Land of the free, with exceptions
Posted by: aman on: November 28, 2007
- In: Democracy| Media| News| Opinion| United States| War on Iraq
- Comment!
The highly delusional state of the US populace would be mildly entertaining, were it not for the gravity of the situation and the respect of basic human rights and the tenets of International law and democracy. United States is called the “land of the free and home of the brave”. Bravery, it seems, has taken on a different meaning. It now means invading a country that caused no harm to the United States and dropping cluster bombs from high up in the sky and killing civilians. And “land of the free” means, you can hold a journalist for 19 months without laying any charges because he dared to publish pictures and stories that the objective (pun intended) embedded journalists never cared to show.I am talking about the AP journalist Bilal Hussein who has been in custody for 19 months without any charge whatsoever. From this report in the Washington Post:
Bilal has been imprisoned by the U.S. military in Iraq since he was picked up April 12, 2006, in Ramadi, a violent town in a turbulent province where few Western journalists dared go. The military claimed then that he had suspicious links to insurgents. This week, Editor & Publisher magazine reported the military has amended that to say he is, in fact, a “terrorist” who had “infiltrated the AP.”
We believe Bilal’s crime was taking photographs the U.S. government did not want its citizens to see. That he was part of a team of AP photographers who had just won a Pulitzer Prize for work in Iraq may have made Bilal even more of a marked man.
In the 19 months since he was picked up, Bilal has not been charged with any crime, although the military has sent out a flurry of ever-changing claims. Every claim we’ve checked out has proved to be false, overblown or microscopic in significance.
And if the above sound ridiculous, it doesn’t stop there. Now suddenly the military is going to charge him with something. Yes, something. What the charges are won’t be discussed, not even with his lawyer.
And there’s still some more, as if the above wasn’t enough. According to this report by Associated Press:
The Pentagon also raised the possibility that Bilal Hussein, who was part of the AP’s Pulitzer Prize-winning photo team in 2005, could continue to be held even if the Iraqi court acquits him.
So why have a trial at all? Why not just hang him like Saddam with a puppet court.
USA is indeed the land of the free and home of the brave. Shameful!!
5 Responses to "Land of the free, with exceptions"
November 28, 2007 at 2:02 am
White Raven:
How did the war start? By soldiers on the ground or by dropping cluster bombs? Dismantling infrastructure and killing civilians while targetting the army can’t be called “bravery”. Invading a country that caused no harm to the US can’t also be called bravery, a point that you conveniently left out from your comment lest anyone question you about the WMD.
That isn’t what he is accused of, you say. Well, so what is he accused of?
In the 19 months since he was picked up, Bilal has not been charged with any crime, although the military has sent out a flurry of ever-changing claims. Every claim we’ve checked out has proved to be false, overblown or microscopic in significance.
He isn’t accused of anything for 19 months. The US military doesn’t know what charges to level. I guess you have some insider information, that I am not privy to.
I am not trying to hide anything else I would not have provided sources for my assertions. However you didn’t cite one source when accusing Bilal Hussein of aiding terrorists. I will repeat your question to you.
November 28, 2007 at 3:47 am
What the hell do you think bravery is? Some for of stupidity or something? We use bombs because they WORK. And we have the courage to put boots on the ground when bombs aren’t what is needed. Are you seriously objecting to our methods because we had the common sense to soften up the opposition before entering the lion’s den? With every word you utter you demonstrate a complete lack of credibility. A military campaign is conducted to be victorious, not meet some romantic notion of bravery and honor.
The purpose of the invasion of Iraq was to topple a violent dictator and more importantly, to introduce a peaceful, civilized new nation into the heart of a chaotic and violent region that is acting as an engine of terror and oppression throughout the world. Islam is long overdue for reformation just as was necessary in Christianity centuries ago. But today, bombs and jets and the internet make the danger far, far greater. That necessary reformation is impossible in the oppressive and violent Middle East. And as amply demonstrated by the campaigns to violently impose Islamic rule on nations as far-flung ans Malaysia and Indonesia in addition to places like Lebanon, militant Islam is not a local problem nor is it merely a reaction to perceived wrong… it is a fanatically held religious faith that threatens all people.
Iraq is a point of leverage. It possesses comparatively educated and secular population but was also led by a violent dictator and possessed a severely weakened military. Saddam’s past bad acts made him politically vulnerable. Of course, in an ideal world, the UN would have forced Saddam to step down. The perfect scenario would have had the UN using the US a rabid guard dog on a leash, threatening to let it loose if Saddam did not step down voluntarily and perhaps dissolve the Bath party. But of course, too many nations like France, Germany and Russia were far more interested in oil than in peace.
