Now, let's take a look at how politics skews what are called "lies." Bush and Company uses intel information that is not substantiated by the CIA or other intelligent agencies of the US, and they take us to war. That is called, telling the truth. Newsweek publishes an article on information garnered from several sources including the International Red Cross and human right's organizations, and they are called "lies," and the administration jumps on Newsweek to retract what they said. Wonder where the problem lies?
Copied from Candidone's post on another a2k thread:
Quote:
LONDON In coordinated broadsides from London and Washington, Amnesty International accused the Bush administration of condoning "atrocious" human rights violations, thereby diminishing its moral authority and setting a global example encouraging abuse by other nations.
In a string of accusations introducing the organization's annual report in London on Wednesday, Amnesty cited the abuse of detainees at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, the detention of prisoners at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and the so-called rendition of prisoners to countries known to practice torture. It said that all this constituted evidence that the United States "thumbs its nose at the rule of law and human rights."
Defending its human rights record as "leading the way," the White House dismissed the accusations as ridiculous and unfounded.
Irene Khan, Amnesty's secretary general, labeled the U.S. detention facility at Guantánamo Bay, where more than 500 prisoners from about 40 countries are being held, as "the gulag of our times."
In Washington, William Schulz, Amnesty's executive director, urged President George W. Bush to press for a full investigation of what he called the "atrocious human rights violations at Abu Ghraib and other detention centers."
Schulz continued:
"When the U.S. government calls upon foreign leaders to bring to justice those who commit or authorize human rights violations in their own countries, why should those foreign leaders listen?
"And if the U.S. government does not abide by the same standards of justice, what shred of moral authority will we retain to pressure other governments to diminish abuses?"
Schulz called for Congress to appoint "a truly impartial and independent commission to investigate the masterminds of the atrocious human rights violations at Abu Ghraib and other detention centers."
In response, Scott McClellan, the White House spokesman, said:
"I think the allegations are ridiculous and unsupported by the facts. The United States is leading the way when it comes to protecting human rights and promoting human dignity.
"We have liberated 50 million people in Iraq and Afghanistan. We have worked to advance freedom and democracy in the world so that people are governed under a rule of law; that there are protections in place for minority rights; that women's rights are advanced so that women can fully participate in societies where now they cannot.
"So I just think it's ridiculous," McClellan added, "not supported by the facts, when you look at all that we do to promote human rights and promote human dignity in the world."
The State Department spokesman, Richard Boucher, said, "We promote human rights as part of achieving stability and fighting terrorism."
Amnesty's language was among the strongest it has used and represented a broader sense within human rights advocacy groups that the U.S. treatment of prisoners had diminished its standing.
"It's not because the United States is the worst human rights abuser in the world," said Kenneth Roth, the head of Human Rights Watch, in a telephone interview from New York, "but because it's the most influential."
I was leaning toward disagreement...until the last paragraph.
Source
Be "knock me over with a feather" if anything comes of it but I am glad that Specter is calling for it.
I don't recall seeing any fat Iraqi's. Weird.
Every subject that Botero portrays in paintings are bloated out of proportion...like his view on America and torture.
The prisoner being fat is probably an artistic expression. However, the dog being used against the prisoner is not.
That's no breed I've ever seen and reflects no image I've seen come out of Abu Ghraib. Perhaps you can help me out here.
It seems to me this artist has a fantasy and he is using his art to bring ot to the surface. He can probably find a support group for that particular Fetish.
When was the last time you were there?
You have to use your mind ..... never mind
McGentrix wrote:That's no breed I've ever seen and reflects no image I've seen come out of Abu Ghraib. Perhaps you can help me out here.
It seems to me this artist has a fantasy and he is using his art to bring ot to the surface. He can probably find a support group for that particular Fetish.
The kind of dog and the way it looks is probably an artistic expression too, McG. I meant the fact that dogs were used against prisoners is true.
You forget; Republicans aren't big on artistic expression. You can't expect McG to look at it from that point of view.
Also, you can't expect him to discuss any truthful parts that it points out that put America in a bad light, nope. That would be against the Party.
Cycloptichorn
Naw, they only want to show comparisons between what the US does now vs Saddam and Hitler. They want to ignore what this president did to our relationship with our allies, Muslims and the division in our own country, since everything in Iraq is going to 'well.'
When you see some interpretation of how an artist views the world .. and you don't know just what the work means, criticise either the technique or the content. This way you have a 50/50 shot of not appearing the fool.
Conservative hand book.
Rule #38
The same people enjoy "piss Christ" and most of the works by that guy obsessed with the anus.
I wonder how you would react to a depiction of someone pissing on the Koran... It's just art, right?
I'd never heard of 'piss christ' until you brought it up.
And I wouldn't give a damn at all if someone used the Koran for whatever purpose they wanted it to, scatalogical or not; but that doesn't make it a good idea.
Cycloptichorn
Then we agree that sometimes art for the sake of drama is sometimes a bad idea.
In my opinion, Botero has done just that, had a bad idea.
Do you think that the term "*estimate*" as used by the CIA is a generic term they use to mean
invalid, or
inaccurate, or
false? If not one of these, then what is your point? Whose statistics constitute something other than estimates?
Quote:Then we agree that sometimes art for the sake of drama is sometimes a bad idea.
In my opinion, Botero has done just that, had a bad idea.
Why is what he did a bad idea?
Because it will piss off a bunch of Americans?
Just trying to understand
Cycloptichorn