After reading the Jerusalem Post article on the recorded message from the kidnapped IDF (Israel Defense Forces) soldier Gilad Schalit, I wondered what former President Jimmy Carter had to say about this violation of international law. Given Mr. Carter’s professed interest in human rights and his book on the Middle East, he must have said something. Mr. Carter recently chastised the Bush Administration for failing to recognize the Palestinian terrorist organization Hamas whose military wing al-Kassam crossed into sovereign Israeli territory to abduct the young man.
Not only did this terrorist group cross an internationally recognized boundary, but they have also held this man in an undisclosed location without allowing any international humanitarian groups (i.e., the Red Cross) to visit him as mandated by international law. And there’s more:
International humanitarian law absolutely prohibits taking and holding a person by force in order to compel the enemy to meet certain demands, while threatening to harm or kill the person if the demands are not met. . . . Furthermore, hostage-taking is considered a war crime.
Just look at the stink raised about Guantanamo where the Red Cross has “unfettered access to any detainee they want to see, whenever they want to see them.” Despite this access, Mr. Carter recently “told reporters that U.S-run detention camps, such as Guantanamo Bay in Cuba and U.S. anti-terrorism laws, were unacceptable even in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks.” Emphasis added.
Surely a man who criticized the way his own government ran a camp for terrorists captured on the field of battle, a man who has written a book on the Mideast conflict, would take an interest in this prisoner, held incommunicaco and in violation of international law.
So, I did a google news search, several actually with alternative spellings of Schalit’s name, each came up with the same response: “Your search – Jimmy Carter Gilad Schalit – did not match any documents.” So, I decided to check the web-site of the Carter Center which, at least according to its web-page, “is committed to advancing human rights and alleviating unnecessary human suffering.” The same result: “ Your search – Schalit – did not match any documents./No pages were found containing ‘Schalit‘” Nor did I find anything on the web-site of the Jimmy Carter Library & Museum, but there was a nice picture of Carter shaking hands with the late Egyptian President Anwar al-Sadat and Israeli President Menachem Begin.
Perhaps I missed something.
But, given Mr. Carter’s zeal to speak out on human rights, his silence on this Schalit’s kidnapping is striking. This bitter old man is ever eager to criticize his own nation — and its allies — for their human rights’ record, remains silent when other nations or entities commit worse violations. Another sign that his comments on human rights have more to do with his political grudges than a real concern for human suffering.
UPDATE: Perhaps Jimmy Carter has been silent on the kidnapping of Schalit because he has become “the roving ambassador for the terrorist group Hamas.”
The left dare not say anything that might suggest that the Great Satan and its lackeys just could be on the right side in the war on Islamofascism.
If you’re wondering why you haven’t been able to follow all the columns and editorials in the American press denouncing all this homicidal nonsense, it’s because there haven’t been any. And, in that great silence, is a great scandal. – Tim Rutten on the Salman Rushdie dust-up, LA Times (via Glenn Reynolds)
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/la-et-rutten23jun23,1,2535413.column?ctrack=1&cset=true
Frankly, I’m not sure what standing the US has anymore for criticizing violations of international law. We do it when it suits us, so does Hamas and Israel for that matter.
Consider the fact, Ian, that you are allowed to fling your relentless hate and slander at the Bush administration here — with what you would get under Hamas if you were to criticize and insult them in the same way you have Bush.
Heck, where would you rather be gay — in Israel or in Hamas-controlled territory?
Once you understand those fundamental concepts, then you may speak with some intelligence on violations of international law.
But both you and Jimmy Carter are too busy America-bashing to recognize those rather blatant and obvious distinctions between Israel, the US, and Hamas.
Frankly, I’m not sure what standing the US has anymore for criticizing violations of international law. We do it when it suits us,
I’ve aked many times before, and I’m pretty sure I asked you spefificly, exactly which international laws have we violated?
However, as with any question I have for you or any other lib you lack the required gear to form an answer. Naturally, I expect you to respond with your standard “I didn’t see your question” dodge and still decline to answer.
#3: Well, I guess that’s progress: even you won’t try and lie about how the US and Israel flout international law whenever they want.
