11 ms·

America’s Shameful Human Rights Record (2012)

304 points by joshfraser 13y ago

runjake 13y ago
People criticizing this article should note it was written by former US president Jimmy Carter, and not one of those supposed "whacko activist journalists". Consider his perspective, and especially his post-presidential role as an unofficial world ambassador.
- zhemao 13y ago
  Especially since he had to deal with the fallout of his predecessors' human rights violations, especially in the "abets our enemies and alienates our friends" department.
pg 13y ago
The thing that strikes me about this is that it's written by a former president. It's hard for us to compare the present behavior of the US government to past behavior, because we don't know how many bad things the government did secretly in the past. But Carter, as a former president, does know. So if he says we're behaving worse than we used to, we are.
- RyanMcGreal 13y ago
  Not to mention the fact that they're both from the same political party, so Carter does not have a partisan interest in portraying the current administration as worse.
  - sliverstorm 13y ago
    But, maybe it's just part of the ol' "Create a problem, then offer to solve it" con. I mean, Carter only had one term, so this could be part of his re-election bid... ;)
  - pekk 13y ago
    I like Carter, but he is a politician. You don't get elected to the Presidency for being a plain old dude uninterested in politics. Any time you think a politician is not being political, you should reflect on whether you've been had. The problematic assumption is that his 'partisan interest' would be to favor (D) over (R). That's not the only possibility. I think that Carter's interests are more in steering (D) and other issues like Israel and Palestine. And perhaps, a little, in glorifying himself - the possibility should not be excluded.
- hedonist 13y ago
  It also happens to be a president who spearheaded that great adventure in nation-building which continues to serve as a catalyst for a broad swath of the epic plauge human rights abuses we're presently, and systematicaly, engaged in: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_activities_in_Afghanistan#Covert_action including, in particular, the drone and other airstrikes he's referring to, and the continuing use of Guantanamo.
  - enraged_camel 13y ago
    Which makes him even more of an authority on American human rights abuses!
- tptacek 13y ago
  Look at the history of the 20th century to see how that logic might be fallacious: Teapot dome, Japanese internment camps, the deliberate nuclear bombing of civilian centers in Japan and the fire-bombing of Dresden, the corporatist colonization of Latin America, the Red Scare, blacklists, and House Un-American Activities committee, the attempted invasion of Cuba, the massed invasion of Vietnam under false pretenses, the covert bombings of Cambodia and Laos, the overthrow of Salvador Allende in Chile that ushered in the rule of Pinochet... Then, a historical blip: the 4-year single-term presidency of Jimmy Carter, widely derided as one of the least effective administrations in the 20th century... ... and, bang: covert deals with Iran for hostages, the support of the contras in Nicaragua, the support of right-wing death squads in San Salvador, the bombings in Beirut, and on & on & 9/11 & on until today and the Obama administration. It's possible that things are worse today than they were in 1978, but it's also likely that 1978 isn't a particularly useful date to compare 2013 to.
  - dfc 13y ago
    I thought Dresden was the brainchild of Bomber Harris.
    - mechanical_fish 13y ago
      I believe this is true, but Wikipedia reports that half the force that bombed Dresden was USAAF. I'm sure their commanders didn't shirk the responsibility. Anyway, if you don't find the USA's involvement in Dresden horrifying enough, we can always bring up, say, the Tokyo firebombing – a 100% all-American operation that killed 100,000 on March 10, 1945 alone. World War II was horrible on a scale that defies description today. There is plenty of horror to go around, from every theatre of war.
      - dfc 13y ago
        I think you meant less than half? War is horrible. There is plenty of horror to go around, from every war. But I do not think that an abundance of horror means that we should do away with the desire for accuracy.
swombat 13y ago
[2012] by Jimmy Carter (he's not writing about current events)
- carbocation 13y ago
  Everything he mentioned is still current and ongoing, but it's true that he could not be writing about Snowden's revelations, if that's what you mean.
- dragontamer 13y ago
  Dates on these sorts of things are very important. Good catch.
- jetti 13y ago
  It may not be current events, but as far as I know, very little has changed since he wrote it.
- will_brown 13y ago
  American citizens’ being targeted for assassination or indefinite detention, recent laws have canceled the restraints in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to allow unprecedented violations of our rights to privacy through warrantless wiretapping and government mining of our electronic communications. Popular state laws permit detaining individuals because of their appearance, where they worship or with whom they associate. Are you just highlighting that the article was written in 2012 or suggesting that because the article was written in 2012 it is not relevant or current? Or that the issues themselves, as mentioned above, are not current (ie. citizen target assassinations or NSA mining of electronic communications...that is so...2012)?
