Losing the moral highground

[FranchiseBlade]

This one incident isn't of major importance in itself. It is ashame that the U.S. has made itself vulnerable to human rights abuse charges from nations who with such poor records on human rights as China.

If we want to be a leader of the world, and champions of democracy and the modern cause we do need to lead by example.

Obviously China doesn't have the moral highground either to criticize us, but we have left ourselves open to this kind of criticism.

I miss the days when we practiced what we preached.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/1F2FE97C-9D4E-48A0-BBFD-FF30F3635E83.htm
US, China trade human-rights barbs
By Benjamin Robertson in Beijing

Saturday 05 March 2005, 14:52 Makka Time, 11:52 GMT


Human-rights abuses are a major irritant in Sino-US relations


The annual trans-Pacific war of words was renewed this week as first Washington, and then Beijing, released their 2004 human rights reports.



Accusing each other of various human-rights abuses, China's verbal salvos carried additional venom this year after the well-publicised prisoner-abuse scandals in Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib.

This prompted human-rights watchers to express concern that US actions have undermined its moral authority, and made it easier for authoritarian governments to justify their human-rights abuses.

Summarising China's human-rights record as "poor", the US report, issued on 28 February by the State Department as part of a yearly review on global human rights, accused China of maintaining "tight restrictions on freedom of speech and of the press".

Highlighting the lack of an independent judiciary and the arrest of several dissent writers towards the end of last year, the report said "many who openly expressed dissenting political views were harassed, detained, or imprisoned", and that the government was "quick to suppress religious, political, and social groups that they perceived as threatening to government authority or national stability".

Harsh crackdown

Covering 118 pages, it also reiterated an earlier criticism that China was using "the international war on terror as a pretext for cracking down harshly on suspected Uighur separatists expressing peaceful political dissent and on independent Muslim religious leaders", in the north-western border province of Xinjiang.

In part wary of radical Islamic influence in the region, since 1997 China has been waging an anti-separatism campaign targeting "extremism", "terrorism", and "splittism". Critics, including the State Department report, say that the campaign has not adequately differentiated between those using peaceful forms of protest and those using violence.


The Tiananmen Square massacre
of 1989 chilled ties with the West

Washington has yet to announce whether it will table a resolution against China's record at this month's UN Human Rights Commission meeting in Geneva. Previous years' resolutions have always failed to be passed.

"It is clear that China's human-rights situation needs improving, but China's human rights are an internal issue," Shen Jiru, a political theorist with the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, said soon after the report's publication.

In part echoing the government line, Shen questioned whether moral values are always transferable and at what point in a society's development individual human rights should be given priority.

"In China, the biggest problem is economic development as there are so many people with little money or education. Do these people's rights come before the rights of dissidents?" Shen asks.

China's appraisal

Issuing a formal response on Wednesday, China's Foreign Ministry spokesman said that only the Chinese people have the right to comment on their human rights and that "the Chinese government, sticking to a policy it calls 'putting people above everything else,' has made many efforts toward building a democratic country under the rule of law".

This was followed on Thursday by their own appraisal of US human-rights record.


China's reaction to Uighur Muslim
demands has sparked concern

Its flowery language contrasting with the US State Department's bureaucratic wording, the report said that "the atrocity of US troops abusing Iraqi PoWs exposed the dark side of human-rights performance of the United States", and that "the world people have to probe the human rights record behind the Statue of Liberty in the United States".

Cataloguing a list of apparent failings within America, including high levels of racial discrimination, rising number of homelessness, and curtailment of rights since 9/11, the report questioned whether the US can justifiable pose as "the world's human rights police".

"The 2004 US presidential election reported many problems, including counting errors, machine malfunctions, registration confusion, legal uncertainty, and lack of respect for voters," the report said.

Double standards

The report also listed a string of abuses carried out during the war in Iraq. Included were the killing of 45 people at a wedding party in May last year, and the shooting of seven civilians on a bus in Ramadi last November.


US army abuses have come in for
criticism from Chinese officials

"The double standards of the US on human rights and its exercise of hegemonism and power politics under the pretext of promoting human rights certainly put itself in an isolated and passive position and beget opposition from all just members of the international community," the report concluded.

Commenting on the two reports, Mickie Spiegel, China researcher at the New York-based Human Rights Watch, said: "Though I believe the US report on China tries to reflect accurately what is happening, American actions (in Iraq) has made it easier for the Chinese to criticise America, and makes it easier for more abusive governments to justify their own actions.

"In terms of the US ability to speak for people's rights (Iraq) makes it very difficult for people to follow America and this worries me."

[giddyup]

Since when do accidents and mis-judgements constitute creation of a pattern?

[Invisible Fan]

The State Dept's Human Rights report is just another political tool to rally to our good life and the good life of the allies we support. Different presidents from different parties come and go, but our support of authoritarian controlled allies stay the same.

We lost the high ground when other countries started questioning our actions without giving us the benefit of the doubt we enjoyed for 50 years. Though I wish it were possible, no power as large as ours can live in the moral high ground and still maintain the influence we yield. Old habits die hard, so I doubt that we would remotely want to strive for that idealistic goal. Democracy seems to be the great rallypoint worldwide, and it's the entry of friendship with our country (at least it was advertised as so). Yet wars before the American era were mostly propigated by power hungry nation-states that had democratic institutions. Incidentally, those nations are now our allies and cultural siblings. If we truly wanted a democratic Iraq, there wouldn't be so many barriers to hedge Shia domination. It's just not in the cards.

Spreading and encouraging Democracy is a noble cause. It's just that our government's international efforts haven't been devoted for that pure interest. I don't believe that as so. The Iraqi war isn't the exception to the rule, it's the continuation of the rule. Living with that belief is another discussion.

[Rocket River]

Originally posted by giddyup
Since when do accidents and mis-judgements constitute creation of a pattern?

When they happen over and over again to
the same KIND of people

Actually. . it is perspective. . .
I think China is saying . . THEY WERE NOT ACCIDENTS
but
have been spun [media wise] to be accidents

One man's accident is another man's intentional act

Rocket River

[FranchiseBlade]

Originally posted by giddyup
Since when do accidents and mis-judgements constitute creation of a pattern? Since Bush's attorney general writes memos in attempt to justify those 'accidnents'. If they are being codified, and part of the administrations way of doing business, it isn't just accidents.

