RLENT
Veteran Expediter
Original Article (contains multiple imbedded links to coverage detailing the allegations):
Wikileaks Reveals US Won't Comply With Treaty Obligations
Wikileaks Reveals US Won't Comply With Treaty Obligations
- Thread starter RLENT
- Start date
Original Article (contains multiple imbedded links to coverage detailing the allegations):
Wikileaks Reveals US Won't Comply With Treaty Obligations
Well, I for one am shocked, shocked, I tell you, that the US government would refuse to cooperate with a criminal investigation where the US government is the subject of the investigation, and would be the defendant. This kind of behavior is just unheard of, despite the fact that according to the treaty in question, a country has the right to refuse to provide legal assistance if the execution of the request would encroach on the country’s security or another interest of the country. Besides, no Al Qaeda prisoner would ever stoop so low as to wrongfully accuse his US captors of torture and other mistreatment. Everyone knows that Al Qaeda members are pure as the driven snow and would never make up such a thing.
"Bad US, bad! Now go lie down!"
"Bad US, bad! Now go lie down!"
Sounds like you and Xiggi both are ok with anything, long as you can point to someone else who is also doing it.
That's pretty scary.
It's the Fifth Amendment. You are not obligated to cooperate in the investigation that you are the subject of, nor are you obligated to turn over or say anything that would incriminate you. That's exactly what the government is doing here.
Do keep in mind that the US wasn't the only signatory to the treaty. Everyone else signed it, too. They want to protect their butt just as much as we want to protect ours.
Pretty much, yeah. Treaties are mostly feel good stuff that sound great at the time, but when it's no longer to your advantage to abide by it, you don't. And when someone else breaks the treaty, you're not very likely to continue to live by it, either. The world's history can be marked by broken treaties.
Because I know you know better, I'll pretend you didn't actually say that in public.
Someone charges you, without any foundation, and you refuse to cooperate, so therefore ergo hence you're hiding something?
I don't think I contend that, but let me go back up and read what I wrote again to make sure. [zubba zubba zubba zub... al qaeda, driven snow, zubba] Nope, didn't contend that at all. All I contended was that you shouldn't be forced to cooperate in an investigation which has the sole purpose of incriminating you, and that the possibility exists that an Al Qaeda prisoner might, just might, be making something up, much in the same vein as some chick is now going after Disney Dollars because she claims Donald Duck copped a feel in the Magic Kingdom and now she can't sleep or take a proper dump because of it. The US is an easy target to make stuff up about, especially by an Al Qaeda prisoner, in no small measure because the US has done some of the stuff the prisoners are claiming, but that doesn't automatically mean the US government did anything wrong to these particular prisoners, and refusing to incriminate themselves is hardly the litmus test that they did.
Everybody's always gunning for #1. Sometimes rightfully so, but not always, without question, just because they sayso.
What's scary is that you came to that conclusion based on what I wrote.
- I think you're just messing with my head, but I'll go along with it.
-
And #1 should have not lie, cheat, disregard the law, or it's own word in order to accomplish it's goals.
If our word [signature] is worthless, then so are we. Period.
*YAWN* ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Some REAL comedians in here, too funny. NOT!! JUST BORING! NO comment beyond that.
Some REAL comedians in here, too funny. NOT!! JUST BORING! NO comment beyond that.
What is scary is allowing any other country or any world court decide what is legal or non legal for the US to do.
That you felt it necessary to make such comments is an affirmation of the veracity of my sigline - not coincidentally, one inspired by none other than your own words.
The comments are simply and unjustifiably rude, which constitutes a violation of the code of conduct that YOU are supposed to enforce - and that's what's truly not funny here.
What court? It's a question of the US assisting another government [as agreed by treaty with said government] in their investigation of allegations made about the US government's treatment of their citizens. Do they not have the same right to investigate such claims as the US would assert, if the shoe were on the other foot?
Flip it around: if a US citizen were accused by another government [while on their soil] of terrorism, and said citizen alleged serious violations of law in their imprisonment, how would our government react?