  - icegreentea 13y ago
    It's important that it's written in 2012 because it means a) It is not just another 'oh gawd, gotta cash in on this PRISM fiasco' article b) It demonstrates that some level of awareness of issues and attempt at publicizing was always occuring. That is to say that it is a reminder that those of use reasonably well read/informed should not have been totally shocked when Snowden did his thing c) It's important because some people will question 'Why no mention of current events?'
tommi 13y ago
Jimmy is on to something here. It must be politically easier to support this view when there is an ex-president in favor of it.
- abraininavat 13y ago
  Jimmy needs to write something similar now, while the world and we Americans are paying attention.
dangoldin 13y ago
It's true when he wrote it but has also been true before 9/11. Most times the US intervenes in foreign affairs on behalf of economic reasons (Guatemala, El Salvador, Afghanistan, Nicaragua, etc) In the case of Nicaragua in 1984, it went up the UN courts with the US being found to encourage human rights violations but it didn't amount to much since the US sits on the security council. This is such a complicated topic that I really don't know whats the moral answer is. On one hand I don't believe we should be completely isolationist when there's so much going on in the world but on the other hand it's very easy to screw things up and impossible to predict the consequences. The best I hope for is having morally justified reasons for intervention rather than economically justified ones. Lots of interesting stuff at the following links: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_U.S._regime_change_actions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_U.S._regime_change_actio... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaragua_v._United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaragua_v._United_States
- cpursley 13y ago
  "On one hand I don't believe we should be completely isolationist" Agreed. But we (USA) should be non-interventionists. Isolationism is when you cut off economic ties and restrict travel in and out (think North Korea). Non-interventionism is when you stay out of other nation's political affairs (politics, war, economics).
  - brazzy 13y ago
    And then something like Rwanda happens and everyone (quite rightly) asks why there was no intervention when everyone could see what was happening. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. And simple answers to complex questions come with their own problems.
    - userulluipeste 13y ago
      It matters what kind of intervention are you getting into. You can step yourself up as a mediator and act to prevent the conflict escalation and to reduce the damages, or you can just hand weapons to one (or even to both) of the involved opposite camps that will most surely not prevent the conflict escalation or reduce any damages. ...but now, which option is more profitable?
riggins 13y ago
while I like the sentiment, I don't think Carter's framing of the issue will be successful. right now the issue is framed as: sacrifice liberties = being 'tough on terrorists'. what's needed is some rhetorical jiu-jitsu. frame it as follows Non pants wetter = I'm not afraid of terrorists and to the extent I am afraid, I'll overcome my fears and take the risk of a terrorist attack to preserve our great american traditions. Pants wetters = everyone who's so afraid of terrorists that they'd sell out what it means to be american
- mpyne 13y ago
  Your improvement on framing the issue will be to call those who don't like working in skyscrapers with inbound aircraft "pants-wetters". OK, good job.
  - riggins 13y ago
    I'm not trying to have it both ways. I used to be in the WTC on a weekly basis (although I wasn't there on 9/11). I don't expect anything from others that I don't expect from myself. I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here those who don't like working in skyscrapers with inbound aircraft "pants-wetters" obviously if terrorists have hijacked planes and are in the air, and you work in a potential target, it's reasonable to get out. That's what happened on 9/11. I'd note that IMO, airplanes flying into buildings can never happen again. 9/11 was a one-time shot which only happened because prior to 9/11 the consensus advice for how to deal with a terrorist hijacking was to 'not be a hero'. As you saw from United 93, that's a one-time window that lasted about 60 mins. Outside of reinforced cockpits and air marshals, I'm confident that we've got plenty of American heros who will die fighting before they let another terrorist fly a plane into a building. So if your claim is that everyone who works in a skyscraper is justified in sacrificing our most cherished American ideals because they're scared of a terrorist flying a plane into the building, we'll have to agree to disagree.
  - gknoy 13y ago
    You're right. I'd prefer to call those who allow fear of terrorists to govern their lives (and political decisions) cowards. I would not want to insult those who wet pants by comparing them with such people.
vingt-2 13y ago
We're talking about a country which dropped two nuclear warheads on civilian areas. It's a shame and a delusion to even think that the US even once were a symbol of "moral leadership" with "consideration for human life". Edit: I know this sounds like a cliché and a simplistic point of view, but I think it's quite interesting to look at the US history with this in mind.
- fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