Furthermore, when there is a policy of sending people to country's that torture as part of policy, it isn't an accident and the creation of a pattern.

I'm not saying that most of our military and intel community torture others, or even support the torture of others, but they don't have to for it to be a pattern. When little to nothing is done to stop it, and the person who created the memo justifying it is promoted to attorney general, then actions speak louder than words.

[giddyup]

So a mis-identification of a target is now a human rights abuse? How droll.

And a few handfuls of part-time military cowboys getting out of control now re-defines our American military policy of over a hundred years? How powerful.

I'm sorry but this is ridiculous opportunism.

[FranchiseBlade]

Originally posted by giddyup
So a mis-identification of a target is now a human rights abuse? How droll.

And a few handfuls of part-time military cowboys getting out of control now re-defines our American military policy of over a hundred years? How powerful.

I'm sorry but this is ridiculous opportunism. I took pains to say it doesn't identify our historic military policy, or our military in general.

But it is more than mis-identification. Torturing anyone correctly or incorrectly identified is a human rights violation. We wouldn't be losing the moral highground if we hadn't occupied it in some sense in the past. It doesn't define our military history, but it is a pattern under the current administration, and their inaction, or rewarding of those who condone it, demonstrates their concern for it.

[giddyup]

<b>Originally posted by FranchiseBlade

I took pains to say it doesn't identify our historic military policy, or our military in general.</b>

From the story: "The report also listed a string of abuses carried out during the war in Iraq. Included were the killing of 45 people at a wedding party in May last year, and the shooting of seven civilians on a bus in Ramadi last November."

<b>But it is more than mis-identification. Torturing anyone correctly or incorrectly identified is a human rights violation. We wouldn't be losing the moral highground if we hadn't occupied it in some sense in the past. It doesn't define our military history, but it is a pattern under the current administration, and their inaction, or rewarding of those who condone it, demonstrates their concern for it.</b>

My indication of mis-identification was meant to describe the military strikes that struck innocents.

We torture; they behead and mass-murder intentionally. Better a live torturer than a dead idealist. I'm tired of apologizing for much lesser offenses.

[FranchiseBlade]

Originally posted by giddyup
<b>Originally posted by FranchiseBlade

I took pains to say it doesn't identify our historic military policy, or our military in general.</b>

From the story: "The report also listed a string of abuses carried out during the war in Iraq. Included were the killing of 45 people at a wedding party in May last year, and the shooting of seven civilians on a bus in Ramadi last November."

<b>But it is more than mis-identification. Torturing anyone correctly or incorrectly identified is a human rights violation. We wouldn't be losing the moral highground if we hadn't occupied it in some sense in the past. It doesn't define our military history, but it is a pattern under the current administration, and their inaction, or rewarding of those who condone it, demonstrates their concern for it.</b>

My indication of mis-identification was meant to describe the military strikes that struck innocents.

We torture; they behead and mass-murder intentionally. Better a live torturer than a dead idealist. I'm tired of apologizing for much lesser offenses.

If all of those were misidentifications sure. There is some question as to whether the wedding party was a misidentification or not.

Actually I also disagree with you about live torturer vs. dead idealist. It is much better to die with values, and principles in tact than to live having sold them out. That is the spirit that our founding fathers had as well. 'Give me liberty or give me death' 'I may not agree with a word you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it'

Those are men who put certain values and principles above life. What kind of life is it anyway if you toss away your ideals anytime trouble rears its ugly head.

I'm tired of people claiming they love what our country stands for, but willing to sell out it's principles when they are tested.

I also don't know what you are calling lesser offenses. Is leaving a man out who freezes to death lesser than a beheading? How do you make that call?

[giddyup]

<b>Originally posted by FranchiseBlade

If all of those were misidentifications sure. There is some question as to whether the wedding party was a misidentification or not.</b>

So the assertion is that the US shot those wedding celebrants just for kicks?

<b>Actually I also disagree with you about live torturer vs. dead idealist. It is much better to die with values, and principles in tact than to live having sold them out. That is the spirit that our founding fathers had as well. 'Give me liberty or give me death' 'I may not agree with a word you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it'

Those are men who put certain values and principles above life. What kind of life is it anyway if you toss away your ideals anytime trouble rears its ugly head.</b>

This is a syntactial jungle. It can be worth dying for something if it is an individual decision that is your choice, but when you are responsible for the well-being of others (an entire nation no less), doesn't the quandry of having to torture some scumbag just kind of evaporate? Would you really sit idly by when you had the chance to do something about it and were responsible for it?

<b>I'm tired of people claiming they love what our country stands for, but willing to sell out it's principles when they are tested.</b>

You call it selling out, I call if fighting under the rules of engagement.

<b>I also don't know what you are calling lesser offenses. Is leaving a man out who freezes to death lesser than a beheading? How do you make that call?</b>

I was thinking of the underwear tricks of Abu Grabh...

[FranchiseBlade]

Originally posted by giddyup



So the assertion is that the US shot those wedding celebrants just for kicks?

I don't know. The initial reports were that gunfire was reported. After investigation the U.S. armed forces called back the planes that were going to investigate because they were informed it was a wedding. The planes returned. Then later planes went back in and wiped out the guests.

After that happened the initial identification of the gunfire as a wedding was never talked about again. Then came the various versions of who died and didn't. I don't believe it was ever conclusively solved. I wouldn't hazard to guess without more information.
Originally posted by giddyup

This is a syntactial jungle. It can be worth dying for something if it is an individual decision that is your choice, but when you are responsible for the well-being of others (an entire nation no less), doesn't the quandry of having to torture some scumbag just kind of evaporate? Would you really sit idly by when you had the chance to do something about it and were responsible for it?

When our founding fathers talked about defending to the death the rights of people they were talking about an entire nation.

Also equally as important... I never said that I would sit idly by. The choice is between torture and other means of getting information or winning the battles. It is not a choice between doing nothing and torture.

Again the scenario that there would ever be a situation where we had to torture someone to get the kind of information that would save a nation or major city is purely hypothetical. It assumes that by torturing you would get the information you wanted, and accurately. It assumes you have the one party that knows that information. It assumes that the party being tortured has a way to win the battle. It assumes that the enemies plans aren't changing, and that nobody is else is pursuing other means of winning the battle, finding the bombs etc. That scenario isnt' real.
Originally posted by giddyup
You call it selling out, I call if fighting under the rules of engagement.

