with 3... (and that's including disputed territories like Chechnya)

Countries bombed by the US after the end of World War 2

China 1945-46
Korea 1950-53
China 1950-53
Guatemala 1954
Indonesia 1958
Cuba 1959-60
Guatemala 1960
Belgian Congo 1964
Guatemala 1964
Dominican Republic 1965-66
Peru 1965
Laos 1964-73
Vietnam 1961-73
Cambodia 1969-70
Guatemala 1967-69
Lebanon 1982-84
Grenada 1983-84
Libya 1986
El Salvador 1981-92
Nicaragua 1981-90
Libya 1986
Iran 1987-88
Libya 1989
Panama 1989-90
Iraq 1991-
Kuwait 1991
Somalia 1992-94
Croatia 1994 (of Serbs at Krajina)
Bosnia 1995
Iran 1998 (airliner)
Sudan 1998
Afghanistan 1998
Yugoslavia 1999
Afghanistan 2001-

professor · Post by **professor** » 31 May 2005 21:53

Unfortunately the american economy IS the world's economy - that's why China keeps buying american debt - if america tanks, so does the rest of the world. it'll make the "asian flu" of the nineties look like a sneeze.

Unfortunately, I have a feeling that's going to happen sooner than we all think.

NotHisRealName · Post by **NotHisRealName** » 01 Jun 2005 04:16

It would seem, from the list Jeremy posted, that poor Guatemala just can't do a thing right.

But seriously.

The Corby thing is somewhat relevant to this issue, too. The prisons that she might well be spending the next 20 years of her life are sub-standard hell-holes. No human deserves to be treated like that.
Especially concidering that (under the Australian legal system) there is reasonable doubt that the drugs were hers.

I'm sure that AI is well aware of the conditions of a Balinese jail, and probably, so is the rest of the world... but a country that is supposed to flaunt freedom in the face of oppression should be leading by example. The US should realise what is going on and recognise the oppression and discrimination that it brings down upon it's self and the rest of the world.

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 01 Jun 2005 06:23

Actually under the Australian legal system it's very likely that she would have been found guilty as well.

She was found with 4 kgs of an illegal substance in her possesion. An illegal substance that would make her a profit of around $12,000 by selling it in Indonesia instead of Australia (depsite the lies her supporters and ignorant people spread). She could offer no evidence what so ever that it didn't belong to her. The evidence that some baggage handlers are corrupt would definitly not be accepted in any court in Australia - evidence to prove innocence (or guilt) must be of a nature that directly effects the case. A number of top Australian legal professionals have agreed that the evidence presented in the court would have defintily been enough to find her guilty in Australia and that the defence did not give substantial evidence of otherwise. The claim that "some unknown person put it there without leaving any forensic evidence" is a very old one that is used by criminals all the time - does it really sound convincing?

I'm not saying that she is guilty or innocent - but I think it's pretty clear - not just from my understanding of the law but from what I've heard from experts that guilty was the only concievable verdict she would recieve. As I understand it, when the evidence is presented would have been the time to put forward a theory that the baggage handlers put it there - however her legal team did not at that stage do so - so the evidence had to be accept by the court and it was then her defence teams job to prove otherwise - or else the evidence stands. This is how Australian Law works and I'm pretty sure it's how Indonesian law works as well. There is not reasonable doubt that the drugs were not hers. For you to believe that you have to believe in some unknown criminal who puts $8,000 worth of a drug in some luggage and then forgets to take it out (that amount of weed would sell for about $8,000 in Australia - but $20,000 in Indonesia if sold by a Westerner to a Westerner). And the only evidence that this happened is people saying that their luggage was tampered with and a testimony of a convicted criminal that he heard a discussion of that nature. So the court has a choice of believing that a very unlikely event that in fact has never been found to have happened before occured because of the word of a criminal or they can believe that the drugs found in her possessions that would make her a very large profit and had no forensic evidence on them were hers. I am certain of which side any court in the world would take.