  We dropped the equivalent of many nuclear weapons worth of conventional bombs on Japan. http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/05/29/the_bomb_didnt_beat_japan_nuclear_world_war_ii http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/05/29/the_bomb_di...
- nine_k 13y ago
  [Flamebait warning] There's an ongoing discussion whether the use of nuclear bombs resulted in more casualties than a ground operation with conventional means would. Read about Iwojima, about Japanese schoolchildren being taught how to fight American soldiers on the streets. If you want an example of massive and pointless civilian casualties caused by Allies in WWII, take the Dresden bombing instead.
  - vingt-2 13y ago
    I totally understand the strategy and absolutely don't rule out the fact that it may have saved more life than it brutally took. But it doesn't change the fact that one nation can make the decision to murder thousand of civilians in hope that it'll save (allies mostly) lives.
    - pekk 13y ago
      Of course, no nation other than the US ever makes this terribly fraught decision. The Axis, for example, always erred on the side of not hurting any civilians. And no nation other than the US today would do something that could even inadvertently hurt civilians.
cpursley 13y ago
I'm glad many Americans are beginning to discover this for the first time, but for many of us, this is old news. I mean, the entire nation (USA) is built upon the bodies of the Natives who's land was stolen or coerced from them and then built by enslaved peoples stolen from Africa (as the Marley song goes). The story of post-"discovery" North-America is the volition of human rights - this is nothing new. And granted, the situation is much better than it was in the 1700s/1800s. A little context goes a long way in terms of talking about anything from foreign intervention to NSA spying.
- pdonis 13y ago
  The story of post-"discovery" North-America is the volition of human rights The story of everywhere is the story of violation of human rights. If the USA's record is shameful, then the record of the rest of the world is even more shameful.
- viggity 13y ago
  I'm so fucking sick of the blame America first crowd. 1. every land has been invaded/occupied/taken over at some point in history. it is human nature. deal with it. 1.a. Would india be better or worse off today if it were not for British colonialism? It sucked for the people while it happened. But the world is a better place because of it. Do you hear the british complaining about the Roman's pillaging the country side? nay. As the Monty Python skit goes - "All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh-water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?" 2. the vast majority of native peoples were wiped out by disease, not by warfare. 3. I didn't fucking enslave anyone. nobody alive today in the US killed any native americans or owned any slaves. 4. America despite its many faults has been an overwhelming force for freedom and wealth throughout the world. A thorough cataloging of such good deeds could take years to compile.
  - king_jester 13y ago
    > I'm so fucking sick of the blame America first crowd. Pointing out the true history of the United States is one of the best ways to learn from the mistakes of the past. Don't mad at people for talking about this, get mad that colonialism exists and its affects, past and present, continue to shape US society in the negative. > 1. every land has been invaded/occupied/taken over at some point in history. it is human nature. deal with it. This is no way excuses any injustice brought about via military and armed conflict/occupation. > 1.a. Would india be better or worse off today if it were not for British colonialism? I hear this sentiment a lot in various forms, that somehow people in the past who were violently and systematically oppressed and violated should be grateful to their oppressor. This is utter nonsense, the effects of colonialism are not over and continue to affect and harm those people you believe only to have been affected in the past. > 2. the vast majority of native peoples were wiped out by disease, not by warfare. This fact was exploited in warfare and policy against native peoples in the United States and this is not something that excuses violent invasion and occupation. > 3. I didn't fucking enslave anyone. nobody alive today in the US killed any native americans or owned any slaves. The legacy of colonialism and slavery still exist today and some kinds of people still directly benefit from that legacy. To deny that is the wipe the current day experiences and issues that affect native and black folks away so you can feel better about yourself/your country/your society. > 4. America despite its many faults has been an overwhelming force for freedom and wealth throughout the world. A thorough cataloging of such good deeds could take years to compile. This is debatable, however even if good deeds have been done, that doesn't change the history of the horrible things done by the United States and we should most certainly not forget that or ever stop talking about that legacy and how it shapes society today.
refurb 13y ago
I'm sick of the moral relativism that you see when people point out American's shortfalls. You see words like "undemocratic", "despot", "dictatorship" thrown around by people who have little understanding what those words mean. There is no doubt that America's past is stained with human rights violations. However, to hold up America as equivalent to the current regimes in China or Russia (to name just two) is laughable by anyone with an understanding of history. It comes from people who benefit from seeing a weaker US and these people chose to be ignorant because it advances their world view.