If the rules of engagement comprimise a nation's principles, ideals and values, then that nation has already lost. However I believe it is possible, and more effective to engage the enemy while preserving morals, values, and principles.
Originally posted by giddyup

I was thinking of the underwear tricks of Abu Grabh... Well if you take the most minor of offenses by the U.S. and compare it to the most heinous of the enemies then yes it is a lesser offense. But our torture involved killing of detainees.

[MFW2310]

Wow, moral high ground...

[giddyup]

Originally posted by FranchiseBlade
Well if you take the most minor of offenses by the U.S. and compare it to the most heinous of the enemies then yes it is a lesser offense. But our torture involved killing of detainees.
Your author is taking the most tragic and rare instances of collateral damage and calling them human rights abuses.

I admire your motive, but I'm glad you were not the president of the US on 9/11.

[FranchiseBlade]

Originally posted by giddyup
Your author is taking the most tragic and rare instances of collateral damage and calling them human rights abuses.

I admire your motive, but I'm glad you were not the president of the US on 9/11. What have we gained by the torture? Has it even helped with anything?

[No Worries]

Originally posted by FranchiseBlade
What have we gained by the torture? Has it even helped with anything?
I for one feel safer.

[giddyup]

Originally posted by FranchiseBlade
What have we gained by the torture? Has it even helped with anything?
This is the essence of my problem with your criticism: do you really think you are in any position to know how much or how little it has helped?

[FranchiseBlade]

Originally posted by giddyup
This is the essence of my problem with your criticism: do you really think you are in any position to know how much or how little it has helped? Yes. I know that torture never helps in the long run. The French tried it in Algiers, and failed, The Japanese in WWII and failed. I know that it only serves to breed more anti-American feelings and possible terrorism. It will encourage torture of Americans, it will weaken our stand when we try and use the idea of spreading democracy for fighting wars.

Who's going to want democracy if it only means torturing those weaker than you. Why would people aspire to that. If you want to spread democracy it would be more valuable to lead by example and show them how just and good it is.

Torture isn't a sure fire way to get accurate information. But if somehow torture is used and it saves a troop of one hundred, but the use of torture strengthens resistence, and reduces the zeal with which foreign forces buy into democracy, it could mean our troops have to stay longer over seas and perhaps another 1000 die. We thought we were saving lives, but in the end we lose them.

That kind of thing is exactly what happened when French tried using torture in Algiers.

Look at Saddam using torture. It may have kept people in fear and thus seemed like it saved Saddams life, and his government. But in the end it is what brought him down.

Not to mention people will eventually have to face the truth that by using torture we have abandoned the moral high ground, adopted the means of dictators, and terrorists, sold our our principles, and values, all while gaining nothing in the end.

[Rocket River]

Originally posted by giddyup
This is the essence of my problem with your criticism: do you really think you are in any position to know how much or how little it has helped?

I understand
but this statement has always been the Government's
GET OUT OF TROUBLE free card

Rocket River
How important is the Moral High Ground anyway?

[giddyup]

Originally posted by Rocket River
Rocket River
How important is the Moral High Ground anyway?
If you are responsible for the safety and well-being of the nation, it is relatively unimportant.

I don't enjoy dismissing these noble ideas of others, but I find them wanting in issues of national security. It's fine if you want to take your moral high ground to your own grave.

Is our embrace of torture as widespread as the Japanese? We don't hear about it much, where it was pretty much widespread with the Japanese and the French in Algiers, wasn't it?

[Rocket River]

Originally posted by giddyup
If you are responsible for the safety and well-being of the nation, it is relatively unimportant.



I remember the Van Halen Video for RIGHT NO
one part said
YOUR GOVERNMENT IS DOING THINGS YOU THINK ONLY OTHER GOVERNMENTS DO
or something like that

Government will do what it thinks is best for US
not for the world
not for England
but
FOR US

The problem is . . IMO is sometimes .. . I wonder if the US they
are talking about is their friends and family as oppose to the US in
general

Did taking IRAQ out help the General America? yes
Did it help Halliburton more? YES

debatable true . . .. that is why we have the D&D

Rocket River

[MFW2310]

Originally posted by giddyup
If you are responsible for the safety and well-being of the nation, it is relatively unimportant.

I don't enjoy dismissing these noble ideas of others, but I find them wanting in issues of national security. It's fine if you want to take your moral high ground to your own grave.

Is our embrace of torture as widespread as the Japanese? We don't hear about it much, where it was pretty much widespread with the Japanese and the French in Algiers, wasn't it?

If you, as a civilian, doesn't know the effect of torture on national security, why are you certain that it does have a tangible effect? And how do YOU know that these tortures aren't widespread.

[giddyup]

Originally posted by MFW2310
If you, as a civilian, doesn't know the effect of torture on national security, why are you certain that it does have a tangible effect? And how do YOU know that these tortures aren't widespread.
I don't assume anything other than that they will use whatever means necessary to protect our national security.

I don't know that they are or aren't widespread, but then I'm not the one comparing us to the Japanese. There are not that many reports of torture, are there?

[MFW2310]

Originally posted by giddyup
I don't assume anything other than that they will use whatever means necessary to protect our national security.

I don't know that they are or aren't widespread, but then I'm not the one comparing us to the Japanese. There are not that many reports of torture, are there?

Not arguing conclusively either way, I'm merely pointing out another potential explaination. However, as they say, the past is the best predictor of future behaviour. And based on past history, the odds are unfortunately against the military (and even more unfortunately, not merely to further national security purposes).

But isn't that my point? That we don't know either way?

[giddyup]

Originally posted by MFW2310
But isn't that my point? That we don't know either way?
I prefer not to make a career of second-guessing those who are invested with the responsibiliity of doing a monumental job. This is not some quaint situation where we can cling to ideals without a high cost. This is life and death and a challenge to our way of life.

IF the past is the best predictor of the future, what happened to the British in the 18th century when they marched in their tight, gentlemanly formations?

That's a nice little homily but I think it refers to individual behavior.

[FranchiseBlade]

Originally posted by giddyup
If you are responsible for the safety and well-being of the nation, it is relatively unimportant.

I don't enjoy dismissing these noble ideas of others, but I find them wanting in issues of national security. It's fine if you want to take your moral high ground to your own grave.

Is our embrace of torture as widespread as the Japanese? We don't hear about it much, where it was pretty much widespread with the Japanese and the French in Algiers, wasn't it?

