RoR: Forum

Dear Objectivists,
I’m writing about a subject that disturbs me. The silence and sanction of the detention centre at Guantanamo bay. And the disregard of foreign/Islamic life.

I did a search on this website for the 8 top Oist sites, what immediately came up was ‘Muslim opinion be damned’ by Alex Epstein, and outrage at amnesty internationals comparison of the Guantanamo bay naval base to the soviet gulag by Edward Hudgins.

What the hell is going on? I thought the objectivist philosophy and it’s practitioners where supposed to be champions of human rights, and freedom.

Where’s the campaign, and articles about the immorality and illegitimacy of the military trials? http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/18738prs20041104.html
The indefinite detainment without charge? Lack of due process? Outrage at people who are being held which US admits aren’t guilty, but due to them being arrested they are unable to go back to their own country? The refusal of the US to release an official list of detainees? The refusal to give media and human rights groups private interviews with detainees? Use of torture? http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=966&sid=1a009c8ae4a0b1bbac73bd4ad9721873
What about Bush rejecting the call for the Geneva convention to be upheld? This is a blatant admission that unless humane treatment is legislated, the Bush administration won’t voluntary treat people with humanity.

How can you proclaim to be champions of freedom when you don’t speak out against such a blatant violation of human rights?

The incredible belief that the only way to combat terrorism is to occupy, overthrow and install governments in the middle east, also disturbs me.

How about a war on the arms dealers instead? Seriously, how about a systematic American military war on the arms trade? How are they going to be a threat to us with sticks and rocks? Instead of going to war with a country and having to inevitably kill innocent civillians, how about simply cutting off the reason why they’re a threat? Regardless of the propaganda peddled by some Oists, the root cause of terrorism is arms. For them to be able to classed as terrorists, and be able to influence and threaten a country through coercion, they require weapons. Weapons are the root cause of terrorism.

I’m sorry to say that I have the distinct impression that the only human lives that matter to Oists are those of capitalists (promoters and practitioners), Americans, the non-religious, and Israelis.

My view is strengthened by this;
Q: Assume a war of aggression was started by the Soviet Union; assume also that within the Soviet Union, there were many that opposed the aggressive work of the ruling group there. How would you handle that type of problem?

AR: This question is so blatantly wrong that I cannot understand how anyone can entertain it seriously. It assumes that an individual inside a country can be made secure from the social system under which he lives and which he accepts (because he hasn't left the country). It is the idea that others must surrender to aggression—in other words, be goddamned pacifists, who won't fight, even when attacked, because they might kill innocent people.
(Osama bin Laden agrees http://rebirthofreason.com/Articles/Bachler/They_Worship_Death.shtml )

In Soviet Russia, there aren't very many innocent ones—and they're mainly in concentration camps.

If you could have a life independent of the system, so that you wouldn't be drawn into an unjust war, you would not need to be concerned about politics. But we should care about having the right social system, because our lives are dependent on it—because a political system, good or bad, is established in our name, and we bear the responsibility for it.

Or if they try and leave the country they will be killed, or they have family they don’t wish to leave behind, or they are disabled, or they are elderly, or they are reliant on medical supplies/technology to sustain their life, or they are mentally ill/retarded, or they are trying to start a political revolution in their country, or they are imprisoned, or they are unable to get across the borders of another country.

I don’t see how because one doesn’t leave a country one supports everything a government does, and therefore it is morally justified to bomb the government, and any civilians who might get in the way. Presumably the Jews are also to blame for the Nazis regime.?

Where is the respect and demand for human rights?

Post 1

Thursday, March 2, 2006 - 6:32pm

I assure you that if I were to use force to defend individual rights, I'd immediately be imprisoned for the rest of my life. I do my best to learn how the world works and increase my resources, so that I can make myself and the people I benefit from are free from initiation of force.

What specific actions would you suggest I do?

I think you are generalizing that all Objectivists have the same ideas, and that anyone who calls themselves an Objectivist is an Objectivist or is portraying the best ideas out of the philosophy.

Also, look, I don't currently have the influence, power, resources to change the country towards a more capitalist one. There are currently too many people who have accepted altruism.

I think the US is currently the best place for me to live. Where else would you suggest I live? To what degree do you think that I, Dean Michael Gores, am responsible for all of the actions of others in the US and especially the government/militaries actions?

Post 2

Thursday, March 2, 2006 - 6:34pm

Weapons are the root cause of terrorism.

That is false. People who choose to do terrorism are the root cause of terrorism.

Post 3

Thursday, March 2, 2006 - 6:48pm

The incredible belief that the only way to combat terrorism is to occupy, overthrow and install governments in the middle east, also disturbs me.