- gohrt 13y ago
  America's present is stained with human rights violations. USA is perhaps better at compartmentalize, so Internet commentators don't feel the pain of their fellow Americans of the underclass, more so than perhaps China, which as a wider lower class and smaller upperclass. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_incarceration_rate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_incarcerat...
- king_jester 13y ago
  > There is no doubt that America's past is stained with human rights violations. However, to hold up America as equivalent to the current regimes in China or Russia (to name just two) is laughable by anyone with an understanding of history. That other countries exist with their own violations of humans rights doesn't negate any kind of criticism about the United State w.r.t. human rights. You can be critical of more than one thing at a time. > I'm sick of the moral relativism that you see when people point out American's shortfalls. You see words like "undemocratic", "despot", "dictatorship" thrown around by people who have little understanding what those words mean. Many people have a good idea of what those words mean and the United State's actions and policies can most certainly be described with those words throughout various times in its history.
  - refurb 13y ago
    I have no problem with people criticizing the US. In fact, it something that makes the US such a great country. US citizens should be holding their elected representatives' feet to the fire when they stray from the constitution. However, using words like "undemocratic", "despot" and "dictatorship" to describe the US cheapen those words and do a great disservice to the MILLIONS of people who have died under such regimes.
Cbasedlifeform 13y ago
Jimmy Carter is like fine wine -- he has improved with age. Not a great president, but he has turned into one of the greatest ex-presidents with his concerns for global human rights and humanity in general. Not for him a jetsetting life palling around with plutocrats and dictators, or smiling on the golf course with one of the Bushes.
- gohrt 13y ago
  This is because the Presidency is a position where it is difficult to good. Now, it is easy for Carter to push for good -- but his pushes carry far less weight. Unfortunately, a position's power is negatively correlated to the position's support for speaking of humanity's great concerns.
- pekk 13y ago
  It seems to be easier to do good in theory than to do good in practice.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
31aEuL4HEAg 13y ago
In one news report today (time.com blog), some US official tried to attack Snowden's legitimacy as a proponent of "transparency, freedom of the press, protection of individual rights and democracy" because of Snowden's choice of the countries through or to which he is said to be travelling. That reasoning seems rather weak. One might guess the Obama Administration is getting desperate. Behind the scenes, this president could be as bad as Nixon. He's better looking, a good speaker and generally likeable, but, like Nixon, he's hell bent on secrecy. What's he hiding? If it's nothing, then maybe that's eveidence that even innocent Americans can keep secrets and there's no need to spy on them. Anyway, following that US official's reasoning, every time some American visits, say, Cuba on their vacation, does that mean they do not support various principles of democratic society? I see more than a few comments suggesting Venezuela is defective in various ways compared to the US's democracy. But are they really that bad (what about all the countries who are worse?)... or does a certain government that needs oil more than any other on Earth (guess which one) have particular labels for Venezuela that aim to further the US's interests in (destabilizing or stabilizing a given regime) in order to get access to Venezuela's oil? Here's what Carter thinks about Venezuelan elections. He doesn't seem to think it's that bad. The voting part of their elections: "free and fair". The press: may be manipulated by best funded campaigns. But we see the same type of thing in the US, of else campaign funding would not be such a pertinent issue. http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/06/19/3460412/andres-oppenheimer-carter-will.html http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/06/19/3460412/andres-oppenhe... If you look on his foundation's website, you'll see them acknowledge there is no universal, worldwide definition of "a democracy". Look at the database they compiled on the countries they've studied. The concept of "a democracy" is a compilation of many factors, from many sources. Maybe democracy is more like a continuum of "less democratic" to "more democratic".
justaguess 13y ago
Here's what Carter thinks about Venezuelan elections: http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/06/19/3460412/andres-oppenheimer-carter-will.html http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/06/19/3460412/andres-oppenhe... The voting part: "free and fair". Does the US government want access to Venezuela's oil? Might they want to destabilize or stabilize a given regime there based on whether the regime is cooperative in giving the US what it wants? Would it make sense to portray Venezuela a certain way to Americans, in order to influence the public's perception and therefore their support of the US government's policies toward Venezuela?