I think moral high ground is probably the most important thing especially when compared to the safety and well being of the nation. First of all the nation has no sense of well being once it has tossed it's morals out the window. Secondly once a nation adopts a policy of torture(I don't think it is quite to that point in the U.S. yet, but for the sake of argument...) it is endangering both the safety and well being of the nation.

The nation isn't made safer by using torture. There may be short term issues where it is benificial for using torture, but in the long run, you put the nation and its soldiers at more risk. It is a losing proposition.

And while it may work in the short term, it is never guaranteed to produce results. I've listed many of the reasons why that is so.

You are right that it isn't as widespread as the situation with the French in Algiers. But do you feel proud to say our nation tortures but not as much as the other guy? 'We are bad, but not as bad as some other people.'

[FranchiseBlade]

Originally posted by giddyup


IF the past is the best predictor of the future, what happened to the British in the 18th century when they marched in their tight, gentlemanly formations?


The U.S. marched in those same formations. But the formations weren't gentlemanly, they were in every European military handbook of the time. So was 'Don't fire 'till you see the whites of their eyes.' Tales of America winning because they hid behind trees and fought unconventionally are greatly exaggerated. That did happen to an extent, but those that are familiar with what takes to fire and reload muskets and artillery at the time know that it would be impossible to hold prolonged positions like that and still be effective.

But more to the point, what formation an army marched in has nothing to do with whether they used or didn't use torture. Torture fails. It isn't successful over the long term.

[MFW2310]

Originally posted by giddyup
I prefer not to make a career of second-guessing those who are invested with the responsibiliity of doing a monumental job. This is not some quaint situation where we can cling to ideals without a high cost. This is life and death and a challenge to our way of life.

IF the past is the best predictor of the future, what happened to the British in the 18th century when they marched in their tight, gentlemanly formations?

That's a nice little homily but I think it refers to individual behavior.

Can you diffentiate between tactics and behaviour?

[giddyup]

Originally posted by MFW2310
Can you diffentiate between tactics and behaviour?
Yes, I can. That was my point. Tactics are an external thing that are learned, taught, commanded and mastered through discipline. Individual behavior is an internal thing much less subject to all of the controlling factors listed above.

[RocketMan Tex]

Originally posted by giddyup
Yes, I can. That was my point. Tactics are an external thing that are learned, taught, commanded and mastered through discipline. Individual behavior is an internal thing much less subject to all of the controlling factors listed above.

Then herein lies the question:

Who is responsible for the environment that would allow such "individual behavior" to happen in the first place?

[giddyup]

Originally posted by RocketMan Tex
Then herein lies the question:

Who is responsible for the environment that would allow such "individual behavior" to happen in the first place?
Well, George Bush, of course! ;)

[robbie380]

Originally posted by FranchiseBlade
I miss the days when we practiced what we preached.


when exactly were those days? you know stuff like prisoner abuse scandal has always happened right? and you know it used to be worse, right? you do know that we used to execute our own soldiers for cowardice, right? so when were the good old days?

[RocketMan Tex]

Originally posted by giddyup
Well, George Bush, of course! ;)

Seriously, Giddy, who is responsible? The man at the top, or someone else? Is anyone responsible?

[giddyup]

Originally posted by RocketMan Tex
Seriously, Giddy, who is responsible? The man at the top, or someone else? Is anyone responsible?
I'm not famililar enough with the labyrinth chain-of-command to say exactly who is responsible. Are you?

Responsible for what? Underwear hijinkx hardly seem like a high crime. What are the other offenses? FB makes reference to someone freezing to death-- that's one I'm not familiar with.

You can play the blame-game if you want, I just want to win the game.

[andymoon]

Originally posted by giddyup
I'm not famililar enough with the labyrinth chain-of-command to say exactly who is responsible. Are you?

I am pretty sure that the head of the DoD, thus the person ultimately charged with ensuring that unacceptable behavior does not happen, is Donald Rumsfeld. However, a White House attorney wrote briefs jutifying torture, so that may push at least some of the blame to the WH.

Doesn't seem like that difficult a logic train to follow.

Originally posted by giddyup

Responsible for what? Underwear hijinkx hardly seem like a high crime. What are the other offenses? FB makes reference to someone freezing to death-- that's one I'm not familiar with.

There were reports of several people being killed in Abu Ghirab, not just the one freezing to death. The abuses were described at length in this forum, but I guess hindsight is 20/500 for you.

Originally posted by giddyup

You can play the blame-game if you want, I just want to win the game.

There are things that are more important than this "game." Included in this category would be things like maintaining the integrity of this country, following the Geneva Conventions, and holding people accountable for their actions as well as the actions of the people they are responsible for.

[FranchiseBlade]

Originally posted by robbie380
when exactly were those days? you know stuff like prisoner abuse scandal has always happened right? and you know it used to be worse, right? you do know that we used to execute our own soldiers for cowardice, right? so when were the good old days? I don't agree with executing our own soldiers for cowardice, but that isn't torturing prisoners.

I do know that there has always been examples of torture that went on. But there has never been an official in the justice department writing memos that try and act like it is ok for us to do that. Then on top of that having that official receive a promotion to Attorney General, is certainly going farther than we've ever done before.

When I was talking about practicing for what we preach, I allowed that some horrible incidents did occur, but it isn't like anyone was wrting memos in our government to allow for such incidents. In the last 20 years there have been plenty of examples of the U.S. not practicing what it preaches, but not so much in regards to torture, until recently. Even when practicing what we preach I allow that anomolies will occur. We should punish anyone involved when that happens.

There was a time when the U.S. was respected in the world. That is eroding/has eroded. And we can't blame others for that.

[giddyup]

<b>Originally posted by andymoon

I am pretty sure that the head of the DoD, thus the person ultimately charged with ensuring that unacceptable behavior does not happen, is Donald Rumsfeld. However, a White House attorney wrote briefs jutifying torture, so that may push at least some of the blame to the WH.

Doesn't seem like that difficult a logic train to follow.</b>
If briefs are written justifying torture, maybe torture is justified.

Get real, okay? We can put The Creator at the head of this list and blame Him/Her but while that is logical it is a worthless exercise.

<b>There were reports of several people being killed in Abu Ghirab, not just the one freezing to death. The abuses were described at length in this forum, but I guess hindsight is 20/500 for you.</b>

Where is the evidence? Where is the outrage? You want to undermine a war effort on the basis of a few reports? We have videos of an underwear parade and a naked pyramid. They have videos of beheadings...

