Jimi Hendrix - say it isn't so....Un-American?

[Robert]

I have some issues with Amnesty International as well, but it started with their hearts in the right place, and they do some good work. I'm not entering this argument, I mean discussion, I just wanted to point out that AI does have a stance and a program against genital mutilation. See Female Genital Mutilation - A Human Rights Pack.

Ok, you're right that they probably have their hearts in the right place.

Thanks for the link. Sometimes, it's good to be wrong.

 

[SFG75]

Ok, you're right that they probably have their hearts in the right place.

Thanks for the link. Sometimes, it's good to be wrong.

Very big of you to admit that Robert, that's certainly more than most people online would ever admit. I do support A.I. and believe in their goals. At the same time, I know that A.I. didn't liberate Europe, end the Cold War through outspending the Soviets on arms, nor did they liberate Kabul and end in oppressive regime. Those are some shortcomings of my own "isolationist" beliefs.

 

[Kenny Shovel]

Very big of you to admit that Robert, that's certainly more than most people online would ever admit.

Agreed, I've seen Robert do this on more than one occassion, so fair play to him.

 

[Motokid]

My problem with groups like AI is, as I've stated in other threads...it's very easy to point at all the things that are wrong in this world, the thing that's hard is offering up solutions on how to fix those wrongs. Amnesty might be great at pointing fingers at problems, and calling attention to them, but then what?

OK, so maybe holding a few hundred people "captive" at Gitmo without charging them with a crime and without declaring them POW's is not the "cleanest" way of handling the situation, but what the hell is the best way to handle it? The world has drastically changed in the last 5 years. The terrorist threat is at an all time high. Is it better to be on the offensive in combating terror, or on the defensive? Should we be taking action to prevent, or reacting to something after it's happened? I think most of America/England...is doing both.

I think it's in the best interest of all the innocent people in the world to not sit back and wait for the next attack. It's time to toughen up and not allow, to the best of our abilities, another 9/11 or London Tube bombing, or nuclear attack. How does anyone accomplish that? Attack it head on. Go for the throat of the organizations that fund and recruit for terroristic actions. Error on the side of the worlds innocent. Where does the UN stand right now? What are they accomplishing as far as protecting the worlds population from Terrorists? Has the UN ever really accomplished anything?

Does AI have a good reason to complain about Club Gitmo. Probably. Does AI have better reasons to complain about many other things happening on this planet? You bet your ass they do.

Pointing fingers and flinging accusations is not helping the situation. Provide solutions, and the world becomes a better place. From what I can tell Amnesty does a great job of pointing fingers, but I've not heard much about the providing solutions part.

 

[Kenny Shovel]

I don't have time to post all I'd like to in responce to what you've said here Motokid, but I'll make a quick couple of points before I have to nip out:

My problem with groups like AI is, as I've stated in other threads...it's very easy to point at all the things that are wrong in this world, the thing that's hard is offering up solutions on how to fix those wrongs. Amnesty might be great at pointing fingers at problems, and calling attention to them, but then what?

Sure, I can understand how it can feel like this. However, I would say that in many of the countires AI report on, 'pointing the finger' is in fact far from being an easy or safe thing to do. They are often the only good source of information in the public domain (we have no way of knowing what our intelligence services know).

OK, so maybe holding a few hundred people "captive" at Gitmo without charging them with a crime and without declaring them POW's is not the "cleanest" way of handling the situation, but what the hell is the best way to handle it?

That's a good question and not one I think I've ever heard a completely convincing answer too. However concerns at Gitmo are often expressed because it is a road walked down before:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internment#Northern_Ireland
Britain’s own experience of internment was not a success and increased support of terrorist groups from those sympathetic to them. Hard to believe that anyone could be sympathetic, but its unfortunately true, even in western countries; hence British born suicide bombers and IRA fund raising in America.

 

[Sergo]

I did mean it that way. If our Government decides that we need to go to war, and that it requires drafting an army to do so, then it is the obligation of those who are eligible to participate in that draft, or follow the appropriate procedures exempting them from the draft. Anything short of this is treason, and punishible by law.

If you have a philisophical difference of opinion with those leading the country to war, then you should absolutely voice that opinion. It is your duty to do so. However, that voicing of your opinion does not relieve you from the obligation to serve the country that has so well protected your right to free speech.

If I go before a judge and say "your honor, I do not agree with the posted speed limit signs, and, thus, as a conscientious objector, I refuse to obey them" he may be fair minded enough to say "good luck with your protest" before he awards me my fine and deducts points from my license.

We must obey ALL the laws, or face the consequences. If we disagree with them, there are appropriate measures to be taken to get them changed. Treason is not an honorable protest.

It is all very good, and true, and just.
Especially if we took it for granted that "Our Government" is good, and true, and just.
But as it is not always the case, I would say that any individual doesn't have to have any obligations before his/her Govt concerning the actions which could lead to killing other human beings or his/her own death. I am sure in a contemporary society that has to be a matter of a free choice of an individual whether to take part in such actions or not.
To keep up my point I would like you to remember Nurenberg where it has been declared that every member of the Fascist army or other military forces in the WWII has to be held responsible for the damage he/she personally inflicted, never mind orders that the said member received from the immediate or higher authorities.
Second point I would like to mention is this Saddam Hussain guy and those who were under his command. Once upon a time Mr. Saddam has been the Chief of State and as such ordered his people to carry on certain activities. Some of them keep their obligations before their former Chief until now. Are you ready to regard thus activities as legal and just?
For my third point I would like to mention Mr. BinLaden. Certain people consider him as their Higher Authority. And the named BinLaden orders these people to participate in the war he declared on USA (or so I heard). Should those people be held responsible for fulfilling orders of their Chief?
Obviously, it is possible to continue in this fashion for days. But I think that these examples are enough to demonstrate my point.