New Wikileaks Dump is Unconscionable
- Thread starter countezero
- Start date
superstring01
Moderator
Do Americans invoke such standards? Sure, probably a great many of them. But that's not a fair description when considering the whole. You're an American. I'm an American. Are we included in this generality as well?
~String
WkiLeaks leaked some US documents on the coup in Hondoras which happened while Obama was president. Many of the links to the documents in what I presume were WikiLeaks mirror sites are dead even though they are recent. The various websites have different bits of facts and cable.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...leaks&btnG=Search&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-naiman/wikileaks-honduras-state_b_789282.html
"The U.S. embassy in Tegucigalpa sent a cable to Washington with subject: "Open and Shut: The Case of the Honduran Coup," asserting that "there is no doubt" that the events of June 28 "constituted an illegal and unconstitutional coup."
"But despite the fact that the U.S. government was crystal clear on what had transpired, the U.S. did not immediately cut off all aid to Honduras except "democracy assistance," as required by U.S. law."
The US government knew the coup in Honduras was an illegal coup. They knew nothing that there was evidence that Zelaya had done justified the action of the Honduran supreme court. But the US sort of supported this coup and did not want to take the steps that the US government had pledged to take against coups. The State department lawyers argued that these steps were only required against military coups and that they could not decide if this was a military coup therefore they could fund the coup government without breaking their pledge. The military did enforce the coup.
The Obama administration called the election of Lobo "free and fair" and recognized Lobo's legitimacy. Some human rights groups and several governments disagreed.
http://www.amnesty.org/en/for-media...stand-against-killings-journalists-2010-04-29
http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/cepr-blog/attacks-against-free-speech-in-honduras/
http://www.i-m-s.dk/article/honduras-internatinal-report-highlights-violations-press-freedom
Root causes
According to the findings of the report, the main root causes of impunity regarding attacks against freedom of expression in Honduras include:
• Investigations into killings of journalists have been botched and littered with mistakes and inconsistencies, in cases such as that of Nahum Palacios who was assassinated in March this year.
• Cases of journalists at risk have not been addressed, in cases such as those involving “precautionary measures” granted by the IACHR for Nahum Palacios.
• Cases of community radio stations (Radio Progreso, Radio Coco Dulce and Radio Zacate Grande) that have been denied access to justice and where the state has failed to implement “precautionary measures”, which were assigned to these stations by the IACHR.
• The existing legal framework in telecommunications and broadcasting stands in direct contravention of the minimum standards for freedom of expression and represents a disadvantage for social and community media increasing their vulnerability to attacks and harassment.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...eech"&btnG=Search&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...leaks&btnG=Search&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-naiman/wikileaks-honduras-state_b_789282.html
"The U.S. embassy in Tegucigalpa sent a cable to Washington with subject: "Open and Shut: The Case of the Honduran Coup," asserting that "there is no doubt" that the events of June 28 "constituted an illegal and unconstitutional coup."
"But despite the fact that the U.S. government was crystal clear on what had transpired, the U.S. did not immediately cut off all aid to Honduras except "democracy assistance," as required by U.S. law."
The US government knew the coup in Honduras was an illegal coup. They knew nothing that there was evidence that Zelaya had done justified the action of the Honduran supreme court. But the US sort of supported this coup and did not want to take the steps that the US government had pledged to take against coups. The State department lawyers argued that these steps were only required against military coups and that they could not decide if this was a military coup therefore they could fund the coup government without breaking their pledge. The military did enforce the coup.
The Obama administration called the election of Lobo "free and fair" and recognized Lobo's legitimacy. Some human rights groups and several governments disagreed.
http://www.amnesty.org/en/for-media...stand-against-killings-journalists-2010-04-29
http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/cepr-blog/attacks-against-free-speech-in-honduras/
http://www.i-m-s.dk/article/honduras-internatinal-report-highlights-violations-press-freedom
Root causes
According to the findings of the report, the main root causes of impunity regarding attacks against freedom of expression in Honduras include:
• Investigations into killings of journalists have been botched and littered with mistakes and inconsistencies, in cases such as that of Nahum Palacios who was assassinated in March this year.
• Cases of journalists at risk have not been addressed, in cases such as those involving “precautionary measures” granted by the IACHR for Nahum Palacios.
• Cases of community radio stations (Radio Progreso, Radio Coco Dulce and Radio Zacate Grande) that have been denied access to justice and where the state has failed to implement “precautionary measures”, which were assigned to these stations by the IACHR.
• The existing legal framework in telecommunications and broadcasting stands in direct contravention of the minimum standards for freedom of expression and represents a disadvantage for social and community media increasing their vulnerability to attacks and harassment.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...eech"&btnG=Search&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=
Waiting For the Worms
That's a very sticky question. I think, in the end, it comes down to philosophical generalizations and their relationship to action.