#4:
You can start with the laws both US and international against torture. Engaging in aggressive war. See http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0715-07.htm for more.
No, the US hasn’t violated laws against torture, Ian. When the government receives evidence that those acting under the authority of our government commit such acts, it investigates and, where appropriate, prosecutes.
That’s what distinguishes us from most of our enemies.
But, your comment #2 doesn’t seem appropriate to this point. Here, Jimmy Carter who is silent when our nation is accused of torture and violations of human rights, is silent when a terrorist entity that he has backed violates international law.
The point of the post is Carter’s silence in this case — and his selective decrying of human rights violations, preferring to castigate the US and our allies while (all too often) ignoring even worse violations committed by anti-American regimes.
Oh, and, that Common Dreams link is just plain silly. The U.S. violated no international law in liberating Iraq from Saddam’s tyranny. And it’s not just Saddam’s repeated snubbing of Security Council resolutions. It was also his failure to live up to the cease-fire agreement ending the First Gulf War. By not sticking to its terms, he effectively re-opened that war.
So, please address the points of the post.
You can start with the laws both US and international against torture. Engaging in aggressive war. See http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0715-07.htm for more.
In addition to what Dan said, you would have to say that lord BJ violated international and domestic law. Further, he engaged in aggressive war without an “international test”. If you were the least bit consistent, you’d have to be pissing yourself over that first.
But…but he’s not president anymore and what he did was justified!
Uh-huh. You just run with that. Besides, we’ve seen where the liberals were telling us back in the early 90’s (see Algore’s 1992 speech) about Sadam’s WMDs, nuclear ambitions and terrorist ties. Are you prepared to tell me here and now that the libs lied as well? No Wonder Woman spinning. It’s a “yes” or “no” question.
Further, you’ve provided nothing more than “because I said so” in your reply. Common Dreams? C’mon. So you use Bill Moyers, Cindy Seehan Noam Chomsky carpet munchers as a source? Next I suppose you’ll pull Prison Planet (which even Art Bell derided as BS) out of your ass?
I’m disappointed in you, I Am Necrophiliac
Carter is only concerned about human rights for terrorists, so why the surprise at his silence? To change the theme, Hugo Chavez wants a referendum on an indefinite term (read lifetime) as president of Venezuela. Look for Jimmy Carter´s endorsement.
By the “logic” of Ian and others like him, New York City violates murder law – because murders are committed in New York City, even by City employees on occasion, which the City then does its level best to investigate and punish.
And, since New York City violates murder law (continuing the “logic”), therefore no one can ever stand up to any evil or defend themselves from anything. Much less note the difference between a city that investigates and punishes murders vs. a city that really does commit them aggressively, by policy.
#7:
In 1947, a Japanese officer got 15 years for the war crime of waterboarding an American. Now Bushco thinks waterboarding is OK when we do it. It’s not, it’s torture.
Reference, please.
(In the past, I’ve had the experience many times of you either claiming a reference says something which it doesn’t, or at least eliding important information in the reference that mitigates or changes the story from what you seek to imply with it.)
#12:
I’ll do better than that: I’ll teach you how to do a search on the Internet.
The Khmer Rouge used waterboarding too. The reference for that will be left as an exercise for the reader.
OK, so through the layers of snark, we learn Ian doesn’t care to provide a specific reference, but does trust Google to bring up the stuff most important to Ian’s case.
And what does Google bring up as the most important item? This article from the Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/04/AR2006100402005.html
(Sidebar: Ian, that’s called providing a reference)
What does the article consist of? A historical review of waterboarding. Turns out it has a long history and is known as a technique that does not, repeat NOT, damage the subject. It also turns out, by implication, that it is not necessarily against U.S. law, even after Congress change some aspects of interrogation law in fall 2006.
Finally, it turns out that in the 1947 conviction, the Japanese officer was convicted for using waterboarding on a U.S. civilian.
Let me repeat that so it sinks in, folks. Not a U.S. combatant. Not a fighter captured in the battle, who would have information crucial to the survival of Japanese. But a civilian. That is what the Japanese officer was convicted for.
Once more, we see that Ian doesn’t read his own references.