304 points by joshfraser 13y ago

People criticizing this article should note it was written by former US president Jimmy Carter, and not one of those supposed "whacko activist journalists". Consider his perspective, and especially his post-presidential role as an unofficial world ambassador.

zhemao 13y ago
Especially since he had to deal with the fallout of his predecessors' human rights violations, especially in the "abets our enemies and alienates our friends" department.

pg 13y ago

The thing that strikes me about this is that it's written by a former president. It's hard for us to compare the present behavior of the US government to past behavior, because we don't know how many bad things the government did secretly in the past. But Carter, as a former president, does know. So if he says we're behaving worse than we used to, we are.

RyanMcGreal 13y ago
Not to mention the fact that they're both from the same political party, so Carter does not have a partisan interest in portraying the current administration as worse.
- sliverstorm 13y ago
  But, maybe it's just part of the ol' "Create a problem, then offer to solve it" con. I mean, Carter only had one term, so this could be part of his re-election bid... ;)
- pekk 13y ago
  I like Carter, but he is a politician. You don't get elected to the Presidency for being a plain old dude uninterested in politics. Any time you think a politician is not being political, you should reflect on whether you've been had. The problematic assumption is that his 'partisan interest' would be to favor (D) over (R). That's not the only possibility. I think that Carter's interests are more in steering (D) and other issues like Israel and Palestine. And perhaps, a little, in glorifying himself - the possibility should not be excluded.
hedonist 13y ago
It also happens to be a president who spearheaded that great adventure in nation-building which continues to serve as a catalyst for a broad swath of the epic plauge human rights abuses we're presently, and systematicaly, engaged in: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_activities_in_Afghanistan#Covert_action including, in particular, the drone and other airstrikes he's referring to, and the continuing use of Guantanamo.
- enraged_camel 13y ago
  Which makes him even more of an authority on American human rights abuses!
tptacek 13y ago
Look at the history of the 20th century to see how that logic might be fallacious: Teapot dome, Japanese internment camps, the deliberate nuclear bombing of civilian centers in Japan and the fire-bombing of Dresden, the corporatist colonization of Latin America, the Red Scare, blacklists, and House Un-American Activities committee, the attempted invasion of Cuba, the massed invasion of Vietnam under false pretenses, the covert bombings of Cambodia and Laos, the overthrow of Salvador Allende in Chile that ushered in the rule of Pinochet... Then, a historical blip: the 4-year single-term presidency of Jimmy Carter, widely derided as one of the least effective administrations in the 20th century... ... and, bang: covert deals with Iran for hostages, the support of the contras in Nicaragua, the support of right-wing death squads in San Salvador, the bombings in Beirut, and on & on & 9/11 & on until today and the Obama administration. It's possible that things are worse today than they were in 1978, but it's also likely that 1978 isn't a particularly useful date to compare 2013 to.
- dfc 13y ago
  I thought Dresden was the brainchild of Bomber Harris.
  - mechanical_fish 13y ago
    I believe this is true, but Wikipedia reports that half the force that bombed Dresden was USAAF. I'm sure their commanders didn't shirk the responsibility. Anyway, if you don't find the USA's involvement in Dresden horrifying enough, we can always bring up, say, the Tokyo firebombing – a 100% all-American operation that killed 100,000 on March 10, 1945 alone. World War II was horrible on a scale that defies description today. There is plenty of horror to go around, from every theatre of war.
    - dfc 13y ago
      I think you meant less than half? War is horrible. There is plenty of horror to go around, from every war. But I do not think that an abundance of horror means that we should do away with the desire for accuracy.

swombat 13y ago

[2012] by Jimmy Carter (he's not writing about current events)

carbocation 13y ago
Everything he mentioned is still current and ongoing, but it's true that he could not be writing about Snowden's revelations, if that's what you mean.
dragontamer 13y ago
Dates on these sorts of things are very important. Good catch.
jetti 13y ago
It may not be current events, but as far as I know, very little has changed since he wrote it.
will_brown 13y ago
American citizens’ being targeted for assassination or indefinite detention, recent laws have canceled the restraints in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to allow unprecedented violations of our rights to privacy through warrantless wiretapping and government mining of our electronic communications. Popular state laws permit detaining individuals because of their appearance, where they worship or with whom they associate. Are you just highlighting that the article was written in 2012 or suggesting that because the article was written in 2012 it is not relevant or current? Or that the issues themselves, as mentioned above, are not current (ie. citizen target assassinations or NSA mining of electronic communications...that is so...2012)?
- icegreentea 13y ago
  It's important that it's written in 2012 because it means a) It is not just another 'oh gawd, gotta cash in on this PRISM fiasco' article b) It demonstrates that some level of awareness of issues and attempt at publicizing was always occuring. That is to say that it is a reminder that those of use reasonably well read/informed should not have been totally shocked when Snowden did his thing c) It's important because some people will question 'Why no mention of current events?'