I think its a good strategy, I'm just not so convinced that it is being implemented as well as it could be. I think my country should be peaceful with other countries for the most part. But when a foreign government begins destroying the individual rights of its own citizens, or promotes and causes such a thing to happen, or destroys the individual rights of myself or the people I love, or promotes and causes such a thing to happen, then its time to knock out the government and put in place something that is more laissez-faire capitalist.

Hint hint to individuals across the world: if your own government starts destroying individual rights of yourself and your loved ones, then its time to maintain a more laissez-faire capitialist government! Its always time to read and execute the The Declaration of Independence! : )

Edit: of course its never time to go to war if you expect to loose! : )
(Edited by Dean Michael Gores
on 3/02, 6:49pm)

Post 4

Thursday, March 2, 2006 - 7:18pm

Skinner - I suggest you read Thomas Barnett: www.thomaspmbarnett.com regarding the whole war on terrorism, what it really is and should be, and the plus and minus of current policies.

The Geneva Convention does not apply to non-nationals and those out of uniform. In fact, spies and saboteurs (such as terrorists) may be executed if they are caught behind enemy lines.

Human rights groups are doing nothing to help the people being enslaved by the millions and instead are more concerned with attacking the only Nation that is actually doing something to help.

Post 5

Saturday, March 4, 2006 - 12:37pm

First of all, admin could you put the title; Guantanamo Bay to this thread I forgot to add a title, sorry. Thank you.

Dear Dean Michael Gores,

your first post didn't make sense to me, but I think you were referring to the quote of Ayn Rand's that I put in the post (it's in italics).
Also the root cause of terrorism... a person's decision, true. But to have the capacity to be a terrorist, that is to coerce government policies via force, you have to have the means to be a threat, and that requires arms.

The case for the Iraq war that Bush and Blair presented to the public, has been disproven by US and British Military intelligence. They also ignored the UN weapon inspector's request of more time, the coalition had the largest mass protest in history against them. Regardless of your view on the legitimacy of the war and the UN, the coalition looked arrogant and imperialistic in their push to execute their plans. They not only ignored the pleas of their citizens and the UN, but also the Muslim community.
Regardless of the thoughts of some right wing and Objectivist thinkers, you cannot ignore public opinion on such a widespread scale. The islamic extremists, use the idea of the US arrogantly trying to impose their beliefs on people who hold their religion to poach recruits. People who see their peers bombed, imprisioned indefinately, and tortured by the coalition are going probably going to view the actions as imperialistic. Opinon matters when it comes to foreign policy, people will try to kill you for a perceived wrong action, and this does nothing to convince them they are wrong, the coalition dind't even try to convince and listen to their own military advice and public opinion. In Iraq there are groups prone to violence to spread their beliefs, who will be inevitably perceived by the US as a threat, are going to be in control of Iraq, when the US pull out. The war really looks to have changed nothing regarding the threat to the US, democracy doesn't necessary mean a government friendly to US interest, an Islamist theocratic party will probably be voted into power.

What is your view on the naval base at Guantanamo Bay? What is your view on amnesty internationals campaign for arms control?

Dear Kurt Eichert,

Thanks for the link.

Regardless of to whom the legislation of the Geneva convention applies to, due process should be applied to everyone by the US government voluntarily. Guantanamo bay and Abu Gharib are display hypocrisy of the highest order.
Amnesty international provide extensive research and news on human rights abuse by anybody who infringes on them. They are probably the foremost defenders of human rights, and they have a campaign against arms dealers who aid in totalitarian regime dominance..

What is your view on the naval base at Guantanamo Bay? What is your view on amnesty internationals campaign for arms control?

Amnesty international's control arms campaign http://www.controlarms.org/

Post 6

Saturday, March 4, 2006 - 7:08pm

Mike Skinner-

Welcome to RoR. One side note first - please use a larger font size when posting, your post was rather hard to read. Thanks.

Your points about killing innocents or detaining people without due process are valid. If you're an anti-war Objectivist, you aren't alone - but expect some disillusionment upon realizing you're in the minority, at least when considering the most prominent Objectivists. (And if you aren't an Objectivist, don't write us all off as pro-war.) Brook, Peikoff and apparently even Rand herself unfortunately have at times made rather collectivist statements in their otherwise understandable eagerness to philosophically defend their country. However, Objectivists certainly do not all agree with some principle such as that a nation's government initiating force immediately makes all its residents legitimate targets.

I disagree completely with your focus on weapons rather than their users though. Amnesty Intl is valuable in so far as they focus on concerns of people unjustly imprisoned, but I've always been a bit leery of the group since any member I've met was a screaming leftist, with no principled respect for rights or liberty. This arms control campaign appears to be more confirmation of that. Weapons can oppress people - or weapons can defend or liberate them.