Oh, good grief. I didn't say the US was invoking the Fifth Amendment, I said that what they were doing was the same principle.cheri1122 said:
No, it's not OK because everyone is doing it, it's OK because it's part of the treaty that everyone signed. I never made a judgment as to whether it's OK or not, I merely noted the reality.
Well, it's "in reality" where it mostly matters, but even at that, if the US were fully cooperating and utterly incriminating themselves (which would be just butt stoopid), many around the world would still figure that there's a US-led cover-up conspiracy somewhere.
I most certainly did not. I know precisely what I contended, and exactly what I implied. You simply inferred whatever you wanted to infer. What I implied was, is that Al Qaeda members (not "accused terrorists," but actual Ql Qaeda members, as I have no idea what they may or may not have been accused of) are not pure as the driven snow and that they might lie, and did so using sarcasm. I never said, nor implied, that an Al Qaeda member "cannot be speaking the truth," I implied directly that they might not be telling the truth, and I offered no reason whatsoever, much less for the "sole reason" of anything, as to why they might not always be telling the truth. I assumed that since they have been known to lie as a matter of routine tactics, that no specific reason would need to be offered. But if I were to have offered up a reason, the fact that they were "accused terrorists" would absolutely not be one of them, because while they were all admitted (or caught red-handed) as being Al Qaeda members, I have no idea what else they may have been accused of.
OMG. Are you serious? Past transgressions is proof of current accusations? Oh... My... God.
The US government couldn't get a fair trial in the court of world opinion if their life depended on it. If the government cooperated fully and it was found they did nothing wrong, it wouldn't make one wit of difference in the court of world opinion. Half the world would say whoever found the US not guilty is a puppet of the US government, and the other half would say the US bullied, coerced and threatened them into a not guilty verdict.
Do you really think we're the only country that does this? Greetings, traveler. Welcome to planet Earth, where since the dawn of civilization different groups have banded together to look out for their own interests and survival, often at the expense of other groups. Sheesh, no, we shouldn't have to lie, cheat, or disregard the law or our own words to accomplish our goals, but neither should any other country, and if we suddenly became all Utopian then every other country would eat us alive. No, that doesn't make it right, just because everyone else does it, but it does make it a stone cold reality, and if you ignore that reality you'll be squashed like a bug. We and other countries lie, cheat and a whole host of other bad things within the scope of diplomacy, in lieu of armed combat most of the time. Whenever a rtreaty is signed, with few exceptions, every signatory of that treaty knows fully well which parts of the treat each other will and will not abide with under certain conditions. Yes, in a perfect world we and everyone else would say what they mean and mean what they say, but that, so far, has never worked when it's off the page and real people are doing it.
So go get all bat guano gaga over the US breaking a treaty (which they didn't actually break), and then prepare yourself for the thousands of others that the US and other countries have broken all or part of over the centuries. I'll make it easy for you - the US shattered every single treaty ever signed with a Native American. And other than maybe very recently signed treaties that haven't have a chance at this point, you can probably count on one hand how many treaties the US has ever signed that at least one country that was a part of the treaty didn't break. Treaties are nothing more than a tool of diplomacy, a tool to resolve differences, avoid war, and not some iron clad enforceable contract, or else. Because the "or else" is war. And if every country went to war every time another country broke a treaty, then every country would always be at war with every other country, all the time, forever and ever. amen.
The above transgression (that's only been alleged, not actually proved) in the OP, in the scope of Al Qaeda and the fight against terrorism is barely a blip on the OMG radar, and on the radar scope of overall diplomacy, it ain't even showing up. This didn't even make the list of things to worry about. A few people are gonna Blog about it, because it's a neat and very safe way to take a shot at Goliath. As imperfect as the United States is, I'll stack us up with anyone else out there over the long term.
All I know for sure is, however, is that if I'm ever charged with a crime I didn't commit, you're the first person I want excused from jury duty.
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
The essence of your (apparent) premise can be simply boiled to the following, stated in the first person:
"Because one or more other parties does something that is unethical, immoral, and wrong, it therefore justifies and makes it ok that I commit similar wrongdoings ...."