Once more, we see that when Ian offers a reference, either it doesn’t say what he claims, or at the very least, Ian elides crucial information that undercuts what he seeks to imply with the reference.
And now a note to GPW: I apologize for indulging Ian’s sideshow here. I’ll back out and let the post get back to your topic & points – which, I notice, Ian still has yet to address at all.
#15 – And ILC, don’t expect them to be addressed either. Instead, get ready for another episode of the Wonder Woman Show.
Regards,
Peter H.
Your use, Ian of the term “Bushco” does little to advance you argument and only links you to the Bush-haters who prefer innuendo and insult to argument.
Alas, that I participated in “hijacking” the comment thread to my own post.
Well, at least, no one has even attempted to defend the pathetic ex-president from Plains.
Furthermore, I would point out the inanity of Ian citing the UN Charter as proof that the United States was acting “against international law” — while ignoring the following:
a) Saddam Hussein was in complete violation of the UN Charter, given his obvious and acknowledged weapons-building, support of terrorism, complete and systematic use of torture against even children for politically opposing him, and other aggressive actions against his neighbors
b) The UN bureaucracy and allied leftist governments who were taking bribes from Saddam in exchange for undermining any attempt to bring him into compliance were in violation of the UN Charter
c) The Secretary-General himself, given his involvement with b) and his obvious and blatant attempts to manipulate the UN bureaucracy towards Iraq for the benefit of his son, was in violation of the UN Charter
Once again, leftist Ian and Jimmy Carter demonstrate that the United States is held to a hypocritical standard that they and their fellow global leftists hold against no one else.
Furthermore, they demonstrate that the whole point of “international law” is to punish and harass the United States, while they and their leftist allies flatly ignore it.
Ah, Jimmeh, who gave us the current Iran, and never met a terrorist he didn’t love.
……………………………………………………..
Ahhhhhh. The sound of appeasement.
Since Jimmy has been in bed with the radical terrorists, is it possible that he knows what happened to the WMD´s. It seemed strange to me that intelligence during the Clinton administration believed that Saddam did indeed have them that by the time our troops entered Iraq, all that were found were tubes which might have housed them. Is it possible that Jimmy suggested that they be shipped to Moscow for safe keeping?
#18 – LOL – Well, GPW – Among other things, you were correct in pointing out that:
Ian isn’t the only one who needs such reminders.
Carter is despicable for what he has said and done, but he’s not obligated to speak on your favorite topics. I hardly think it’s reasonable to consider him despicable for what he hasn’t said. (But it’s convenient that his silence, whether he has refused to comment or simply has yet to or doesn’t consider it worthy of comment, allows his critics to assume they know what he thinks on the issue.) We may wish for Schalit’s safe return, but that does not make the fate of a single Isreali soldier an international incident requiring the comments of former heads of state going back decades. Or does Carter’s past require a different standard?
Carter is a miserable irrelevancy, but his bitterness is best left as an exhibition and not as an opportunity to respond in kind.
Fair point, HardHobbit. To an extent.
But, it is striking that someone who has spoken out so much on the situation in the Middle East would remain silent on this issue.
Dan, I’m not struck by anything Carter does/says because my expectations of him are so low. But my expectations shouldn’t cloud my fairness. Frankly, I’m not sure it’s wise for someone with some international standing (deserved or no) and with some currency with those with whom he seems to sympathize (who happen to be the alleged kidnappers in this case) to be critically commenting on an issue where a man’s life is likely in the balance. Were you Schalit, would you appreciate Carter’s meddling?
Good question, HardHobbit, but given that he has praised Hamas, perhaps they might listen to him. . . .
Perhaps, but perhaps critical comments that would satisfy his critics would betray those whose favor we assume he has curried, a betrayal for which Schalit might pay. Perhaps he has already spoken to Hamas representatives in private. I’m not defending the guy, but there may be more to his silence than the alleged spoken volumes of what is to some his politically motivated indifference. And there may not. Diplomacy (among apparently all other aspects of public life) is not Carter’s strong suit and whatever the reasons behind the silence, I believe it is in Schalit’s favor. Preservation of life should be the primary concern. Just my opinion.
#15: Oh, so it’s only torture when it’s done on a civilian, not when it’s done on a combatant? What a preposterous attempt to defend the indefensible!