tommi 13y ago

Jimmy is on to something here. It must be politically easier to support this view when there is an ex-president in favor of it.

abraininavat 13y ago
Jimmy needs to write something similar now, while the world and we Americans are paying attention.

dangoldin 13y ago

It's true when he wrote it but has also been true before 9/11. Most times the US intervenes in foreign affairs on behalf of economic reasons (Guatemala, El Salvador, Afghanistan, Nicaragua, etc) In the case of Nicaragua in 1984, it went up the UN courts with the US being found to encourage human rights violations but it didn't amount to much since the US sits on the security council. This is such a complicated topic that I really don't know whats the moral answer is. On one hand I don't believe we should be completely isolationist when there's so much going on in the world but on the other hand it's very easy to screw things up and impossible to predict the consequences. The best I hope for is having morally justified reasons for intervention rather than economically justified ones. Lots of interesting stuff at the following links: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_U.S._regime_change_actions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_U.S._regime_change_actio... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaragua_v._United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaragua_v._United_States

cpursley 13y ago
"On one hand I don't believe we should be completely isolationist" Agreed. But we (USA) should be non-interventionists. Isolationism is when you cut off economic ties and restrict travel in and out (think North Korea). Non-interventionism is when you stay out of other nation's political affairs (politics, war, economics).
- brazzy 13y ago
  And then something like Rwanda happens and everyone (quite rightly) asks why there was no intervention when everyone could see what was happening. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. And simple answers to complex questions come with their own problems.
  - userulluipeste 13y ago
    It matters what kind of intervention are you getting into. You can step yourself up as a mediator and act to prevent the conflict escalation and to reduce the damages, or you can just hand weapons to one (or even to both) of the involved opposite camps that will most surely not prevent the conflict escalation or reduce any damages. ...but now, which option is more profitable?

riggins 13y ago

while I like the sentiment, I don't think Carter's framing of the issue will be successful. right now the issue is framed as: sacrifice liberties = being 'tough on terrorists'. what's needed is some rhetorical jiu-jitsu. frame it as follows Non pants wetter = I'm not afraid of terrorists and to the extent I am afraid, I'll overcome my fears and take the risk of a terrorist attack to preserve our great american traditions. Pants wetters = everyone who's so afraid of terrorists that they'd sell out what it means to be american

mpyne 13y ago
Your improvement on framing the issue will be to call those who don't like working in skyscrapers with inbound aircraft "pants-wetters". OK, good job.
- riggins 13y ago
  I'm not trying to have it both ways. I used to be in the WTC on a weekly basis (although I wasn't there on 9/11). I don't expect anything from others that I don't expect from myself. I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here those who don't like working in skyscrapers with inbound aircraft "pants-wetters" obviously if terrorists have hijacked planes and are in the air, and you work in a potential target, it's reasonable to get out. That's what happened on 9/11. I'd note that IMO, airplanes flying into buildings can never happen again. 9/11 was a one-time shot which only happened because prior to 9/11 the consensus advice for how to deal with a terrorist hijacking was to 'not be a hero'. As you saw from United 93, that's a one-time window that lasted about 60 mins. Outside of reinforced cockpits and air marshals, I'm confident that we've got plenty of American heros who will die fighting before they let another terrorist fly a plane into a building. So if your claim is that everyone who works in a skyscraper is justified in sacrificing our most cherished American ideals because they're scared of a terrorist flying a plane into the building, we'll have to agree to disagree.
- gknoy 13y ago
  You're right. I'd prefer to call those who allow fear of terrorists to govern their lives (and political decisions) cowards. I would not want to insult those who wet pants by comparing them with such people.