Are we not supposed to be a "beacon of liberty"? Are we not supposed to be a harbinger of human rights and freedom? Hell, are we not hosting World Press Freedom Day?
Take torture as an issue: The U.S. considers torture to be wrong, except, of course, when we do it. Then it's not torture, but merely "enhanced interrogation". And even the press falls in line.
Is there no conflict, then, if "America" says torture is wrong, but proceeds to torture anyway, and says, "Despite our past rhetoric and actions, including the prosecution of foreign enemies and domestic agents for torturing people by waterboarding, we've decided that waterboarding is not torture"?
Some people might perceive "American" hypocrisy in that outcome.
That you or I might disdain and divorce ourselves from various rhetorical and policy outcomes does not mean that "America" does not say, do, or believe these things.
Katy Perry's "Firework" is the number one single this week. Would either of us really claim that's the best song currently playing in the pop market? Why not The Phantom Band's "Walls"? Why not "Comfortably Numb" (Roger Waters is presently touring The Wall; I'm seeing the show tomorrow. When it was Dark Side, you should have heard P. P. Arnold hit "The Great Gig In the Sky". Thousands of people, breathless, and for a moment as she finished the first verse, you could hear a pin drop in the arena before people went appropriately and absolutely bonkers.) After all, a landmark album rife with classic songs is back in vogue, selling out arenas across the nation and around the world.
What emerges from the American culture is not an objective outcome. Rather, it is a series of snapshots of prevailing ideas and beliefs. And in any truly dynamic moment, the idea that some Americans somewhere don't believe in, or accept, the rhetoric and actions doesn't really matter. The effective policy and its outcomes are defining, regardless of their justice, rationale, or lack thereof.
We didn't stop all these violations of our high-flung rhetoric. That, too, is an outcome, and one that leaves us "Waiting For the Worms".
____________________
Notes:
Greenwald, Glenn. "NPR's ombudsman: Why we bar the word 'torture'". Unclaimed Territory. June 22, 2009. Salon.com. December 10, 2010. http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2009/06/22/npr
Superstring01 said:
That's a very sticky question. I think, in the end, it comes down to philosophical generalizations and their relationship to action.
Are we not supposed to be a "beacon of liberty"? Are we not supposed to be a harbinger of human rights and freedom? Hell, are we not hosting World Press Freedom Day?
Take torture as an issue: The U.S. considers torture to be wrong, except, of course, when we do it. Then it's not torture, but merely "enhanced interrogation". And even the press falls in line.
Is there no conflict, then, if "America" says torture is wrong, but proceeds to torture anyway, and says, "Despite our past rhetoric and actions, including the prosecution of foreign enemies and domestic agents for torturing people by waterboarding, we've decided that waterboarding is not torture"?
Some people might perceive "American" hypocrisy in that outcome.
That you or I might disdain and divorce ourselves from various rhetorical and policy outcomes does not mean that "America" does not say, do, or believe these things.
Katy Perry's "Firework" is the number one single this week. Would either of us really claim that's the best song currently playing in the pop market? Why not The Phantom Band's "Walls"? Why not "Comfortably Numb" (Roger Waters is presently touring The Wall; I'm seeing the show tomorrow. When it was Dark Side, you should have heard P. P. Arnold hit "The Great Gig In the Sky". Thousands of people, breathless, and for a moment as she finished the first verse, you could hear a pin drop in the arena before people went appropriately and absolutely bonkers.) After all, a landmark album rife with classic songs is back in vogue, selling out arenas across the nation and around the world.
What emerges from the American culture is not an objective outcome. Rather, it is a series of snapshots of prevailing ideas and beliefs. And in any truly dynamic moment, the idea that some Americans somewhere don't believe in, or accept, the rhetoric and actions doesn't really matter. The effective policy and its outcomes are defining, regardless of their justice, rationale, or lack thereof.
We didn't stop all these violations of our high-flung rhetoric. That, too, is an outcome, and one that leaves us "Waiting For the Worms".
____________________
Notes:
Greenwald, Glenn. "NPR's ombudsman: Why we bar the word 'torture'". Unclaimed Territory. June 22, 2009. Salon.com. December 10, 2010. http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2009/06/22/npr
Did you support the US created coup against Democracy in Haiti or do you not know about that coup or do you not believe that the USA orchestrated it or do you disapprove of the US foreign policy towards Haiti under Bush Jr. Also Bush Sr with the previous coup.
If you deny that the USA probably orchestrated the coup or deny that Aristide probably was running the most democratic and honest government that Haiti has had in the last 100 years then I would consider you oblivious rather than a supporter of US foreign policy.
I suppose you can be both oblivious and a supporter of USA foreign policy if you don't need to know what something is to support it. Even the "United States National Security Adviser" who might be the person most knowledgeable about current US foreign policy can't be fully informed about US foreign policy because US foreign policy is too large. I don't know where the demarcation how much somebody needs to understand something to claim th support it should fall.