<b>There are things that are more important than this "game." Included in this category would be things like maintaining the integrity of this country, following the Geneva Conventions, and holding people accountable for their actions as well as the actions of the people they are responsible for.</b>

There is nothing more important than this "game." Our way of existence is targeted.

andy, if somehow you found yourself in a fist fight and suddenly your opponent brought out a hunting knife, are you telling me that you wouldn't go begging for a knife? You'd just keep pummeling him with your fists?

[andymoon]

Originally posted by giddyup

If briefs are written justifying torture, maybe torture is justified.

You are sick and so are the people who wrote such briefs, ordered their creation, or participated in making their contents policy.

Torture is never justified, this is one of the reasons that we signed the Geneva Conventions in the first place.

Originally posted by giddyup

Get real, okay? We can put The Creator at the head of this list and blame Him/Her but while that is logical it is a worthless exercise.

Only if you believe that God takes an actual active hand in these events, which I do not. In addition, I would argue that torture is the absolute antithesis of what God stands for, but I guess that GWB and his cabal must be more in touch with God than I if they actually believe that He condones torture.

Originally posted by giddyup

Where is the evidence? Where is the outrage?

There was evidence, the reports were confirmed, and people like you went "ho-hum" and called those of us that WERE outraged "Bush-bashers." These things happened, people were killed while in our custody, and people like you ignored it or willfully closed your eyes to it and voted for GWB anyway.

Originally posted by giddyup

You want to undermine a war effort on the basis of a few reports?

No, at this point, I want to correct the course of the war effort.

Originally posted by giddyup

We have videos of an underwear parade and a naked pyramid. They have videos of beheadings...

So, just because our soldiers successfully avoided making a snuff film, you are going to compare our minor offenses to the insurgents' worst offenses?

We DID kill people while they were in custody, we HAVE killed many, many innocents in this action. NEITHER side is blameless, but that is not really my concern. My concern is that the US should NEVER take part in actions that the insurgents would. We are better than they are and we should act like it.

Originally posted by giddyup

There is nothing more important than this "game." Our way of existence is targeted.

Iraq never did diddly-squat to threaten "our way of existence." I might agree with you if you were talking about Al Qaeda, but you are talking about a country that could not conceivably have threatened the US in any way for more than a decade.

Originally posted by giddyup

andy, if somehow you found yourself in a fist fight and suddenly your opponent brought out a hunting knife, are you telling me that you wouldn't go begging for a knife? You'd just keep pummeling him with your fists?

First, I would have done everything possible to avoid said fight, given that I am extremely adroit at avoiding conflicts.

And if I actually believed that I occupied the moral highground because I would not resort to using a knife, I would keep using my fists until my opponent was battered and bruised, but my knife would never leave its sheath.

[FranchiseBlade]

Originally posted by giddyup
I'm not famililar enough with the labyrinth chain-of-command to say exactly who is responsible. Are you?

Responsible for what? Underwear hijinkx hardly seem like a high crime. What are the other offenses? FB makes reference to someone freezing to death-- that's one I'm not familiar with.

You can play the blame-game if you want, I just want to win the game. People who compare to AG prison to frat pranks, or just underwear humiliation are forgetting, ignoring, or unaware that U.S. soldiers are known to have actually killed at least two prisoners. Other prisoners were killed while in U.S. custody. That is according to a report done by a U.S. army General.

Two Iraqi prisoners were killed by U.S. soldiers last year, and 20 other detainee deaths and assaults remain under criminal investigation in Iraq and Afghanistan, part of a total of 35 cases probed since December 2002 for possible misconduct by U.S. troops in those two countries, Army officials reported yesterday.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A2179-2004May4?language=printer
But wait there's more!

YATA (Froze to Death in Detention)

Yet Another Torture Allegation: Dana Priest, CIA Avoids Scrutiny of Detainee Treatment.

In November 2002, a newly minted CIA case officer in charge of a secret prison just north of Kabul allegedly ordered guards to strip naked an uncooperative young Afghan detainee, chain him to the concrete floor and leave him there overnight without blankets, according to four U.S. government officials aware of the case.

The Afghan guards — paid by the CIA and working under CIA supervision in an abandoned warehouse code-named the Salt Pit — dragged their captive around on the concrete floor, bruising and scraping his skin, before putting him in his cell, two of the officials said.

As night fell, so, predictably, did the temperature.

By morning, the Afghan man had frozen to death.

The CIA says it’s investigating — two years after the fact. Which is an odd claim, since the first reaction was coverup,

[The victim] is on no one’s registry of captives, not even as a “ghost detainee,” the term for CIA captives held in military prisons but not registered on the books, they said.

And the second reaction was just as predictable with this crew:

The CIA case officer, meanwhile, has been promoted.

Of course the whole thing was rotten from the start as the CIA took the official view that US rules didn’t apply to what it called an Afghan facility. Never mind that the CIA paid for it, paid all the salaries, decided who would be held there, and pretty much ran it. The CIA still claimed it was a “foreign facility”. Deniability and all that (including deniability towards Congress).

The only vaguely good news here is that apparently torture is considered a low-status activity in the CIA.

“A first-tour officer was put in charge because there were not enough senior-level volunteers,” said one intelligence officer familiar with the case. “It’s not a job just anyone would want. More senior people said, ‘I don’t want to do that.’
http://www.discourse.net/archives/torture/

Basso, Hayes, and Giddy might think it is ok to torture if it might happen to save some military lives(whether torture would save them is debatable). But at least the U.S. navy knows that torture is beneath the dignity of our brave soldiers serving in the forces.

[quote]The Navy Balked at Torture

According to the Boston Globe, Navy interrogators threatened to withdraw from the entire set of Guantanamo interrogations due to their disgust at the tactics being used by other interrogators — and actually withdrew in at least once case:

A top Navy psychologist reported to his supervisor in December 2002 that interrogators at Guantanamo were starting to use “abusive techniques.” In a separate incident that same month, the Defense Department’s joint investigative service, which includes Navy investigators, formally “disassociated” itself from the interrogation of a detainee, after learning that he had been subjected to particularly abusive and degrading treatment.