vingt-2 13y ago

We're talking about a country which dropped two nuclear warheads on civilian areas. It's a shame and a delusion to even think that the US even once were a symbol of "moral leadership" with "consideration for human life". Edit: I know this sounds like a cliché and a simplistic point of view, but I think it's quite interesting to look at the US history with this in mind.

fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
We dropped the equivalent of many nuclear weapons worth of conventional bombs on Japan. http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/05/29/the_bomb_didnt_beat_japan_nuclear_world_war_ii http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/05/29/the_bomb_di...
nine_k 13y ago
[Flamebait warning] There's an ongoing discussion whether the use of nuclear bombs resulted in more casualties than a ground operation with conventional means would. Read about Iwojima, about Japanese schoolchildren being taught how to fight American soldiers on the streets. If you want an example of massive and pointless civilian casualties caused by Allies in WWII, take the Dresden bombing instead.
- vingt-2 13y ago
  I totally understand the strategy and absolutely don't rule out the fact that it may have saved more life than it brutally took. But it doesn't change the fact that one nation can make the decision to murder thousand of civilians in hope that it'll save (allies mostly) lives.
  - pekk 13y ago
    Of course, no nation other than the US ever makes this terribly fraught decision. The Axis, for example, always erred on the side of not hurting any civilians. And no nation other than the US today would do something that could even inadvertently hurt civilians.

cpursley 13y ago

I'm glad many Americans are beginning to discover this for the first time, but for many of us, this is old news. I mean, the entire nation (USA) is built upon the bodies of the Natives who's land was stolen or coerced from them and then built by enslaved peoples stolen from Africa (as the Marley song goes). The story of post-"discovery" North-America is the volition of human rights - this is nothing new. And granted, the situation is much better than it was in the 1700s/1800s. A little context goes a long way in terms of talking about anything from foreign intervention to NSA spying.

pdonis 13y ago
The story of post-"discovery" North-America is the volition of human rights The story of everywhere is the story of violation of human rights. If the USA's record is shameful, then the record of the rest of the world is even more shameful.
viggity 13y ago
I'm so fucking sick of the blame America first crowd. 1. every land has been invaded/occupied/taken over at some point in history. it is human nature. deal with it. 1.a. Would india be better or worse off today if it were not for British colonialism? It sucked for the people while it happened. But the world is a better place because of it. Do you hear the british complaining about the Roman's pillaging the country side? nay. As the Monty Python skit goes - "All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh-water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?" 2. the vast majority of native peoples were wiped out by disease, not by warfare. 3. I didn't fucking enslave anyone. nobody alive today in the US killed any native americans or owned any slaves. 4. America despite its many faults has been an overwhelming force for freedom and wealth throughout the world. A thorough cataloging of such good deeds could take years to compile.
- king_jester 13y ago
  > I'm so fucking sick of the blame America first crowd. Pointing out the true history of the United States is one of the best ways to learn from the mistakes of the past. Don't mad at people for talking about this, get mad that colonialism exists and its affects, past and present, continue to shape US society in the negative. > 1. every land has been invaded/occupied/taken over at some point in history. it is human nature. deal with it. This is no way excuses any injustice brought about via military and armed conflict/occupation. > 1.a. Would india be better or worse off today if it were not for British colonialism? I hear this sentiment a lot in various forms, that somehow people in the past who were violently and systematically oppressed and violated should be grateful to their oppressor. This is utter nonsense, the effects of colonialism are not over and continue to affect and harm those people you believe only to have been affected in the past. > 2. the vast majority of native peoples were wiped out by disease, not by warfare. This fact was exploited in warfare and policy against native peoples in the United States and this is not something that excuses violent invasion and occupation. > 3. I didn't fucking enslave anyone. nobody alive today in the US killed any native americans or owned any slaves. The legacy of colonialism and slavery still exist today and some kinds of people still directly benefit from that legacy. To deny that is the wipe the current day experiences and issues that affect native and black folks away so you can feel better about yourself/your country/your society. > 4. America despite its many faults has been an overwhelming force for freedom and wealth throughout the world. A thorough cataloging of such good deeds could take years to compile. This is debatable, however even if good deeds have been done, that doesn't change the history of the horrible things done by the United States and we should most certainly not forget that or ever stop talking about that legacy and how it shapes society today.

