Human Rights Violations

I'm curious as to know why the very people who talk about the supposed abrogation of habeas corpus in America often have nothing to say about the extreme and egregious violations in communist nations.The historical atrocities are too numerous to quantify, so I though that we'd discuss one such atrocity that takes place today in communist China. Organ harvesting is a clandestine practice, mostly among the Falun Gong-- a peaceful religious group.It is said that the Falun Gong are used for a few reasons. Most notably, they are despised by the PRC government because they are religious. Secondly, it is said that in observation of their faith, they take well care of their bodies and are generally known to be in pristine physical conditioning.With all of the criticism about Iraq, with claims that there was no purposeful objective, and how the US is criticized for not following up on humanitarian efforts, such as Darfur, would those same critics be all for military action against China?If so, why? If not, why? The US government is aware of these practices. In order to remain consistent with their allegations, should the loudest critics of the Iraq conflict hypothetically allow for military action by the US in the name of human rights violations?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ia04u0u8J8s

---

“This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake

You are conflating issues.There was no justifiable reason for invading Iraq.There is no justifiable reason for invading Darfur.There is no justifiable reason to invade China.Does that mean we should be unconcerned about human rights violations? No, of course not. However that also does not mean that the solution to human rights violations should be addressed by military invasions.The first place to start addressing Human Rights violations is for those in the US to address the human rights violations in the US, like the deprivation of rights to the US homosexual citizens, like the abrogation of privacy and civil rights in the US, like the mangled health care situation in the US.We need to deal with OUR problems first.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

I'm curious as to know why the very people who talk about the supposed abrogation of habeas corpus in America often have nothing to say about the extreme and egregious violations in communist nations.

---

Why is it an either/or? and is it not surprising that GOSH! people seem to be more concerned with their own backyard and act out of self-interest?

Nobody thinks they are nothing to worry about. Some people think that abrogation of habeas corpus is nothing to worry about. It is something to worry about, and those that don't worry about it should be advised as to why they should be worried.If anyone doesn't think that other human rights issues are something to be worried about, they should be also convinced. It is fear of sliding into a terrible state with these egregious violations that drives people to point out that habeas corpus isn't just an option in a free society. No. We'd probably lose. We could only 'win' by killing millions of people. The loudest criticism of the Iraq war was that they did not present a danger to the West, that invading a country against the decree of the UN was bad stuff, that without proper planning the war would turn into a massive disaster (and that proper planning was not being carried out).Why would that be inconsistent with being against a massive military action in China? The point was that military intervention would probably make Iraq worse if it wasn't planned properly. Intervention in Darfur has had UN approval (Security council resolution 1706), there is some indication that it could make matters worse (So it hasn't been enacted yet as far as I am aware), but if that is resolved then a peacekeeping force in Darfur would be fine by me. Especially if it was managed by peacekeeping military experts and not political buffoons.As for China? I doubt the UN would agree to military action, preferring a diplomatic course of action at this time. Military action would cost a lot of lives, and probably wouldn't solve the problem much quicker that diplomatic action will (and will probably slow the solution down anyway).Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

quote:

---

With all of the criticism about Iraq, with claims that there was no purposeful objective, and how the US is criticized for not following up on humanitarian efforts, such as Darfur, would those same critics be all for military action against China?

​

If so, why? If not, why? The US government is aware of these practices. In order to remain consistent with their allegations, should the loudest critics of the Iraq conflict hypothetically allow for military action by the US in the name of human rights violations?

---

Because it'd be crazy ? Military action against China is an invitation to a thermonuclear conflict. What could military action achieve that would be worth the risk ?Come to that why should people who didn't support military action against Iraq support military action against China ? It's not as if Saddam Hussein was any more pleasant than the current regime in Beijing.

I'm curious to know what would be an acceptable reason for military intervention. Then please don't misunderstand me then. I'm not advocating military action either, especially without exhausting diplomacy first. I'm asking why some people continually talk about how the US is violating civil rights only to turn around and neglect the blatant violations all around them. Those who characterize themselves as homosexuals have the same rights as anyone else. If you are referring to gay marriage, then why not just ask why a consenting 17 year old girl can't marry an 18 year old boy? Its just as arbitrary. As for the civil rights-- it grew up here and blossomed here. The very last thing any American wants is the abrogation of civil liberties. Lastly, if healthcare is so bad in the US then why does everyone come here for treatment? To a very large degree, I agree with you here. Problem is, there will never be a time when people won't say this. Why? Because there will always exist problems in numerous facets of ANY society. Meanwhile, people are taking organs out of unwilling patients for profit.Should the US be an isolationist country like Switzerland?

---

“This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake

I guess I'm not sure about whom you are speaking. The majority of people I know of who are concerned about habeas corpus have also been critical of giving China most favored nation trading status and opening free trade with China precisely because of China's human rights record. The liberal weekly I read, The Nation, regularly has articles and commentary both criticizing the weakening or elimination of habeas corpus in the U.S. and criticizing the U.S. government for not taking China's human rights record into account in its relations.- Huh? Why would consistancy require those who oppose military action against Iraq to support military action against China?I feel like a substantial portion of the intended OP has ended up missing; the OP reads to me like a string of non-sequiturs.