The two events prompted Navy law enforcement officials to debate pulling out of the Guantanamo operation entirely unless the interrogation techniques were restricted. The Navy’s general counsel, Alberto Mora, told colleagues that the techniques were “unlawful and unworthy of the military services.”

One again, the military lawyers stand out as the (only?) heroes of this sordid affair.

But don’t give me any of this “few bad apples” stuff… it’s just not at all credible.
http://www.discourse.net/archives/torture/

You can agree or disagree that it is good for the U.S. to torture and murder prisoners all you want. But please in the future don't try and act like the torture only consists of putting women's undergarments on prisoners. It spreads disinformation, and ignores reality. The facts are out there, and people shouldn't by ignorance make such a serious thing seem trivial.

[FranchiseBlade]

Originally posted by giddyup


Where is the evidence? Where is the outrage? You want to undermine a war effort on the basis of a few reports? We have videos of an underwear parade and a naked pyramid. They have videos of beheadings...

There is nothing more important than this "game." Our way of existence is targeted.

andy, if somehow you found yourself in a fist fight and suddenly your opponent brought out a hunting knife, are you telling me that you wouldn't go begging for a knife? You'd just keep pummeling him with your fists?

Giddy, the evidence is in the report made by a US ARMY GENERAL. Do you think the US ARMY GENERAL wants to undermine a war?

Once we resort to torture as an accepted practice our way of existence has already been lost. The terrorists didn't do that, other 'Americans' did. Our way of existence has been resisting and condeming torture. Abandoning that is the equivalent of surrendering.

Nobody in this argument is saying we shouldn't fight the enemy using weapons. That is your analogy. An anology to torture would be that if in a fist fight your opponent dropped to his knees and put his hands behind his back to show he was at your mercy, would you tie him up, and slowly and painfully kill him, or have him sent somewhere else to be slowly and painfully killed?

[giddyup]

Originally posted by andymoon
And if I actually believed that I occupied the moral highground because I would not resort to using a knife, I would keep using my fists until my opponent was battered and bruised, but my knife would never leave its sheath.
Ahem, you're a dead man.

[giddyup]

Originally posted by FranchiseBlade
Nobody in this argument is saying we shouldn't fight the enemy using weapons. That is your analogy. An anology to torture would be that if in a fist fight your opponent dropped to his knees and put his hands behind his back to show he was at your mercy, would you tie him up, and slowly and painfully kill him, or have him sent somewhere else to be slowly and painfully killed?
My argument is to fight the fight that is being fought.

andy will bruise his opponent with his hammer-like fists while ignoring his own intestines drizzling onto the pavement....

[giddyup]

Originally posted by FranchiseBlade
Basso, Hayes, and Giddy might think it is ok to torture if it might happen to save some military lives(whether torture would save them is debatable).
I guess you'd trade me, Hayes, and Basso for the three dead enemies.... :D

[andymoon]

Originally posted by giddyup
Ahem, you're a dead man.

Ahem, if I am not strong, fast, and educated enough to win that fight without resorting to my opponent's tactcs, then I would rather be dead than give up my integrity.

[michecon]

Originally posted by giddyup
If you are responsible for the safety and well-being of the nation, it is relatively unimportant.


Hmm... that's the line CCP uses during the TAM square.

[FranchiseBlade]

Originally posted by giddyup
I guess you'd trade me, Hayes, and Basso for the three dead enemies.... :D I wouldn't save your lives now, by torture, if it meant that half the bbs would die later because of increased resistence, resolve amongst our enemies, and fuel hatred against the bbs.

(This conversation has gotten strange:D )

[giddyup]

Originally posted by michecon
Hmm... that's the line CCP uses during the TAM square.
Weren't they already riddled by human rights abuses when that occurred? We're talking China for God's sake!

[FranchiseBlade]

Originally posted by giddyup
Weren't they already riddled by human rights abuses when that occurred? We're talking China for God's sake! We are talking China, and we start using the same type of tactics, and then the same rationale to justify it, alarms should go off. Once we behave like china we have lost our way.

[giddyup]

Originally posted by FranchiseBlade
We are talking China, and we start using the same type of tactics, and then the same rationale to justify it, alarms should go off. Once we behave like china we have lost our way.
You're comparing China's treatment of her own citizens to our treatment of enemy combatants who are terrorists... it isn't even close.

[bnb]

Originally posted by giddyup
You're comparing China's treatment of her own citizens to our treatment of enemy combatants who are terrorists... it isn't even close.

I think that may be the point of the original article (remember that ?).

Not that it's fair...but that the more the US 'relaxes' its moral code (even if it attempts to justify why) the more vulnerable it becomes to attacks on its credibility.

[FranchiseBlade]

Originally posted by giddyup
You're comparing China's treatment of her own citizens to our treatment of enemy combatants who are terrorists... it isn't even close. It isn't the same, but it is still torture, and it is still the same excuse used to justify the torture.

bnb is correct. I was never saying that we are the same as China, just that once we use the same practices something is wrong, we lose the ground to criticize others, while openeing ourselves up. If we want to be a moral beacon of leadership in the world we have to have a ground to stand on.

[Deckard]

Considering the topic, and some of what I've experienced in another thread the last day or so, I thought this was most interesting. It is yet another example of some of the freedoms we tend to take for granted, and why countries like China (meaning the Chinese government) need to see where they plant their feet, before they start claiming the "moral highground."


Reuters
Mon Mar 21, 2005 06:58 AM ET

BEIJING (Reuters) - China has blocked off-campus Internet users from accessing several bulletin boards operated by universities as part of a government clampdown on outspoken domestic Web sites.

Shuimu Tsinghua, a popular bulletin board run by Beijing's prestigious Tsinghua University, was among the sites sealed to outside participants last week, the Beijing Times reported over the weekend.

"The Ministry of Education made the decision to shut the site because the bulletin board was only supposed to be a platform for internal exchange within the university," a Tsinghua University student who requested anonymity said on Monday.

"Students are calm about it, but it seems that non-student users are angry because they can no longer get access."

A note posted on the bulletin board's home page (www.smth.org) on March 16 announced the move and said it had been made in keeping with a new policy passed by the Ministry of Education. There were no further details.

Internet bulletin boards at Wuhan and Nankai universities were also barred to outside users earlier this month, the newspaper said.

Such university bulletin boards had become popular forums for discussion of everything from politics to pop culture between students, faculty, graduates and others.

A ministry spokesman declined to comment when contacted by telephone.

