Saturday, May 15, 2004

it's all downhill from here....

The most recent editorial in the Wall Street Journal complains about the do-gooders at the Red Cross for saying something about the prison torture. They seem to be upset about the Red Cross violating their "scrupolous adherence to confidentiality agreements"...

Since the WSJ charges for content, I'm just going to retype by hand a segment of their most recent editorial, entitled Red Double Cross (Page A12, 05.14.2004);

"...confidentiality has gotten the ICRC remarkable access and- as countless prisoners over the years have testified- has improved conditions for detainees of regimes not known for brooking public criticism. The ICRC held it's tongue even as it worked in nazi Germany and during the 23-year mission in Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

"So it's a more than a little disconcerting and politically suspicious, that a report now leaks, criticizing the United States, of all countries. We'd take ICRC President Jakob Kellenberger's protest that he was 'profoundly distrubed' by the leak a bit more seriously if his organization had not rushed to confirm the authenticity of the document and then hold a press conference about it."


I'm no expert, but I'd like the think the reason the Red Cross has kept mum while doing their work under murderous dictatorship regimes like the Hitler's Nazi Germany and Hussein Baathist Iraq is because these were maybe, um I dunno.... Murderous Dictatorships? Leaking info would mean those that the Red Cross were treating and helping out would ultimately suffer. Anyone suspected of giving out information might be jailed, tortured or executed. Since the population in those nations has no say in how their government acted, there is no disincentive for the respective leaders to show restraint and therefore it would be counterpoductive for the very people the Red Cross would hope to help.

On the other hand, here in the US, we live in a Democratic Republic (in theory anyway), where the elected officials are supposed to be held accountable by the people. While leaked information from within the beuracracy regarding embarresing atrocities that were human rights violations (like say for example RAPE or TORTURE!) might anger the powers that be, it would ultimately be far more difficult for those very same leaders to get away with such violations of law. It would also be more difficult for a deomcratically elected leader to punish those who helped leak the damaging info, being that the info was regarding people breaking the law, and it is after all the executive branch that is supposed to enforce the laws.

At the end of the day the Red Cross leaked the info because, and I'm guessing here, it would do good for those who were suffering, stop current abuses, and prevent future ones as well. The leaked info is a good thing for a nation still interested in preserving it's democracy, decency, human rights and so on. It would also stop some of the problems being created, problems and issues that the Red Cross tries to solve to begin with.

All I can say is this - It's a very sad day in the US when the leaders of the nation that defeated both Nazi Germany and Saddam Hussein are responsible for heinous acts that emulate the cruelty of these bastards. However it is truly pathetic when the supporters of those very same leaders, in an attempt to shake the scandal, can only respond that in judgement they should be held to the same standard as the regimes of Nazi Germany and Baathist Iraq. Truly fucking sad indeed....

sidenote - in attept to boost viewership BMA is adding a host of links in an attempt to be a linkslut. BMA hasn't been that prolific as other blogs, and I hope this might add a few more views with this strategy. I've seen just about all of them, but I never got around to updating the template to add them. BMA gets about 25-30 views a day, but some of them are just google searches on things like "sexy saudi arabia sluts", and clearlty this will not get the right audience.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home