As for hijacking the thread, Dan posted about Hamas violating international law. I merely suggested that the US – and that would include Carter – has no business criticizing violators of international law as we have done so ourselves when it suits us.
I also get tired of the conservative whine that al Qaeda does this or Hamas does that or Hezbollah does some other thing so the US should not be criticized for what it does. Sorry, but I think we’re better than that or at least we were until the disastrous Bushies took over. The fact that conservatives feel the need to bring us down to the level of terrorists to excuse your Dear Leader says it all.
Ian, the gist of what everyone has figured out about you is twofold:
1. You don’t care one whit about torture unless you can use accusations of it to bash the United States.
2. You conflate systematic, repeated, government-encouraged, and unpunished torture of everyone from combatants to the children of political opponents, with what the United States has done.
If either you or Jimmy Carter were making an honest evaluation, you would have to admit that the United States, even with what few examples of “torture” you can dig up, is LIGHT-YEARS ahead of Hamas, Hizbollah, Iran, Ba’athist Iraq, the Taliban, al-Qaeda, and the innumerable other groups that you, Carter, and the Democrat party have supported, endorsed, and refused to act against or criticized.
But the essence of your argument is that, because we have things that can be criticized, we’re no better than these horrible offenders — and amazingly enough, you can ALWAYS find something to criticize.
Bluntly put, Ian, both you and Carter are anti-American bigots.
Ian, who among us has said the US shouldn’t be criticized? I have never said such a thing.
But, it’s ludicrous to keep trotting out the torture accusation without noting that our government investigates allegations of torture against those acting under color of US authority. And especially when we have the Schlesinger Commission report on Abu Ghraib showing that the abuses were not a result of government policy, but “rogue” soldiers — and lax enforcement.
It’s perfectly fair to criticize the government for not doing enough to prevent such abuses. It’s quite another to call them the perpetrators.
It’s still amazing that you would say the US shouldn’t criticize violations of international law while contending we’re saying people shouldn’t criticize the US.
The real issue is how the world media has spun the stories of torture committed under US watch. As to Abu Ghraib, it’s too bad that instead of highlighting the abuses (and suggesting they were government policy), they focused on how the Defense Department had begun an investigation of those crimes four months before they become public knowledge.
It’s that investigation (and prosecution of the perpetrators) which (in large part) gives us the moral standing to criticize torture abroad. As to Guantanamo, we keep it open to the International Red Cross–and other international inspectors.
#31:
Well, Dan, when the investigating general, Taguba, was prevented from investigating any higher-ups, is it any wonder that only low level “rogue” soldiers were found responsible? From The New Yorker:
Ian, the Schlesinger report, spearheaded by a Carter Administration (who lead a bipartisan panel) made those conclusions. You reference article by a “reporter” (Seymour Hersh) known for his animus against Republican administrations.
Taguba may have been prevented from investigating the “higher-ups,” but I wouldn’t count on Hersh to ask him questions which would have yielded at odds with his theory. And anyway — and let me repeat — there was another investigation, led by Schlesinger, which, while faulting leadership, found that there “was no policy of abuse.”
There have been several investigations. And it seems that if they don’t yield the results Bush-critics want, they’ll just pretend they never happened.
As do you in your comment #32. I mention the Schlesinger report. You don’t address that and refer to an article by a Bush-critic, the accuracy of whose reporting has been called into question on more than one occasion. Perhaps Taguba couldn’t question “higher-ups.” But, the Schlesinger report followed his and he does not seem to have been as limited in his access as Taguba.
#33: Actually, Dan the head of the commission was James Schlesinger who was a Republican who started his career in the Nixon and Ford Administrations. He also later served in the Carter Administration. The key though is that the commission was hand-picked by Rumsfeld and so can hardly be relied upon to have produced a full accounting of the detainee abuse especially regarding those in the Pentagon who might be connected to it – up to and including Rummy himself.
However, my main point is that torture such as waterboarding has been used and approved by the Bushies. It was torture when the Nazis and Pol Pot used it and it’s still torture when we use it.
It was a bipartisan commission, Ian, which was critical of the Administration–just didn’t offer the conclusion you wanted.