---

Computers have cut-and-paste functions. So does right-wing historical memory. -- Rick Perlstein

That's very interesting that you say that, considering some of the loudest critics of US spying comes from countries like Canada, Australia, the UK, etc... All of whom.... Spy. Hell, there are more spies in the United States than anywhere else on the globe. And its not just in the government. Corporate espionage is at an all time high.But, what do they care? Well, they care because what happens over there (wherever that might be), effects us all over here (wherever that may be).I think you'd agree that the world is getting smaller by the day because of vast technological advances. We are more connected to one another than ever before. Whatever effects you in the UK indirectly effects me here in California, and vice versa, especially since commerce is intimately connected.

---

“This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake

Yeah, many thanks for the sub-prime market America. You're doing a bang up job of showing how well 'free' markets regulate themselves.TTFN,WK

It should always be one of those concerns in the back of their minds, sure. My question (and if you haven't guessed as to the motive of my thread yet, here it is) is why America, of ALL places, is under the gun-- or England for that matter? Do any of you here remember the Stasi or the KGB? That's a violation of civil liberties on a scale I can't even begin to fathom.Besides, every one seems to be very selective by placing all of the blame on the US, as if they were the only nation on planet earth that spies. Spying didn't begin in the US, and it certainly won't end with the US. That was the logical answer I was looking for. But what should we do about people in other nations who have to deal with Idi Amin's of the world? There's no easy answer. I know that much. But it is a heartrending story that compels us to do something. There are a lot of talking heads in Washington and in Hollywood. I just don't understand why people have such poor memories. Here's a video of Al Gore, one of the most outspoken critics of the Iraq War, actually complaining that Bush Sr wasn't doing enough about the (non-existent threat) of Iraq! Guess we're damned if we do, damned if we don't. He's complaining about the very thing he bitches about today! Un-be-lieve-able.... No, I know and agree with you. I really didn't want this to be misconstrued. This isn't a thread about going to war with anyone. The thread is one of blatant hypocrisy. I am annoyed to suffer it, since its so obviously a political agenda. Why do communist sympathizers cry the loudest about civil rights given the absolutely deplorable, heinous, miserable failure they have to model after?Though the sign is being jocular, there is a serious message within it. And this is basically why I'm saying it-- because it makes no sense.

---

“This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake

A credible military threat from a Nation State. Because the ones we can remedy are the human rights violations we commit. That is simply bullshit. I'm sorry but some video that starts off with absurd assertions is not really something I would consider as worthwhile. When the very first sentence in the thing is just nonsense, where can it go?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

And of course its a well known fact that nothing ever changes over a period of 15 years, you did notice that was a video from 1992 I take it? And that it was dealing with many events in the 80's?What suggested that Saddam was supporting islamic terrorists like Al-Qaeda?Can you really not see the difference between the two cases?TTFN,WK

Ha ha I like your poster.Thomas Jefferson once commented that when passing a new law one should not only consider the current state but how in the future could a bad and evil government use this law to perpetuate and sustain itself.

Um, because I want to live in a free society with equality and justice for all? And if I don't live in a free society myself, then my wishes for everyone else to live in a free society doesn't do anyone else any good whatsoever.- And this is the problem. Have you ever noticed that people who routinely bring up the KGB or the Stasi rarely if ever make as much a big deal about the equally horrendous human rights abuses by those nations who allow happen to be our allies? Would it be in the spirit of the OP to point out the apparent inconsistency of those who routinely bring up the KGB and the Stasi in conversation? That it seems the main reason they bring up the KGB and the Stasi (and Saddam Hussein and terrorists and Islamofascism and China) is to scare their fellow citizens into giving up their protected human rights?

---

Computers have cut-and-paste functions. So does right-wing historical memory. -- Rick Perlstein

Do you really want to know why the US is gunshy about China? Aside from the military threat, they supply the US with everything. It would cripple the economic infrastructure if for one whole month we do no business with China.But the US and the UN has brought it up. The reason why more hasn't been done is because America has foolishly chose to import far more than it exports, and sells its jobs overseas. Its suicide if you ask me. Well, I should say there is some consistency. Human atrocities abroad don't seem to have much sway in the minds of many Americans. It seems many Americans are too interested in wondering whether or not the NSA watched them take a dump, when really, the NSA is probably watching a terrorist take a dump.In other words, why all of the focus on America (and please don't say something like: well, we're Americans so it concerns us) when everyone, from many countries, chime in every chance they can get? People's organs are being harvested for Christ's sake. And people here are worried if their emails are being read by Big Brother.Do you understand what I am saying? Where is the sense of realism? Where is the sense of propriety? If I was unclear, because I intentionally withheld the motive, I apologize. I am just trying to get a feel for the motives of others. I happen to think that no matter what the US does its going to be demonized by both its own citizens and those abroad. Meanwhile, when actual civil liberties are being broken across the pond, people turn a blind eye.

---

“This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake