Josh Fattal and Shane Bauer, two Americans captured and held by Iran since 2009, had an interesting point to make at their news conference yesterday in New York (via Think Progress):
According to Bauer and Fattal, Iranian prison guards repeatedly used the harsh conditions of Guantanamo Bay and CIA prisons around the world to justify their own human rights violations:
BAUER: In prison, every time we complained about our conditions, the guards would immediately remind us of comparable conditions at Guantanamo Bay. They would remind us of CIA prisons in other parts of the world, and the conditions that Iranians and others experience in prisons in the U.S. We do not believe that such human rights violations on the part of our government justify what has been done to us. Not for a moment. However, we do believe that these actions on the part of the U.S. provide an excuse for other governments, including the government of Iran, to act in kind.
According to the hikers, extended solitary confinement “was the worst experience of all our lives.”
It was already a well-known fact that torture and inhumane treatment of detainees by the USA helps other governments try to justify similar acts. In violation of the U.S. Constitution and international treaties, the Obama administration continues to hold people indefinitely without any charges being brought against them, under conditions similar to the Iranian prison Bauer and Fattal experienced.
#1 by Andrea on September 26, 2011 - 5:45 pm
This also explains why the Iranians treated the hostages poorly back in 1980. Their mullahs could see into the future and they knew that a couple decades later we would imprison innocent people at Guantanamo.
Through out history, people in the Middle East have always treated their prisoners and the people they conquered with compassion and fairness. Heck, they even invited those they conquered to join their religion. Then came Guantanamo and ruined everything.
#2 by brewski on September 26, 2011 - 9:46 pm
I’m sure without Gitmo the Iranians would be offering their hostages daily Pilates classes.
#3 by ken on September 27, 2011 - 7:41 am
Do you consider Obama to be a war criminal and deserving of Crimes Against Humanity charges like you did GW Bush?
#4 by Richard Warnick on September 27, 2011 - 9:00 am
Ken–
In the case of former President Bush, we have a chief executive who has confessed in public to conspiracy to commit torture– a federal crime punishable by 20 years in prison. Because he has not been prosecuted, I think present and future presidents have nothing to worry about on that score.
Regarding detainees, the Obama administration is in clear violation of the U.S. Constitution and the Fourth Geneva Convention. Also, the night raids on civilian residences by special operations forces in Afghanistan probably involve violations of Article 3 of the Fourth Geneva Convention.
The definition of crimes against humanity is a lot broader than the definition of war crimes. I never accused former President Bush of crimes against humanity. I think more documented evidence would be needed.
#5 by brewski on September 29, 2011 - 2:43 pm
JAMES KIRCHICK
#6 by Richard Warnick on September 29, 2011 - 4:26 pm
Far from perfect is quite an understatement. Case in point: native-born U.S. citizen Jose Padilla. Imprisoned for in solitary for three years without charges, tortured, denied access to a lawyer, then finally convicted and sentenced to an additional 17 years in SuperMax for… filling out an application form. And the appeals court says the sentence was too lenient.
What will they do to that fearsome Toys ‘R’ Us Terrorist?
Compared to every other nation, the USA has more of its people behind bars in both percentage terms and absolute numbers. More than China! Yet those guilty of the worst crimes are not being prosecuted.
#7 by brewski on September 29, 2011 - 4:59 pm
Richard,
Can you give me a list of people in the US who are imprisoned for their beliefs?
#8 by Richard Warnick on September 29, 2011 - 5:05 pm
Tim DeChristopher, sentenced to 2 years in federal prison, 3 years of supervised probation and a $10,000 fine. Here’s his current address:
Tim DeChristopher
#16156-081
FCI Herlong, SATELLITE CAMP
Federal Correctional Institution
PO Box 800
Herlong, CA 96113
I don’t know how many others have been thrown in jail for exercising the right of free speech, but one is too many.
#9 by brewski on September 29, 2011 - 5:07 pm
He was not imprisoned for his beliefs.
Next?
#10 by Richard Warnick on September 29, 2011 - 5:09 pm
Oh come on now, Judge Benson admitted that DeChristopher was sentenced to prison solely because of his “continuing trail of statements” about environmental policy and the need for civil disobedience.
#11 by brewski on September 29, 2011 - 5:32 pm
If he had not violated the law by his acts, and just spoke and wrote and organized and blogged and ran for Congress on his platform, then he would be a free man.
#12 by Shane Smith on September 29, 2011 - 5:36 pm
…and according to the judge if he had violated the law but not talked about it, he would be a free man.
I thought you, christian that you are, would understand the concept of acting out of conscious even if it means breaking the law. Christianity has a long tradition there.
Oh wait….
#13 by brewski on September 29, 2011 - 10:10 pm
I fully understand the breaking the law in the name of following one’s conscience. I have done so myself. But as an educated man (self professed anyway) , you are already aware that part of the philosophy of civil disobedience is that the person also understands and accepts that he will have to suffer the consequences for breaking the law. The deal is not, “I get to break the law due to my beliefs, and I get off free”. The deal is you knowingly break the law and you pay the price and you are willing to do so because you believe it is the right thing to do.
Please read some Thoreau and get back to me when you can have an educated discussion on this, or anything for that matter.
#14 by brewski on September 29, 2011 - 10:27 pm
Shane:
Find the error in this paragraph.