Yes the prisons suck - maybe we could do something about that - like addressing the severe issue of poverty in Indonesia - much of Australia's foreign aid goes to Australian owned companies that are actually exploiting countries like Australia. Rupert Murdoch recieves something like $48,000,000 in "foreign aid" because of a mining company he owns in PNG. - A mining company that is destroying their environment and exploiting their people. - Like most countries - Australia only gives foreign aid when it's in our best interests - ie. it's not aid out of generosity - it's aid that will help us get even richer. If instead we actually addressed the poverty problem in these places the jails in Indonesia probably would suck, we probably wouldn't have people coming to Australia in boats and we might end up saving money.

I think what the Corby event has shown is that Australia still is very much a racist and arrogant country that believes we have the right to dictate to other countries how they run themselves. That's why we're so up in arms about Corby but doing nothing about the people locked up without charge in Australia or David Hicks in Cuba - because we can't tell the US what to do and the people locked up are foreigners. Alan Jones complained on radio the other day that Corby's lawyers don't speak english. How many Australian judges speak Indonesian? Why the fuck should an Indonesian judge have to speak in English in an Indonesian court? One of the many criticisms of our asylum seeker policy is that the refugees are not given adequet translators and the people determining if they are genuine or not do not speak their language. This leads to people getting locked up in jails with many reports of abuse, in the middle of the desert with no windows that face out - without charge or trial.

I would much rather be tried by the Indonesian legal system then come to Australia as an asylum seeker.

Of course today somebody sent a biological substance of some description to the Indonesian embassy - the first biological attack on Australian soil ever. This demonstrates just how racist our country is - I've heard a lot of people voicing similar opinions. It's obvious that the reason people care about what happens to Corby is she's a pretty white girl being punished by non white people. How can anybody claim that the decision of 3 people represents the decision of everybody in a country without being racist? Yet my political party right now is holding a vigal outside the Indonesian embassy.

If we're going to complain about the conditions in the Indonesian prisons - lets complain about them because people are put there - not Australians but any people - and lets do something so they can change the conditions - for all people there - not just Australians. If we're going to complain about the harshness of penalties - lets complain about it with all harsh penalties - including for example the death penalties awarded to the Bali bombers. We should expect the same legal system for all people that go through it - to expect higher standards for Australians is arrogant and racist.

We should also try our best not to make ourselves look stupid. The irrational public outcry in Australia will not change the judges decisions and it will not help Corby at all - rather it makes Indonesians think we are stupid, arrogant and racist - and quite frankly I agree.

slapdash21 · Post by **slapdash21** » 01 Jun 2005 16:22

So if it's claimed that America is a lone superpower, or even has more power and resources in general than other nations, why cant America do whatever the hell it wants? the point is, it can, and its a miracle that our nation engages in as much global aid and interest as it does. everyone focuses so much on who America is apparently hurting, but America REALLY does participate in a ridiculous amount of aid to foreign nations, and accepts thousands of immigrants from other nations as well. also other nations need to focus on their own problems rather than bashing US foreign relations to OTHER countries. its crazyness.

Tsiangkun · Post by **Tsiangkun** » 01 Jun 2005 16:32

I don't know, why can't I take a baseball bat and club every white headphone wearing yuppie I see on the street. I'm the superpower, I have the bat, shouldn't the law bend to what I want ?

Who writes this crap to protect the defensless anyway ? Wouldn't it be easier if laws were written to support the powerful instead ?

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 01 Jun 2005 16:36

Homework assignment for Peter - write a reply explaining why you're completely wrong about the US being able to do whatever it wants. I'm sure if you think about it you'll be able to come up with a few reasons.

Tsiangkun · Post by **Tsiangkun** » 01 Jun 2005 16:54

Extra-Credit:
I'm thinking of a word, two syllables, rhymes with "black male", that describes the actions of the US threatening to revoke aid to countries that intend to hold US citizens to the same laws the US holds to the world.

For two extra points, name this word.

slapdash21 · Post by **slapdash21** » 01 Jun 2005 17:17

Tsia wrote:I don't know, why can't I take a baseball bat and club every white headphone wearing yuppie I see on the street. I'm the superpower, I have the bat, shouldn't the law bend to what I want ?

as much as i would enjoy watching this, or better yet, participating myself (i fucken hate yuppies), the thing is, while there are national laws that prevent behavior such as this, there is no actual NWO, so if you have a bat, and i have a gun, and for some reason wish to defend yuppies, i am thoroughly able to blow you ass away.