China has been cracking down on Internet content -- from politics to pornography -- but has struggled to gain control over the medium as more Chinese have got Web access and have used it to gain information beyond official sources.

Yitahutu, a bulletin board operated by Peking University, was shut down altogether last September.

China had 94 million Internet users at the end of 2004, the government said this month, adding that the number should jump 28 percent to 120 million this year.

Beijing has created a special Internet police force believed responsible for shutting down domestic sites posting politically unacceptable content, blocking some foreign news sites and jailing several people for their online postings.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=KKICJT5ZWLLT0CRBAEZSFEY?type=technologyNews&storyID=7958355



Keep D&D Civil!!

[FranchiseBlade]

Originally posted by Deckard
Considering the topic, and some of what I've experienced in another thread the last day or so, I thought this was most interesting. It is yet another example of some of the freedoms we tend to take for granted, and why countries like China (meaning the Chinese government) need to see where they plant their feet, before they start claiming the "moral highground."

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=KKICJT5ZWLLT0CRBAEZSFEY?type=technologyNews&storyID=7958355



Keep D&D Civil!!

I love seeing things like this, because it reminds us how lucky we are to have the freedoms we do(Not that I love seeing other peoples freedoms being curtailed), and I would hope how important it is to keep those freedoms, or at least how much we have to lose should we give up those freedoms.

[MFW2310]

Originally posted by Deckard
Considering the topic, and some of what I've experienced in another thread the last day or so, I thought this was most interesting. It is yet another example of some of the freedoms we tend to take for granted, and why countries like China (meaning the Chinese government) need to see where they plant their feet, before they start claiming the "moral highground."


Reuters
Mon Mar 21, 2005 06:58 AM ET

BEIJING (Reuters) - China has blocked off-campus Internet users from accessing several bulletin boards operated by universities as part of a government clampdown on outspoken domestic Web sites.

Shuimu Tsinghua, a popular bulletin board run by Beijing's prestigious Tsinghua University, was among the sites sealed to outside participants last week, the Beijing Times reported over the weekend.

"The Ministry of Education made the decision to shut the site because the bulletin board was only supposed to be a platform for internal exchange within the university," a Tsinghua University student who requested anonymity said on Monday.

"Students are calm about it, but it seems that non-student users are angry because they can no longer get access."

A note posted on the bulletin board's home page (www.smth.org) on March 16 announced the move and said it had been made in keeping with a new policy passed by the Ministry of Education. There were no further details.

Internet bulletin boards at Wuhan and Nankai universities were also barred to outside users earlier this month, the newspaper said.

Such university bulletin boards had become popular forums for discussion of everything from politics to pop culture between students, faculty, graduates and others.

A ministry spokesman declined to comment when contacted by telephone.

China has been cracking down on Internet content -- from politics to pornography -- but has struggled to gain control over the medium as more Chinese have got Web access and have used it to gain information beyond official sources.

Yitahutu, a bulletin board operated by Peking University, was shut down altogether last September.

China had 94 million Internet users at the end of 2004, the government said this month, adding that the number should jump 28 percent to 120 million this year.

Beijing has created a special Internet police force believed responsible for shutting down domestic sites posting politically unacceptable content, blocking some foreign news sites and jailing several people for their online postings.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=KKICJT5ZWLLT0CRBAEZSFEY?type=technologyNews&storyID=7958355



Keep D&D Civil!!

Gee, why wouldn't China value school resources and students' time, which can better be spent studying instead of chatting on BBS?

I wonder what motive Reuters has to assume SMTH was shut down for political reasons instead of that above when hardly any content on that board is actually political. It could be, but Reuters would know as much as the village idiot whether that's the reason.

Fact is, if that BBS was privately owned instead of by the university, the government wouldn't have said peep about it.

[FranchiseBlade]

Originally posted by MFW2310
Gee, why wouldn't China value school resources and students' time, which can better be spent studying instead of chatting on BBS?

I wonder what motive Reuters has to assume SMTH was shut down for political reasons instead of that above when hardly any content on that board is actually political. It could be, but Reuters would know as much as the village idiot whether that's the reason.

Fact is, if that BBS was privately owned instead of by the university, the government wouldn't have said peep about it. I think Reuters is going under the presumption that by the time students are at the age of attending a university they are old enough to decide how to manage their own time in terms of studying and the internet. If they aren't able to manage that time they are old enough to deal with the consequences when they are kicked out of the university for not making the grades. Of course Reuters can also compare the huge number of other universities which allows their students to manage their own time to the one's where the internet access is controlled and what types of govermental powers are assumed by the govt. in those places.

[MFW2310]

Originally posted by FranchiseBlade
I think Reuters is going under the presumption that by the time students are at the age of attending a university they are old enough to decide how to manage their own time in terms of studying and the internet. If they aren't able to manage that time they are old enough to deal with the consequences when they are kicked out of the university for not making the grades. Of course Reuters can also compare the huge number of other universities which allows their students to manage their own time to the one's where the internet access is controlled and what types of govermental powers are assumed by the govt. in those places.

First of all Tsinghua is a very prestigious school. Best engineering school in China (7th overall) and anywhere from 6th to 25th best in the world (depends on who you ask). It's a very testing curriculum. So when students are spending too much time on leisure activities, they are already jeopardizing their future. I think it's good that the government is putting a stop to it.

I think I should clarify the situation. In the past, Chinese universities were easy for the Chinese. It's not easy by international standards, just easier for the Chinese who have made it this far, after what they have gone through up to high school. So in the past students tend to slack as soon as getting in college. It wouldn't have affected them much because they still have built up enough good study habits in the past to get by.

However, right now, with the ever increasing competitiveness in the Chinese job market, colleges are requiring even tougher curriculums than before, so students can't simply slack any more. The problem is, some students still do not heed this warning. The latest example involved Shanghai Jiaotong University. Some students were doing very poorly because they were spending their time watching movies and playing computer games instead of studying. The Unversity sent them repeat letters of warning for academic probation, which were ignored. So when it finally booted them out, they were shocked and scared. All of this could have been avoided had they just spent a little more time. And at a tough college like Tsinghua, you have to spend a LOT of time.

We'd always like to think that students know well enough to manage their time, but sometimes they just need the kick in the butt to get them moving faster.

I think my problem with the Reuters story is they made way too many assumptions. Certainly their explaination could be true, but they made no justification as to how they arrived at that theory. Just that the government shut down the school BBS, and then the government routinely monitors internet traffic. Do I see some leap in logic here?

