Tuesday, July 11, 2006

Human rights abuse? Not if it's an American

Mutilation of 2 GIs claimed to be in retaliation for alleged rape.

So much for ‘innocent until proven guilty’. I don’t even know where to begin on this story. First, why are we reporting on "alleged" crimes when we know it does nothing but fuel the insurgency…and I’m blaming the military as much as the media on this one. How did these nutcases even know about the alleged rape? Granted, that’s NOT why they killed these two soldiers, but it still makes it clear that they listen to our press and feed off of what’s said. We should take heed.

Second, I searched the big three human rights websites for this story: Amnesty International, The International Red Cross and the ACLU. Guess what, I didn’t find it anywhere. This story is non-existent on their websites. In fact, when these two troops were initially murdered, the story wasn’t even covered THEN…

Why?

This IS a human rights abuse. This IS a violation of the Geneva Convention. This IS a violation of the civil liberties of two Americans. So why isn’t it being covered. It seems that such an action would be a direct challenge to what these organizations stand for. Shouldn’t they at least have SOMETHING…how about, "this happened and it was bad"

That’s all I’m asking for. Just acknowledge that terrorists are bad people. I think it’s evident that the reason these organizations aren’t interested is simply because the victims here are Americans. Had they been Iraqi or Al-Qaida, then you better believe they would be up in arms about it...like dynamite on a suicide bomber. The message hear is 'we're willing to overlook human rights abuses so long as the abuses are against the right people'. That's does a lot for the credibility of these organizations.

What are the odds of one of these organizations one day asking the UN to recognize Al-Qaida as a legitimate state or government? Don't laugh. After all, they're not too much different than the Palestinians.

Just another illustration of how the Left has weakened our beloved country.

4 comments:

Dan Trabue said...

Terrorists are bad people. Does that help?

AI, et al, didn't report it because they report on nations that are committing human rights abuses. These insurgents/terrorists do not represent a nation. To whom should they address a human rights complaint?

Cody O'Connor said...

I think you're right on John. I don't think Dan's semantics are a good argument. Just because they aren't countries doesn't mean they can't be outraged about it. I remember writing a post like this on Abu-Graib http://thebetterwing.blogspot.com/2005/11/double-standards-of-aclu.html and I got the same stupid defense from the Liberals. "Well, they didn't say anything because they're the American Civil Liberties Union not the Earth Civil Liberties Union" right...American organizations aren't allowed to talk about things in other countries. Please, they could talk about it, it's just that they hate America. Good post, John

Dan Trabue said...

Think about this, Cody: Why hasn't AI taken a stand against the mafia? I mean, they kill people, do bad stuff. Shouldn't they take a stand against them? How about gang violence? Do you suspect that AI is siding with the US because they haven't come out against the Crips and denounced their activity?

Do you think for a minute that people in AI aren't outraged about violence wherever it occurs? You may think that, it's a free country, but you have no evidence whatsoever to support such a notion.

It's not about semantics, it's about mission. The AI-type groups' mission is not to take a stand against violent crime, it's to take a stand against oppressive nations.

John Washburn said...

Sorry Dan, but it IS semantics. I read AI's mission statement and nowhere does it say that they deal strictly with governments. They do say that they are "...concerned solely with the impartial protection of human rights."

IMPARTIAL. Shouldn't that be enough to issue a simple statement condemning the beheading and brutal torture of Americans?