Is that how you personally live your life ?
If it is not (and I rather suspect that is the case - that you don't - knowing you at least a little bit
) then why would you accept it and condone it on the part of your government ?Do you seriously believe that not abiding by agreements to which we have given our word, collectively as a nation, raises our standing with the community of those who we claim as our friends ?
If it doesn't raise our standing, if rather, it makes us despised and hated, in what way can that be good for us as a nation ?
If a friend of yours gave you his word, in respect to how the two of you would conduct say a business relationship, and then later came back and said: "Nope, I'm not going to live up to our agreement - despite the fact that I gave you my solemn word ...." .... how would you feel about it ?
What would be your view of the other party in terms of their integrity ? ..... honor ? .... trustworthiness ?
I am somewhat perplexed as to how individuals who believe that unethical and immoral conduct on part of an individual is a bad thing .... but when essentially the same conduct is committed by their government, it somehow suddenly becomes "ok" ....
"Observe good faith and justice towards all Nations. Cultivate peace and harmony with all." - George Washington, Farewell Address, September 19, 1796
"This I hope will be the age of experiments in government, and that their basis will be founded in principles of honesty, not of mere force." - Thomas Jefferson, 1796
"The executive branch of this government never has, nor will suffer, while I preside, any improper conduct of its officers to escape with impunity." - George Washington, letter to Gouverneur Morris, December 22, 1795
"We are firmly convinced, and we act on that conviction, that with nations as with individuals our interests soundly calculated will ever be found inseparable from our moral duties, and history bears witness to the fact that a just nation is trusted on its word when recourse is had to armaments and wars to bridle others." - Thomas Jefferson, Second Inaugural Address, March 4, 1805
"States, like individuals, who observe their engagements, are respected and trusted: while the reverse is the fate of those who pursue an opposite conduct." - Alexander Hamilton, Report on Public Credit, January 9, 1790
"Honesty will be found on every experiment, to be the best and only true policy; let us then as a Nation be just." - George Washington, Circular letter to the States, June 14, 1783
Last edited:
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
...... even when it's the US doing it on their own sovereign soil ?
Reverse the situation: As a sovereign nation, do you feel that the US should have no say about what is legal for another nation to do on our soil ?
What if Russia or China kidnapped people here in the US that they felt were a danger to their security ?
Would that be ok ?
..... what is good for the goose, is also good for the gander .....
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
I don't believe this is entirely a case about actual accused terrorists - there is the matter of a Spanish journalist (cameraman) who was killed, and the issue pertaining to that is the violation of the laws of war:
"In Spain, the WikiLeaks disclosures have dominated the news for three days now. The reporting has been led by the level-headed El País, with its nationwide competitor, Público, lagging only a bit behind. Attention has focused on three separate matters, each pending in the Spanish national security court, the Audiencia Nacional: the investigation into the 2003 death of a Spanish cameraman, José Cuoso, as a result of the mistaken shelling of Baghdad’s Palestine Hotel by a U.S. tank; an investigation into the torture of Spanish subjects held at Guantánamo; and a probe into the use of Spanish bases and airfields for extraordinary renditions flights, including the one which took Khaled El-Masri to Baghdad and then on to Afghanistan in 2003."
The Madrid Cables
and the case of mistaken identity, where an apparently innocent man was kidnapped (and tortured) because his name was similar to a Al Qaeda terrorist's name:
"From the small mountain of diplomatic cables that WikiLeaks is now slowly putting up at their website, one significant historical document has so far gotten only scant mention. It’s dated February 6, 2007 and directed to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. It reflects a meeting between John M. Koenig, the senior career diplomat at the U.S. Embassy in Berlin, and Rolf Nikel, the deputy national security advisor for Germany. The subject was the criminal investigation into the kidnapping and torture of Khaled El-Masri, a German greengrocer from the town of Neu-Ulm, seized in a case of mistaken identity. Koenig, aware that German prosecutors had issued arrest warrants against thirteen U.S. government agents who were involved in El-Masri’s abduction and torture, and that an effort would shortly be made to enforce them internationally, was pressing the German government to block this effort .....