As I said, SMTH is not very political. They have more posts on hints to computer games than politics (which I guess is why they shut it down).

[michecon]

Originally posted by Deckard
Considering the topic, and some of what I've experienced in another thread the last day or so, I thought this was most interesting. It is yet another example of some of the freedoms we tend to take for granted, and why countries like China (meaning the Chinese government) need to see where they plant their feet, before they start claiming the "moral highground." [/B]

It's a stupid policy. That's all it is. Education department shut down outside access to public Univeristy's BBS. It has actually little to do with the intension/topic of this thread.

[FranchiseBlade]

Originally posted by MFW2310
The Unversity sent them repeat letters of warning for academic probation, which were ignored. So when it finally booted them out, they were shocked and scared. All of this could have been avoided had they just spent a little more time. And at a tough college like Tsinghua, you have to spend a LOT of time.

We'd always like to think that students know well enough to manage their time, but sometimes they just need the kick in the butt to get them moving faster.

I think my problem with the Reuters story is they made way too many assumptions. Certainly their explaination could be true, but they made no justification as to how they arrived at that theory. Just that the government shut down the school BBS, and then the government routinely monitors internet traffic. Do I see some leap in logic here?

As I said, SMTH is not very political. They have more posts on hints to computer games than politics (which I guess is why they shut it down). I'm not sure how schoolastic probation works in China, so I can't say for sure. But it seems like scarying the sutdents and shocking them means that it worked well. That should be the incentive they need to stop watching movies and playing video games. Once that was doen they could avoid failing more classes and get off of schoolastic probation. If that is true then there would be no need for government interference.

If that wasn't enough to get them to stop watching movies and playing video games, perhaps they should go to a different university or try to find other work. It might mean they weren't cut out for the University they were going to.

Again failing grades, and schoolastic probation should let students know that things need to change. Those students should be able to make the changes needed, or perhaps it means that they aren't studious enough to handle that University, and should seek alternatives either at a different university or job.

[MFW2310]

Originally posted by FranchiseBlade
I'm not sure how schoolastic probation works in China, so I can't say for sure. But it seems like scarying the sutdents and shocking them means that it worked well. That should be the incentive they need to stop watching movies and playing video games. Once that was doen they could avoid failing more classes and get off of schoolastic probation. If that is true then there would be no need for government interference.

If that wasn't enough to get them to stop watching movies and playing video games, perhaps they should go to a different university or try to find other work. It might mean they weren't cut out for the University they were going to.

Again failing grades, and schoolastic probation should let students know that things need to change. Those students should be able to make the changes needed, or perhaps it means that they aren't studious enough to handle that University, and should seek alternatives either at a different university or job.

In any other country I'm inclined to agree. But understand, in China, there is such a vast pool of educated talent that college really is make or break. It determines the good life or life long low wage jobs (or whether you are going to have a job for that matter). And Tsinghua happens to be one of those schools that you don't easily get into. The chances are literally one in millions scale and is harder to get into than any of the Ivy League schools.

So in any other words, anybody who makes it in can be consider a semi genius of sorts. And they are ruining their lives and careers over the likes of computer games?

I know the whole you make the choice you live with the consequences argument, but the toughing of the school curriculums occurred at the earliest about 2 - 3 years ago. Old habits die hard and there just haven't been enough of a transition period for that. I'd say give it couple more years of tight control then drop it lower. If they are stupid enough to waste their time even then, it's their own loss.

Oh and btw, those at Jiaotong were booted out after the repeated probation because they didn't take those probations seriously. It was literally the first time anybody ever got any probation, so they probably just assumed that the school did it before too but would never actually boot anybody out.

[davidwu]

Regarding the BBS issue, I agree partly with MFW that it's more likely a campus policy instated by school presidents, and I understand there might be more related school displine problems than suppression of political freedoms. (OT, he blew the difficulity of studying in Tshinghua way out of propotion. One in million scales, are you kidding me?) But I do see some politicians and bureaucrats take pleasure as this a golden chance to shed off the worries to monitor the BBS conveniently.

At the same time I would like to put this into perspective for americans to understand. This policy, though not welcome by students themselve, have more supports from society, especially from the parents. Just think about Yao Ming's parents, you will understand this kind of decision has little relationship with CCP dictatorship. And con- or uncon-veniently, the school has every right to make it an intranet as it's school property.

[MFW2310]

Originally posted by davidwu
Regarding the BBS issue, I agree partly with MFW that it's more likely a campus policy instated by school presidents, and I understand there might be more related school displine problems than suppression of political freedoms. (OT, he blew the difficulity of studying in Tshinghua way out of propotion. One in million scales, are you kidding me?) But I do see some politicians and bureaucrats take pleasure as this a golden chance to shed off the worries to monitor the BBS conveniently.

At the same time I would like to put this into perspective for americans to understand. This policy, though not welcome by students themselve, have more supports from society, especially from the parents. Just think about Yao Ming's parents, you will understand this kind of decision has little relationship with CCP dictatorship. And con- or uncon-veniently, the school has every right to make it an intranet as it's school property.

You are right. Instead of using the entire population I should have used just those of college age. Revised estimate, one in 10,000

I just realized I did real bad math too. Based on total population, it's one in 100,000, not million.

[wizkid83]

Originally posted by FranchiseBlade
I think Reuters is going under the presumption that by the time students are at the age of attending a university they are old enough to decide how to manage their own time in terms of studying and the internet. If they aren't able to manage that time they are old enough to deal with the consequences when they are kicked out of the university for not making the grades. Of course Reuters can also compare the huge number of other universities which allows their students to manage their own time to the one's where the internet access is controlled and what types of govermental powers are assumed by the govt. in those places.

Reuter's wrong in this case. To get into the top Chinese colleges in China, the kids have to go through insane crap in their grade schools since elementary. The ones that can trully do well enough on the tests to get above that point are probably robots by the time they get to college. They are so use to having people tell them what to do that some of them really can't think for themselves. So when they are no longer being held to as strenous standards because they are college students now that some of them lax up way to much. It's a different culture, the top Chinese students in China work better when given a system of commands to follow. The only cousin that I know of that has a shot of going to a decent college right now is doing 6 hours of homework every day. And also studying for college exams on top of that. The crazy thing is it's not out of the norm for those that want to "succeed" in life.