Why Are We Still In The UN?, Part (Take-A-Number)
Here's yet another thing I can't figure out. Feel free to take a stab at it and then explain it to me.
The UN Torture Committee, venturing once again outside of its ostensible purview, has demanded that the United States close its Guantanamo Bay detention facility where we are holding nearly five hundred jihadi illegal combatants. They also helpfully added that we should "permit access by the detainees to the judicial process or release them as soon as possible." Even though under international law itself they are entitled to neither and are being treated better there than they would be anyplace else.
To send them into the U.S. criminal justice system would only produce more Zaccarias Moussaouis. It would be just a less efficient version of releasing them. And releasing them would just let them back into the fight against us. Has any country ever just turned loose enemy prisoners in time of war?
A third way - which, somehow appropriately, the Clinton administration practiced - was to turn over captured terrorists to allied Middle East states for the sort of treatment that they were too squeamish to carry out themselves. That is, when they bothered to capture them at all. But at least it was a recognition that jihadis need to be plied and kneaded and mined for intelligence using methods as vicious, even savage, as necessary to save civilian lives. Or, not to put too fine a point on it, since the "mujahadeen" place no value upon their own lives in their attempts to slaughter "infidels," why should we value their well-being over our own?
Yet the UN won't stand for that, either. Why? Because they consider "torture," especially, it would seem, of Islamic psychopaths, to be a "human rights violation." But when do we ever see this august world body ever go after those same member nations - Egypt, Jordan, etc. - for those very same checkered human rights records? Apparently torture is A-okay with Turtle Bay as long as the right countries practice it and its victims are not theocratic mass-murderers - and the United States cannot benefit in any way from it, even fictionally.
This helps explain why Gitmo is still in business. The Bushies, worn down by five years of relentless international and domestic left-wing agitation, would love to wave this white flag as well but are constrained by the fact that the vast majority of "detainees" are from countries in the Middle East with spotty human rights records where the "human rights" they have forfeited would themselves be forfeit. And any subsequent "mistreatment" would be blamed not on Saudi Arabia or Yemen but on bad ol' Uncle Sam for sending them home in the first place.
Damned if we do, damned if we don't.
Meanwhile, look at what a mezmerizing green halo can do:
If that doesn't ring a historical bell, here's an additional hint:
They went there twenty-seven years ago, Rabbi, when they embraced fundamentalist Islam. From which, I might add, the Nazis got the idea of persecutory dress codes, among a whole lot worse notions, all of which Adolph Ahmedinejad has also openly promised to carry out.
And this is the regime whose drive for nuclear weapons is being protected by pretty much the entire rest of the world - via the United Nations.
It was said that the League of Nations failed to prevent World War II because the United States was never a member. What will be the UN's excuse for failing to prevent - or, more accurately, preventing America from preventing - Armageddon?
[h/t: Powerline]
The UN Torture Committee, venturing once again outside of its ostensible purview, has demanded that the United States close its Guantanamo Bay detention facility where we are holding nearly five hundred jihadi illegal combatants. They also helpfully added that we should "permit access by the detainees to the judicial process or release them as soon as possible." Even though under international law itself they are entitled to neither and are being treated better there than they would be anyplace else.
To send them into the U.S. criminal justice system would only produce more Zaccarias Moussaouis. It would be just a less efficient version of releasing them. And releasing them would just let them back into the fight against us. Has any country ever just turned loose enemy prisoners in time of war?
A third way - which, somehow appropriately, the Clinton administration practiced - was to turn over captured terrorists to allied Middle East states for the sort of treatment that they were too squeamish to carry out themselves. That is, when they bothered to capture them at all. But at least it was a recognition that jihadis need to be plied and kneaded and mined for intelligence using methods as vicious, even savage, as necessary to save civilian lives. Or, not to put too fine a point on it, since the "mujahadeen" place no value upon their own lives in their attempts to slaughter "infidels," why should we value their well-being over our own?
Yet the UN won't stand for that, either. Why? Because they consider "torture," especially, it would seem, of Islamic psychopaths, to be a "human rights violation." But when do we ever see this august world body ever go after those same member nations - Egypt, Jordan, etc. - for those very same checkered human rights records? Apparently torture is A-okay with Turtle Bay as long as the right countries practice it and its victims are not theocratic mass-murderers - and the United States cannot benefit in any way from it, even fictionally.
This helps explain why Gitmo is still in business. The Bushies, worn down by five years of relentless international and domestic left-wing agitation, would love to wave this white flag as well but are constrained by the fact that the vast majority of "detainees" are from countries in the Middle East with spotty human rights records where the "human rights" they have forfeited would themselves be forfeit. And any subsequent "mistreatment" would be blamed not on Saudi Arabia or Yemen but on bad ol' Uncle Sam for sending them home in the first place.
Damned if we do, damned if we don't.
Meanwhile, look at what a mezmerizing green halo can do:
While the Iranian economy appears to be heading for recession, one sector may have some reason for optimism. That sector is the garment industry and the reason for hopefulness is a law passed by the Islamic Majlis (parliament) on Monday.
The law mandates the government to make sure that all Iranians wear "standard Islamic garments" designed to remove ethnic and class distinctions reflected in clothing, and to eliminate "the influence of the infidel" on the way Iranians, especially, the young dress. It also envisages separate dress codes for religious minorities, Christians, Jews and Zoroastrians, who will have to adopt distinct colour schemes to make them identifiable in public. The new codes would enable Muslims to easily recognize non-Muslims so that they can avoid shaking hands with them by mistake, and thus becoming najis (unclean). [emphasis added]
If that doesn't ring a historical bell, here's an additional hint:
"This is reminiscent of the Holocaust," said Rabbi Marvin Hier, the dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles. "Iran is moving closer and closer to the ideology of the Nazis."
They went there twenty-seven years ago, Rabbi, when they embraced fundamentalist Islam. From which, I might add, the Nazis got the idea of persecutory dress codes, among a whole lot worse notions, all of which Adolph Ahmedinejad has also openly promised to carry out.
And this is the regime whose drive for nuclear weapons is being protected by pretty much the entire rest of the world - via the United Nations.
It was said that the League of Nations failed to prevent World War II because the United States was never a member. What will be the UN's excuse for failing to prevent - or, more accurately, preventing America from preventing - Armageddon?
[h/t: Powerline]
posted by JASmius at 4:23 PM
<<< Home