Over the Christmas-New Year’s holiday in 2003, Khaled El-Masri traveled by bus to Skopje, Macedonia. There he was apprehended by border guards who noted the similarity of his name to that of Khalid al-Masri, an Al Qaeda agent linked to the Hamburg cell where the 9/11 attacks were plotted. Despite El-Masri’s protests that he was not al-Masri, he was beaten, stripped naked, shot full of drugs, given an enema and a diaper, and flown first to Baghdad and then to the notorious “salt pit,” the CIA’s secret interrogation facility in Afghanistan. At the salt pit, he was repeatedly beaten, drugged, and subjected to a strange food regime that he supposed was part of an experiment that his captors were performing on him. Throughout this time, El-Masri insisted that he had been falsely imprisoned, and the CIA slowly established that he was who he claimed to be. Over many further weeks of bickering over what to do, a number of CIA figures apparently argued that, though innocent, the best course was to continue to hold him incommunicado because he “knew too much.” Dana Priest furnished the core of this account in an excellent 2005 Washington Post story. Other aspects have been slowly confirmed by German criminal investigators. By studying El-Masri’s hair and skin samples, for instance, they were able to confirm allegations that he was drugged and subjected to a bizarre starvation regimen. Throughout this process, El-Masri’s account of what transpired, part of which he wrote up as an op-ed in the Los Angeles Times, has consistently been vindicated."
Original Article:
The El-Masri Cable
I believe there may be known incidents in Italy and Germany as well, but I'd have to do some digging to see what I could find - and of course, that's only be what we know so far ..... who knows what else there may be ...
I'd say you got a pretty good ear there Missy ..... and are hearing correctly
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
The real comedy is (as evidenced by your conduct):
The moderators (well, some of them at least) have no clothes .....
A couple of interjections here, if I may...
The above does two things. One, it removes the context of diplomacy (which cannot be ignored or dismissed) and moves it into the realm of broad philosophical hypotheticals, and two, it assumes that what the other one or more parties is doing is in fact unethical, immoral and wrong (within the scope of diplomacy). But if all parties within the scope of diplomacy are engaging in the same things, and they all know it, and that's how the game is played, then it's not really unethical, or immoral, or wrong. Most treaties are smoke and mirrors, signed with winks all around, just like Cheri posited above. Diplomacy isn't quick and easy, black and white, simplistic and uncomplicated, like we want to view it, or view it's end outcomes. It's the reverse.
When diplomats negotiate treaties, with rare exceptions, everyone involved in the treaty knows under which conditions one or more of the parties will not live up to the agreement. For example, despite the opinionated article in the OP that says the United States is failing to comply with its treaty obligations, that's not really accurate, since the very treaty he is talking about allows the US, and every other country which signed it, to do precisely what the US is doing. The US told everyone involved that they might (or absolutely) would do many of the very things that people are all bent out of shape about, and the treaty was signed by all.
Does that make the US unethical, immoral and wrong, because all the other countries agreed to the same conditions? In the abstract, perhaps, but not in the world of diplomacy. Many treaties contain articles that no one expects to be complied with, but they are in the treaty anyway as a hope and a wish for some ideal solution to an otherwise irreconcilable difference. In a perfect world, where diplomacy is not needed, we could look another country in the eye and tell them that from now on we will say what we mean and mean what we say, and all the other countries would do the same. But we don't like in that perfect world, and if we were to suddenly take the Utopian moral high road, and everyone else didn't do the same, we'd be weak and naive, nothing more than international roadkill and a chapter in the history books of yet another great civilization that got conquered with relative ease because we self-destructed.
The CIA doesn't have Black Ops torture holes, I mean detention facilities, in these countries without the host country's knowledge, and these countries aren't naive enough to think we're serving milk and cookies to terrorists there. In most (if not all) cases, the host governments have people working right along side of the CIA inside these facilities. So don't think we're the only ones who are dirty here. We're not.