Last edited:
You might think I'm oblivious, but I do not believe the US orchestrated the Coup in Haiti.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/29/international/americas/29haiti.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all
Not that you probably can't find some who would blame us, but then we get blamed for a lot of things without any good basis.
Arthur
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/29/international/americas/29haiti.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all
Not that you probably can't find some who would blame us, but then we get blamed for a lot of things without any good basis.
Arthur
And a lot of us don't. :bugeye:
I have evidence that I am comfortable with that the USA did overthrow a reasonably good democracy in Haiti. I also feel comfortable with my evidence that the NY Times has an established pattern of often disinforming in support of US foreign policy.
This is why I want WikiLeaks and want more leaks. You might be on the same side as me if we could agree on what reality probably is. I need Wikileaks to leak the cables to make my case on Haiti much stronger before I can convince you of what happened.
Are there any circumstances in which you would support overthrowing by non-democratic means a not particularly corrupt Democracy that was not supporting violence or other uncivil actions against US foreign policy assets.
How do you know?
Do you agree that these are in fact what MOST voters in the US think (and which is in line with our policies)
• A majority thinks that eliminating the threat from terrorists operating from Afghanistan is a worthwhile goal for American troops to fight and die for.
• Americans support taking military action to capture or kill terrorists if the United States locates high-ranking members of terrorist groups operating in Pakistan that threaten the United States, even if the government of Pakistan does not give the United States permission to do so.
• Two-thirds favor keeping America’s commitment to NATO what it is now.
• A majority of Americans think maintaining superior power worldwide is a “very important” foreign policy goal.
• A majority also thinks the United States should have about as many long-term military bases as it does now.
• Americans show strong support for both military and nonmilitary actions against international terrorism and nuclear proliferation as well as for actions to secure the energy supply and reduce dependence on foreign oil
Arthur
And this evidence came to you, how?
I don't dwell on hypotheticals.
Every case would be judged on its own merits, and clearly SCOPE of the violence would be part of it.
A government is a big thing, and the leaders can't control everything that happens, so certainly bad things could happen in a country against what you call US FP assets, but that wouldn't necessarily lead to us taking military action against the Government.
Of course, as the SCOPE of the violence increased, then the chance of the US stepping in would increase.
Still, we have allowed a lot of violence in the world to go on without getting involved.
We aren't the world's policeman.
Arthur
Because they say so.
No, you say so.
I posted 6 major issues that show that the majority of Americans agree with our stated policy.
Arthur
And you are wrong.
And you are wrong. You showed nothing. Just made statements and they aren't even general foreign policy issues but military issues.
Here's some info from the World Opinion Poll
http://www.americans-world.org/digest/overview/us_role/usrole_summary.cfm
http://www.americans-world.org/digest/overview/us_role/usrole_summary.cfm
Not at all.
Those ARE foreign policy issues.
What you posted is what the WORLD thinks about American foreign policy, but that's not the issue, the issue is what Americans think of our foreign policies.
And what I posted is the recent poll results of Americans.
http://www.thechicagocouncil.org/UserFiles/File/POS_Topline Reports/POS 2010/Global Views 2010.pdf
Arthur
Those are cherry picked military issues and not even majority approval just your opinion.
What's important is what the world thinks, not what you think.
As far as that Global View, here is what it says,
"The survey
had a total sample size of 2,717 American
adults. Seventy-one cases were excluded from the
national sample due to completing the survey in
ten minutes or less, and an additional forty-nine
cases were excluded for failing to reply to at least
half of the questions in the questionnaire."
That's certainly GLOBAL if you ask me.
The Chicago Council on Global Affairs is the source the source. They claim to be non-partisan and unbiased and even had Michael Obama associated with them once. I don't doubt that they are non-partisan as in Democrat vs Republican or as in neocon very light vs full fledged neocon but this organization has a clear US interventionist bias that has persisted since their founding when they were created to oppose the Isolationists who wanted to keep the USA out of WW1.
This organization has ties to defense contractors.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Chicago_Council_on_Global_Affairs
They had to use statistical adjustments to make the survey respondents reflect the general population. If they did not do this well enough the results would be meaningless.
I could not find the actual questions asked. That is not a good sign. Hopefully I just did not try hard enough or hopefully the organization just did not realize that showing the actual questions is important to cynics. You can play major games with polling questions to get the results that you want.
A lot of the results of the poll in the report are not in favor of US interventionalism and high defense spending. Somebody cherry picked results to make your list.
One example is that 58% of Americans favor cutting defense spending.
You can see the report below.
http://www.thechicagocouncil.org/UserFiles/File/POS_Topline Reports/POS 2010/Global Views 2010.pdf