refurb 13y ago

I'm sick of the moral relativism that you see when people point out American's shortfalls. You see words like "undemocratic", "despot", "dictatorship" thrown around by people who have little understanding what those words mean. There is no doubt that America's past is stained with human rights violations. However, to hold up America as equivalent to the current regimes in China or Russia (to name just two) is laughable by anyone with an understanding of history. It comes from people who benefit from seeing a weaker US and these people chose to be ignorant because it advances their world view.

gohrt 13y ago
America's present is stained with human rights violations. USA is perhaps better at compartmentalize, so Internet commentators don't feel the pain of their fellow Americans of the underclass, more so than perhaps China, which as a wider lower class and smaller upperclass. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_incarceration_rate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_incarcerat...
king_jester 13y ago
> There is no doubt that America's past is stained with human rights violations. However, to hold up America as equivalent to the current regimes in China or Russia (to name just two) is laughable by anyone with an understanding of history. That other countries exist with their own violations of humans rights doesn't negate any kind of criticism about the United State w.r.t. human rights. You can be critical of more than one thing at a time. > I'm sick of the moral relativism that you see when people point out American's shortfalls. You see words like "undemocratic", "despot", "dictatorship" thrown around by people who have little understanding what those words mean. Many people have a good idea of what those words mean and the United State's actions and policies can most certainly be described with those words throughout various times in its history.
- refurb 13y ago
  I have no problem with people criticizing the US. In fact, it something that makes the US such a great country. US citizens should be holding their elected representatives' feet to the fire when they stray from the constitution. However, using words like "undemocratic", "despot" and "dictatorship" to describe the US cheapen those words and do a great disservice to the MILLIONS of people who have died under such regimes.

Cbasedlifeform 13y ago

Jimmy Carter is like fine wine -- he has improved with age. Not a great president, but he has turned into one of the greatest ex-presidents with his concerns for global human rights and humanity in general. Not for him a jetsetting life palling around with plutocrats and dictators, or smiling on the golf course with one of the Bushes.

gohrt 13y ago
This is because the Presidency is a position where it is difficult to good. Now, it is easy for Carter to push for good -- but his pushes carry far less weight. Unfortunately, a position's power is negatively correlated to the position's support for speaking of humanity's great concerns.
pekk 13y ago
It seems to be easier to do good in theory than to do good in practice.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

31aEuL4HEAg 13y ago

In one news report today (time.com blog), some US official tried to attack Snowden's legitimacy as a proponent of "transparency, freedom of the press, protection of individual rights and democracy" because of Snowden's choice of the countries through or to which he is said to be travelling. That reasoning seems rather weak. One might guess the Obama Administration is getting desperate. Behind the scenes, this president could be as bad as Nixon. He's better looking, a good speaker and generally likeable, but, like Nixon, he's hell bent on secrecy. What's he hiding? If it's nothing, then maybe that's eveidence that even innocent Americans can keep secrets and there's no need to spy on them. Anyway, following that US official's reasoning, every time some American visits, say, Cuba on their vacation, does that mean they do not support various principles of democratic society? I see more than a few comments suggesting Venezuela is defective in various ways compared to the US's democracy. But are they really that bad (what about all the countries who are worse?)... or does a certain government that needs oil more than any other on Earth (guess which one) have particular labels for Venezuela that aim to further the US's interests in (destabilizing or stabilizing a given regime) in order to get access to Venezuela's oil? Here's what Carter thinks about Venezuelan elections. He doesn't seem to think it's that bad. The voting part of their elections: "free and fair". The press: may be manipulated by best funded campaigns. But we see the same type of thing in the US, of else campaign funding would not be such a pertinent issue. http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/06/19/3460412/andres-oppenheimer-carter-will.html http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/06/19/3460412/andres-oppenhe... If you look on his foundation's website, you'll see them acknowledge there is no universal, worldwide definition of "a democracy". Look at the database they compiled on the countries they've studied. The concept of "a democracy" is a compilation of many factors, from many sources. Maybe democracy is more like a continuum of "less democratic" to "more democratic".

justaguess 13y ago

Here's what Carter thinks about Venezuelan elections: http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/06/19/3460412/andres-oppenheimer-carter-will.html http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/06/19/3460412/andres-oppenhe... The voting part: "free and fair". Does the US government want access to Venezuela's oil? Might they want to destabilize or stabilize a given regime there based on whether the regime is cooperative in giving the US what it wants? Would it make sense to portray Venezuela a certain way to Americans, in order to influence the public's perception and therefore their support of the US government's policies toward Venezuela?