Considering our word, nor the word of any other nation who are parties to a treaty, is not considered to be absolute and unconditional, and all parties to the treaty know the conditions for which the treaty will not be complied with, then the answer would be that it doesn't make any difference to our standing within the community. Especially in this case where the treaty itself allows for the very actions the US took, or rather refused to take, in cooperating with the investigation. So we're not even breaking the treaty, and we're abiding by our word.
Does it make us despised and hated? Perhaps it does by a few Bloggers and Polish radio, but it certainly doesn't seem to be the case for the leaders and diplomats of these countries.
Straw man. That assumes the US gave their solemn word, and said so, unconditionally, and the other signatories to the treaty took that word to be an austere declaration, as one would for a contractual agreement. That assumes a lot. Treaties are diplomatic tools, not business contracts.
it's not essentially the same thing, though. It may be similar on the surface, and they sometimes share many characteristics, but individual conduct with respect to a contract or some other personal agreement is a very different thing from the nature of a diplomatic treaty.I am somewhat perplexed as to how individuals who believe that unethical and immoral conduct on part of an individual is a bad thing .... but when essentially the same conduct is committed by their government, it somehow suddenly becomes "ok" ....
-----
In the abstract, that's an insanely good argument, but in practice it doesn't really apply. China, Russia nor anyone else has an historical nor current condoned presence to operate overtly and covertly within our borders, but we have exactly that in many countries around the world, condoned either privately or publicly, or at least with the knowledge of, by of the nations we operate in (not saying that it's a good thing we do, just saying that we do). China and Russia may not be the best examples, because we don't have any kind of condoned presence in those countries, and if we did something over there it would create quite the international incident, same as if any other country tried something like that here. But for places like Europe, they know we're there, many condone it, others begrudgingly put up with it. The reverse is not true, so the situation really can't be reversed in reality as easily as it can on paper....... even when it's the US doing it on their own sovereign soil ?
Reverse the situation: As a sovereign nation, do you feel that the US should have no say about what is legal for another nation to do on our soil ?
What if Russia or China kidnapped people here in the US that they felt were a danger to their security ?
Would that be ok ?
..... what is good for the goose, is also good for the gander .....
Be all that as it may, I agree with you that it shouldn't just give us the right to do as we wish, which at times certainly seems to be on the verge of being out of control, like the mistaken identity kidnapping and torture of a German citizen, and then when they realize they got the wrong guy, they keep him anyway. That's something that justifies honest to goodness outrage (unlike the outrage over the US breaking a treaty that they're not really even breaking). Someone or several someones need to he held accountable for the greengrocer's kidnapping and torture, as well as several other incidents that, as you say, "we know about", and likely others that we don't know about.
The best way to handle that, in many people's mind, would be to arrest, try and convict those responsible (and there are likely foreign citizens who are also involved, since we really don't operate on foreign soil with complete autonomy). But would that necessarily be the best thing to do in the bigger picture, for all countries involved? I dunno, but probably not. It will probably be handled for the most part in diplomatic channels, and anything that happens publicly will happen because diplomacy allows or requires it.
As a side note, I'm not saying that anyone in this thread is right or wrong (other than a couple of Cheri's incorrect inferences and conclusion that she's absolutely dead wrong about
), I'm just offering up another way to view things, some possibilities, some of which isn't necessarily my opinion, some of which is.
For a country that goes around trying to set a standard for living as in justice and human rights/fairness...breaking treaties seems hypocritical...you'd think setting an example and being above the rest would be tantamount..
but alas here we are just like the people we are trying to whip into shape...except we do it with a pen and a lot of BS...
but alas here we are just like the people we are trying to whip into shape...except we do it with a pen and a lot of BS...
Things are not as simple as some wish to make it. It is easy to be a Monday morning quarter back. The lack of context makes it difficult to know what is really going on. So does a one sided view. No country, even the U.S., is perfect. Every country has "warts". ALL treaties should be looked at. All countries compliance should be looked at. There is no way to tell just how accurate these "releases" are either.
Things are never what they seem...
You got that right. There is FAR more going on behind the scenes. Leaks can NEVER be trusted to give the entire picture.