Yes, that is what I said. The insane accusations made against Bush concerning “blood for oil” not only aren’t true, they don’t make a lick of sense. If oil was the goal, America would have simply lifted sanctions in exchange for lucrative contracts to private American companies. THAT would have made sense if oil was the goal. You know… take the French rout; ignore all other considerations, ignore the growing dangers of militant Islam and just do business as usual.
The WMD issue was one of the reasons that Saddam was politically vulnerable. And it was all based on very simple observations and an awareness of Saddams habits and tactics. Nothing improper or deceptive was involved. There were no lies. The fact that very little has actually been found does not invalidate the logic of the position. Yes, Saddam DID attempt to procure yellow cake from Niger. The fact that an unqualified and biased “investigator” like Wilson did not come to the same conclusion is immaterial.
Bilal is accused of aiding terrorists. So, your statement is manifestly false.
Yes, you are hiding something. You are hiding the *substantive issues of the occupation*. No mention of the threats posed to the world by militant Islam’s intent to violently impose Islamic law on the world. You are hiding the entire point of all of this. Rather than talking about building a new nation, you sneer at bravery and ignore substance.
November 29, 2007 at 3:27 am
White Raven:
Yes, I am questioning the tactics. Calling it bravery is an insult to intelligence. Attacking a nation which posed no threat to the United States and knowing fully well they were in no position to defend themselves against the mighty US is not bravery. Bravery would be to put soldiers on the ground and try to ensure (not guarantee) that a single civilian was killed. However, what was done was cluster bombs were dropped from thousands of feet in the air even though it was understood quite explicitly that they would kill civilians.
The purpose of the invasion of Iraq was to topple a violent dictator and more importantly, to introduce a peaceful, civilized new nation into the heart of a chaotic and violent region that is acting as an engine of terror and oppression throughout the world.
Convenient. Very convenient. When Bush went in, it was for WMD. When they weren’t found, it was about toppling a dictator. You might be interested in watching this video, where Bush effectively says, we went in to remove the threat that was caused by Saddam and we can’t get out because of the threat caused by the absence of Saddam. Circular logic is not logic.
And if it was indeed about toppling dictators, why the support for Saudi monarchy and Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak. Why hasn’t Egypt or Saudi Arabia been invaded yet. And if it was about WMD, why hasn’t North Korea been invaded yet? The midget dictator is shouting from his rooftop saying he has WMD. Should I say, because there is no oil?
Lifting sanctions for oil- Guess what? That would not have worked. Saddam was converting his oil into Euros from dollars and Venezuela and Iran and doing the same. I won’t be in the least bit surprised if Iran is invaded next to prevent the toppling of the Dollar as the world’s currency.
Bilal is accused of aiding terrorists. So, your statement is manifestly false.
I guess you know something the US military doesn’t and therefore they haven’t levelled any charges in 19 months.
The ridiculousness of your argument is nothing but humorous.
[...] such as holding a journalist from a Pulitzer prize winning AP journalistic team for 19 months without any charge alarmed you, that was only the tip of the [...]
Leave a Reply
Bookmark it
Digg World News FEED
- The Decade in 7 Minutes
- Going to the beach, Iranian-style
- Court Hears Debate On Life Terms For Minors
- Iran charges three detained Americans with espionage -
- Nose Piercing Gets 12-yo Utah Girl Suspended From School
- Anne Frank diary offends Lebanon's Hezbollah
- Fort Hood Shooter Tried to Contact al Qaeda Terrorists, Offi
- Why fundamentalism will fail
- NYPD takes on Indians to halt billion-$$ flow
- LA Sheriffs Unlawfully Detain Photographers' RIghts Advocate
November 28, 2007 at 1:03 am
This post lacks elementary credibility. You speak of dropping cluster bombs but ignore the tens of thousands of soldier on the ground, walking patrols and often coming under fire and sometimes dieing. This absence of perspective of course served to highlight your further bias in describing the Bilal Hussein. Your glib accusation that he is being held “because he dared to publish pictures and stories that the objective (pun intended) embedded journalists never cared to show.” is a willfully ignorant statement that ignore what he is actually accused of… that is, aiding terrorists responsible for the deaths of countless civilians.
If you want to sway people, squandering your credibility in your first two sentences is a really lousy tactic. If you genuinely feel that Bilal is completely innocent and that his detention is a method of cover-up, make that case without heaping on so much incidental and ultimately inaccurately venom. By focusing on “cluster bombs” and ignoring the thousands risking their lives… what is it you seek to hide?