|
|
Attitudes
Reflect Leadership
May 11 2004
Counterbias.com
Doug Griffin
During
the Cold War, the President of the United States was always referred
to as "the
leader of the free world."
Today, he is arguably the leader of the civilized world given
that the United States is the sole superpower on the planet.
In the wake of the recent gut-wrenching
images of American soldiers torturing and demeaning Iraqi prisoners
that have
been beamed around the globe, coupled with the indefinite detention -
and reported
torture - of the enemy combatants at Guantanamo, the question must be
asked: Are we truly
the leaders of the civilized world?
Judging by the growing negative attitudes around the
world towards the United States, if attitudes reflect leadership,
we're in trouble!
Now,
I used to believe that we were the good guys.
I was naive enough to think that the United
States didn't officially sanction the torturing of POWs.
I discovered, however, that not
only is it sanctioned... it's in the CIA rulebook.
So, when President Bush said on Arab
television: "...what took place in that prison does not represent
the America that I
know..." he was either lying or grossly naive about the nature of
his father's former occupation
(head of the CIA).
In my opinion, he was lying.
Here's why I believe that.
-
The
president's allowance of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to
treat detainees (specifically
those at Guantanamo) as he sees fit.
The torture issue has been going on for quite some time.
The only reason Rummy got called on the carpet this time is
because these were not enemy combatants being abused, these
were Iraqi prisoners (of what, I'm not yet sure - not all were
combat related prisoners) - that and the fact that the images of the
abuse have been seen around the world. Otherwise it might still be
going on. That's leadership?
-
President
Bush's insistence that no United States Citizen can be tried in the
International
Criminal Court (who, by the way would be the body responsible
for
prosecuting those guilty of war crimes - like those evidenced
in those pictures) thereby guaranteeing that if any punishment was
to come of situations like the torture of Iraqi prisoners, said
punishment would come from the United States - and obviously only if
some one were stupid... er... compassionate
(FOX-spin) enough to document the events for posterity.
Why insist on such a suggestion if you truly believe that A)
what you're doing is just,
and B)
you know your military will behave in a way that will not
embarrass the country?
-
And
finally, the fact that President Bush has basically usurped
authority by making himself
the ultimate authority on detainee designations: POW
or Enemy Combatant (the POW
is covered under the Geneva Convention; according to Bush and Co.,
the Enemy Combatant is
not.
And right here at home, in the name of democracy, homeland
security, or even God, ANYONE can be designated an enemy combatant
at ANY time just because the president says so.)
That's democracy?
Whether
it's the reported torture of the detainees at Guantanamo or the mounting
evidence of
atrocities
committed by America military personnel against prisoners in Iraq, we
are
hypocrites.
We invaded Afghanistan, we captured enemy
combatants who took up arms against an invading force on their
homeland.
We invaded Iraq and captured POWs
who took up arms against an invading force on their homeland.
The detainees at Guantanamo Bay deserve the same status of that
of the prisoners in Iraq.
In a speech on the campaign trail, President Bush said that the
country needed leadership and not "double talk" which was
apparently a shot at Senator Kerry.
As I've mentioned elsewhere,
the president is the master of double talk.
Here is the proof in the pudding: War was declared on Iraq, it
was not declared on
Afghanistan
and that is how the Bushies justify the distinction between unlawful
enemy
combatant
and POW... double talk.
As stated earlier, we can do whatever we want with unlawful enemy
combatants.
Because
the Bush Administration determined that Group
A gets one designation and Group
B
gets a different designation while both essentially guilty of the same
crime, how do
we as a nation put up with our own government displaying such a blatant
disregard for
international laws?
Many of which we authored!
Is it possibly because we as Americans feel
that we're above international
law? Do
as we say, not as we do - so to speak.
If so, our
arrogance could be the end of us.
What if things in Iraq or Afghanistan had not been the
military cakewalks they had been?
Think of the moral outrage we would be displaying (and
rightfully
so) if hundreds or even just one of our own military personnel were
being
detained,
brutalized, humiliated and put on public display.
What if our POWs were
being
held as enemy combatants?
Wouldn't we want justice?
At the very least common decency?
Using
the Bush Administration's rationale, the rebels who fought the
Revolutionary War were
unlawful enemy combatants.
Did England ever officially declare war on the colonies?
We
took
up arms against an invading force on our homeland - which was really the
Native
Americans'
homeland.
Do we as a nation feel, as the Bush Administration seems to, that
since we are the sole superpower, we can do whatever we want to around
the world?
And since we've got the military muscle to fend off any military
action that would occur (or that
ordinarily we would enforce) against any lesser fortified nation facing
similar charges, can
we interpret or throw out the rulebook as we see fit?
Our
government - specifically the
Bush Administration - has basically thrown out the rules of law and
decency when it comes to
these enemy combatants.
The situation in Iraq is a spill-over from the situation at
Guantanamo.
The blatant disregard for international law by our own leaders
has fostered an
ideology that basically we can do what we want, to whoever we want,
whenever we want.
The
U.S. military personnel who committed these acts, and this is in no way
an excuse for them,
were following the accepted practices setup by their superiors - all the
way down from 1600
Pennsylvania Avenue.
Again, attitudes reflect leadership.
Although
the revelation of the recent atrocities committed by our military is news,
it isn't new.
Similar, and worse, atrocities were reported during the conflict
in Vietnam.
Many
were and still are refuted.
But just because we didn't have the benefit of technology back
then to document and broadcast such things instantly, doesn't mean that
the atrocities
didn't happen.
Many people would like to still believe that, prior to the recent
evidence
to the contrary, we have done no wrong in the world and a few more would
like the public to
continue to believe this.
The
simple fact is, we aren't always the good
guys that we claim
to be.
The recent events are further proof of that.
We can be, but it has to start from
the top and work its way down to the masses.
If our government can arbitrarily imprison
people indefinitely, simply because the president says: Those people are enemy combatants! -
how can we continue to say that we are the land
of the free?
How can we claim to do
anything in the name of democracy when our own is in such disarray?
George Washington,
Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and the like would be so proud of
what we've become.
The Taliban had to be
removed because it was a rogue
regime.
Saddam Hussein had to be
removed because his was a rogue
regime.
Until
recent history, America has been that beacon
of hope for much of the world to look to for leadership.
Under President Bush, with his
global Gestapo tactics, that image has been more than damaged, it has
been all but
destroyed.
Attitudes reflect leadership and America needs to take a long
hard look in the
mirror because the Bush Administration has become what it claims to have
abhorred - a rogue regime.
|
 Printer-friendly
version
 Write
Letter to Editor
:
|