Jeremy wrote:Homework assignment for Peter - write a reply explaining why you're completely wrong about the US being able to do whatever it wants. I'm sure if you think about it you'll be able to come up with a few reasons.

only if you write me an essay explaning how you could possibly ALWAYS assume that your opinion is completely right and only an idiot would believe otherwise. its so funny how you put so much stock in one tributary of what Darwin said regarding evolution of animals yet regard the idea of survival of the fittest as unaccpetable and wrong. the point is, the US has the opportunity to literally do whatever would advantage it most, but America definitely does not do that, even arguably. i dont see many advantages of AIDS relief and supplies in Africa for America, other than possibly gaining support in the world agenda from Africa, and you dont see many nations refusing help from US.

Tsia wrote:Extra-Credit:
I'm thinking of a word, two syllables, rhymes with "black male", that describes the actions of the US threatening to revoke aid to countries that intend to hold US citizens to the same laws the US holds to the world.

For two extra points, name this word.

justice doesnt rhyme with black male. America isnt ACTUALLY responsible to help any other nation at all, so if America continues to aid other nations, is it unreasonable to expect some favors in return? like i said, once these nations refuse aid is when they begin complaining of America's foreign policies.

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 01 Jun 2005 17:39

slapdash21 wrote: only if you write me an essay explaning how you could possibly ALWAYS assume that your opinion is completely right and only an idiot would believe otherwise. its so funny how you put so much stock in one tributary of what Darwin said regarding evolution of animals yet regard the idea of survival of the fittest as unaccpetable and wrong. the point is, the US has the opportunity to literally do whatever would advantage it most, but America definitely does not do that, even arguably. i dont see many advantages of AIDS relief and supplies in Africa for America, other than possibly gaining support in the world agenda from Africa, and you dont see many nations refusing help from US.

I don't believe I always assume my opinion is right - if it appears like that it's because I've done a lot of debating and tend to write my replies as if I was debating. However in this instance I am 100% sure that the US cannot do whatever it wants. Unless you interpret that as - if I wanted to go and cut my head off with a chainsaw I could. I am sure that every single advisor to Bush and even Bush himself knows that there are things they can't do. I've studied a lot of international politics - not because I had to - I've only ever studied it in school for half a year - but because it's something I'm passionate about. I often watch 3 hours of current events in a day and read 2 or 3 different newspapers. I can tell you the leaders of all the G8 countries and probably when they came to power. I go to lectures in my spare time to listen to international politicians and analyists speak. I've met and had long conversations with many politicians - both Australian and International - inlcuding (for a random example) the leader of the opposition in Pakistan.

This kind of experience in politics has led me to believe without any doubt what so ever that the US cannot possibly maintain its position in the world if it decides to do whatever it wants. It is plainly obvious from looking both at history and at the present that this is the case. There are plenty of reason why this is and I really think you would learn a great deal more if you figured them out for yourself. At least pretend that you're arguing against yourself and write down the arguements you would use to demonstrate that the US can't do whatever it wants - even if you don't believe them. I'll give you a big help on a start - look at your economy.

ShredStylez · Post by **ShredStylez** » 01 Jun 2005 19:31

The USoA should most certaintly not do what it wants, but i do agree with alot of what peter said. America has provided an inconceivable amount of aid to the world and freed so many nations from tyrants and all we ever ask for are graves for our dead. America does deserve some scrutiny but it seems like just because bush decided to take action against terrorism, which he should have, and if he hadnt u guys would be tearing him to peices anyway, and just because we liberated a country that we are hated. and now we are over in iraq defending itself from its own terrorist citizens that are labelled insurgents. No offense to anyone but everytime someone brings up bush or some wacked oil conspiracy i feel like punching them, especially people from other countries who have more to worry about themselves.

ShredStylez · Post by **ShredStylez** » 01 Jun 2005 19:33

and sorry about the double post but arent people held in guantanamo bay for terrorist actions?