#15 by Richard Warnick on September 30, 2011 - 8:38 am
Brewski–
Bad-faith bidding at BLM lease auctions is common enough that they have a name for people who do what DeChristopher did: “bid walkers.” Yet Tim was the first bid walker ever indicted and prosecuted. Why?
In other news, the U.S. government has just killed Anwar al-Awlaki, a native-born American citizen, for making anti-government statements on the World Wide Web. No effort was made to indict him for any crimes.
When Awlaki’s father sought unsuccessfully to discover the set of rules our National Security State uses for deciding which Americans to target for due-process-free assassination …”the DOJ argued, among other things, that such decisions were ‘state secrets’ and thus beyond the scrutiny of the courts. He was simply ordered killed by the President: his judge, jury and executioner.”
Does anyone remember what our government officials said about Saddam Hussein before we invaded Iraq? Something about “he killed his own people”? Clearly, any head of state who could do such a thing must be a tyrant and a threat to the world, we were told.
#16 by brewski on September 30, 2011 - 9:13 am
Then those people who bid walk should also be prosecuted. Lack of enforcement for others for a crime is not a defense if you commit the same crime. Consult your local DA on this one.
As for AaA. It isn’t about “crimes”. It is about a declared war.
So you are making a comparison between Obama and Saddam. I suppose pushing an old lady in front of an oncoming bus is the same as pushing an old lady away from an oncoming bus. We should prosecute anyone who pushes an old lady, in your eyes.
#17 by Shane Smith on September 30, 2011 - 11:04 am
Do you (ever) have a point?
#18 by Richard Warnick on September 30, 2011 - 11:15 am
Brewski–
You say that selective prosecution is not a defense, but that’s up to the judge not the U.S. Attorney. Army Lieutenant Dan Choi, who like Tim DeChristopher was prosecuted by the feds for exercising our supposed right of free speech, is being allowed to bring this issue up at trial.
As for Awlaki, the U.S. government has presented no evidence that he was an enemy combatant. If they possess such evidence, then tell me why was he still a U.S. citizen?
The government has acknowledged that they have a list of Americans targeted for death — Awlaki was the only one named publicly. What gives them the right to conduct these extra-judicial executions, far from any battlefield?
#19 by brewski on September 30, 2011 - 11:36 am
If you drive drunk and get prosecuted, the fact that other people drive drunk and don’t get prosecuted is not going to help. You can try it, but it won’t work.
I am sure there were US citizens who have fought against the US in many wars, the US Civil War being just one. The US didn’t need to run around with lawyers and evidence in order to kill those people at Antietam.
#20 by brewski on September 30, 2011 - 11:39 am
Yes, my point is that you aren’t very smart if you can’t find errors in your own writing.
#21 by Richard Warnick on September 30, 2011 - 11:47 am
Brewski–
Do you realize you’re defending the Obama administration? Yesterday in Moab, Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar was asked if he might ask President Obama to Pardon Tim DeChristopher — he said no.
Prosecutorial discretion is only valid when it’s not part of a political vendetta against people who disagree with those in power. Certainly, Democrats complained when Karl Rove tried to have U.S. Attorneys go after them!
I’m writing a post about Awlaki, so you’ll have another opportunity to stand by President Obama. As far as I know, he wasn’t on a battlefield (although while he lived in DC he might have visited Antietam).
#22 by brewski on September 30, 2011 - 12:16 pm
I don’t blindly follow or blindly criticize people based on who they are or whether they have a D or an R after their name. I approve of or criticize people based on their actions and ideas. If Obama does something good or has a good idea, then I will say so.
There are certainly many GOPers who have awful ideas and awful actions. Of course it usually isn’t as simple as someone is right all the time or someone is wrong all the time. It is a matter of proportions. Obama happens to be wrong 90% of the time. Bachmann is wrong 90% of the time too. But her 90% is different from Obama’s 90%.
Right now I’d say Cain is right 70%, Huntsman 69%, Romney 65%, Paul 50%, Perry 45%, etc. So right now I’m thinking about a Romney/Cain ticket from the point of view of right ideas, right experience, right personal traits, electability, etc. That team sounds pretty win-able to me.
#23 by Richard Warnick on September 30, 2011 - 12:53 pm
Unfortunately for President Obama, his support for “drill baby drill” and other Republican policies won’t win him any praise from anyone — except possibly brewski. We used to think that for all his faults, Obama was a clever politician. Now it looks like the opposite of that.
#24 by brewski on September 30, 2011 - 1:01 pm
I’m not part of the drill baby drill crowd.
Remember, I agree with Gore that we should replace the payroll taxes with a GHG tax.
#25 by Richard Warnick on September 30, 2011 - 2:17 pm
So it’s official. While the oil industry might tacitly approve the Obama administration’s support for drilling, there is literally no one willing to say thank you.
The Republicans will always condemn Obama because that’s what they do. Everyone else will scratch their heads and wonder whatever happened to the hope and change.
Last night Ed Schultz delivered a rant aimed at dissatisfied Democrats, telling them a Republican in the White House would be worse than what we’ve got. Maybe, but then at least the GOP might have to accept responsibility for the failure of their own policies — and progressives would be free oppose those policies without taking criticism from Ed.