WTF- US Military "Prepped" Guantanamo Detainees for Chinese Interrogators

Non-democratic maybe, but repressive government? Does Yao Ming look to you he is repressed by the Commie?

Terrorism knows no boundary, and is politically/racially blind.

Good to know another ignorant, "liberal" bigot here, btw.

 

COCKMEAT SANDWICHHHHH

(what, no one watched Harold and Kumar 2?)

 

Good question. Maybe you should ask anonymous Tibetans or Uyghers instead of one of the most visible people in the world. Or, you could simply start by going to the Amnesty International site and searching under "China."

Terrorism is absolutely political. The definition:

 

I'm sure these guys were just getting some work during the tourist season in Afghanistan. I wouldn't care if they were fed to the sharks. These are people who were up to no good. As if they were picking strawberries one day and the AK just happened to be in their hands the next.

Also, If we're going to run a prison with captives who have been held for years without charges and torture is routine, it's probably best not to feign indignation at minor instances of discomfort for probable TERRORISTS.

 

A much larger sample size would be billions of other law-abiding and patriotic Chinese, Tibetan-Chinese and Uighur-Chinese included. Not to mention that before Yao was drafted by NBA or was even a star in CBA, he was just another typical Chinese in PRC.

I am pretty sure Amnesty International doesn't rate USA too high either, given the highest incarceration rate this country enjoys ... lol

What I meant any political entity can be a victim of terrorism, be it *the greatest democracy known to men on earth*, or the most populous country every latte-sipping new-age hippie hates. Just because PRC is not a nation run under a political system of your liking, it doesn't mean it shouldn't fight terrorism, either by itself or with international cooperation and assistance.

 

So do you have a problem when the repressive government of Pakistan helped to capture Khalid Sheikh Mohammed?

We are talking about terror suspects here, they aren't even tortured.

 

Rights aren't based on sample size. Unless a minority has full rights, nobody does. That's an elemental principle of our Founding Fathers.

I don't disagree and I don't find it funny. Our standing has fallen quite a bit lately, but I don't try and justify it based on a larger sample size. And by the way, you should be able to be law-abiding and patriotic and still question your government's action, protest their action, and actively work for changes... some people, myself included, would argue that working to expand freedoms and keep the government honest is the highest form of patriotism.

OK, I see what you're saying. However, the problem arises there, as it does here, when the label of terrorism is slapped on people simply because the government doesn't like what they are doing or because the government wants to score some political points. I think there's a pretty big gap between people trying to have the daily freedom to live and worship as they please and something like 9-11.

It is indisputable that people are falsely imprisoned, disappeared, and killed in China. During this current administration, the US may have lost much of its moral authority to decry these practices, but that doesn't mean it should be acceptable and it certainly doesn't mean that I, as an American and a citizen of the world, have to accept it.

 

Wnes;

Are you OK with Gitmo as essentially a US gulag as long as the cooperate with China?

 

This post was reported to the moderator and, if not over the line, certainly walks an extremely fine line.

Not everyone is an ignorant, "liberal" bigot just because you think so.

 

I keep thinking of Harold and Kumar when talking about Guantanamo Bay.

C*ck sandwich??

 

Well this is a thread involving china, and wnes is posting in it.

Conclusion: thread ruined.

 

Hmm, despite that Jeff has a problem with me characterizing your guys ignorant, I can't help but call a spade spade.

It's indisputable that the minorities in PRC have full rights as the Han majority. In fact, the minorities have more rights than the Han majority do.

PRC's One-Child policy only applies to the Han majority, while the minorities can have as many as three children per family. Even when the quota is exceeded, the punishment is usually no more than a slap on the wrist, far more forgiving than what a typical Han family would receive.

Chinese minorities are given preferential treatments in many other aspects of their lives, such as college admission, and job opportunities and economic policies, compared to Han Chinese.

To cater the religious and cultural sensitivities of the Muslim minorities (of which Uighur is one), PRC took one step further. In days leading up to the traditional Chinese New Year celebration last year - the Year of Pig, PRC even banned broadcasting pig-related programs and commercials on CCTVs, at the expense of Han majority.

Your posts in this regard probably don't warrant a "bigot" label, it's still ignorant nevertheless.

LOL ... let's not go that route. The rebuttal won't be pretty. Since it would badly derail this thread, I won't entertain you this time.

Many NGOs such as Amnesty International are a joke. For one, they don't have to bear the burden of running a country. AI's selection bias and ideological bias have been the constant criticisms from both the left and the right. I wouldn't take AI's reports seriously.

The same ol' trick of blaming everything on Bush, *YAWN*

Whether you admit or not, terrorism is real, 9/11 is real, the separatist/terrorist activities (which new-age hippie may call freedom fighting) in northwest China are real. Law is law, if you break it, expect the consequence. I have no problem supporting the call for differential treatment of the mere-sympathizers from the real hardcores, but that's another story.

 

By making them uncomfortable and edgy by depriving them of ONE (possibly more, but the softening up only began the day before the meetings), keeping them from getting a good night's sleep, and having the rooms cold?

Again, this is such a waste of concern. This sounds like plenty of nights I've had.

 

I think we need to do more to work with the Chinese...I like the fact we are talking to the Chinese on areas of common ground.

 

My reply could well be are you not OK with fighting terrorism so long as China is doing it?

But I can entertain you a bit more. Look, this is not a thread by an angry liberal condemning the gulag. It's a bigoted attempt to scoff the cooperation between member states of Interpol to combat terrorism, merely because one of the states is China.

Last I checked, the techniques employed, as justtxyank and others observed, are far cry from the T-word. The thread starter, after given a second and third chance to clarify his initial position, has yet to explain why China should be subject to terrorism -- let me take it back, why China should not be receiving help from US, an Interpol partner, in its combating against terrorism while countries such as Great Britain, for instance, need not suffer from the same discrimination.

 

So, in a response to a post about China's trampling of minority rights and their contempt for human rights, you build upon your sample size argument by mentioning pig commercials. Brilliant! And I might add, that if it is indeed

then the Han majority is screwed, because minorities in China are being disappeared, are subject to secret trials, and have been killed by the Chinese government.

For someone who throws the word "ignorant" around, what are we to think of you obviously not understanding my point? And your whole point is to derail this thread, so, please, what's a little entertainment now? Please humor me.

The same old trick of blaming the source. Not to mention that's one hell of a straw man you just built... it is absurd to think that only governments can criticize other governments. After all, the only people who "bear the burden" of running a country are those in government, no? Therefore, according to your thinking, nobody should be able to say anything critical about a government unless they work in government. Ridiculous reasoning.

You also say you wouldn't take AI's report seriously. Is there a group outside of the Chinese government that you would take seriously? Say, Human Rights Watch or news organizations or academics or church relief groups or international charities or the British or the French or the Australians? Anyone?

This response bears no relation to the points I made.

Terrorism is real, but it is a tactic, not a strategy... and something the Chinese government doesn't like isn't terrorism just because the Chinese government says it is so.

Law is law? What does that mean? Are you not aware of the long philosophical and practical history of just laws and unjust laws? Are you saying laws are sacrosanct? Laws are made by men and as such, can be imperfect. It's up to people to call attention to laws that are imperfect and it's up to people to try and fix them. I think with this sentence you have beautifully captured the essence of an unthinking cog in a totalitarian system.

Kudos.