With regards to terrorism, if the obviously unrealistic case of the world's supply of AK-47s and similar weapons magically disappearing happened, it wouldn't mean a thing for the supply of fertilizer, fuel oil or airplanes. Even outside your strict scope of terrorism (Amnesty's view appears to concern broader violence), I don't see how focusing on guns instead of people would account for hundreds of thousands dead by machete twelve years ago.

Post 7

Saturday, March 4, 2006 - 9:40pm

What is a weapon? Pretty much anything can be used as a weapon. Yes, some are more effective then others. The idea isn't to dis-arm everyone. The idea is to dis-arm the individuals that infringe on individual rights. Dis-arming everyone creates a whole bunch of helpless innocent people. I'd prefer that most people were armed.

Post 8

Sunday, March 5, 2006 - 4:52am

Dear Aaron,
Thank you for the welcome. My focus on weapons is to limit their ability to be a threat, your part about machete's was very interesting, and I'll stress I'm not about universal disarmament. I believe that for a totalitarian regimes to have such control over a population requires a well-armed millitia , Middle east, China etc.

Of course as you correctly point out airplanes, and other readily available items can be used as tools. However, to me it is clear that if we limited the effectiveness of the weapons that are available, the effectiveness of their dominance would be diminished. I not saying that is the only course of action we should take to combat terrorism, but it is part of a solution.
Actions such as US financing of Islamic Militants in Afghanistan led to this situation we have now (Zbigniew Brzezinski admits this).

What is your view on the detention center at Guantanamo Bay?

Dear Dean,

What is your view on the detention center at Guantanamo Bay?

Post 9

Sunday, March 5, 2006 - 7:51am

Re: Gitmo - It would be valid as a detention center - if and only if it lacked torture and prisoners were afforded typical due process - ie. their incarceration is known, legal representation available or provided, habeas corpus honored, and a speedy trial assuming there's enough evidence to hold them at all.

Post 10

Sunday, March 5, 2006 - 3:47pm

Mike Skinner,

My view is: I am extremely concerned that the government is wasting tons of resources on innocent individuals, and destroying the lives of innocent people. I really wish I could know whether each of the prisoners were criminals.

I think the camp would be useful for taking in prisoners whom are most certainly murderous force initiating terrorists, but only if they have information that would be useful for ending more terrorism. I am not in all cases against torture. Lets say we capture a man such as Saddam Huissan, and we are absolutely certain he has information about where some of his murderous brothers are. I would be OK with Saddam Huissan being tortured until his brothers were captured. Then after he has no pertinent information, I think it would be best to end his life. Or I don't know. Maybe it would be best to continually torture Saddam Huissan until he becomes brain dead? It would be a nice warning to other dictators such as Kim Jong II and Fidel Castro. What the heck?!? Why do we still allow them to be in power? Too many pacifists, people that think its OK for the government to make its citizens slaves, but not OK for outsiders to remove them from power by force. They should be removed from power ASAP.

Post 11

Sunday, March 5, 2006 - 4:57pm

What the hell is going on? I thought the objectivist philosophy and it’s practitioners where supposed to be champions of human rights, and freedom.

Define "human rights", so that I'll know you possibly understand O'ism.

Post 12

Monday, March 6, 2006 - 12:51am

Dear Mr. Skinner,

I am in disagreement with the set, Guantanamo Bay (GB) precedent. I believe -- whole-heartedly -- in Individual Rights and a Transparent Rule of Law. It is the ONLY way forward for humanity. This means that all folks ought to be treated like folks (ie. no "special" privileges/detainments). That said, if the "folks" at GB were involved in terroristic acts -- then they should fry like bacon strips in a skillet.

Unfortunately, I am not privy to the kind of information that would allow for a dissenting voice. In other words, if we've got good evidence that the folks in Guantanamo are dastardly (and should, therefore, fry -- like bacon does), then I don't have a good argument against their subsequent sizzling. However, it pains me to acknowledge the fact that I don't have this material evidence.

Some folks may claim that we need to be covert and that we need to, purposefully, cloud an otherwise-transparent rule of law -- when performing this type of law enforcement. I am not one of them. Be sure, we need justice -- but do we need blind trust in leaders to carry it out (with "privileged" information)? There is a conundrum -- I'll grant you that.

A lot has been written about being "guilty until proven innocent" -- and I'm of the nature to oppose such human dealings. That said, I support racial profiling -- if only on a statistical basis. I just don't support multi-year detainment of unconvicted persons -- and I don't think that the Founding Fathers would either.

GB is an evil, but I am not sure that it is not a necessary evil (and I'd need more privileged information to make that conclusion).

Ed
[It's possible that GB is entirely moral, though this is not likely true]

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 3/06, 12:53am)

Post 13

Monday, March 6, 2006 - 5:06pm

Ed wrote,

GB is an evil, but I am not sure that it is not a necessary evil (and I'd need more privileged information to make that conclusion).

There is no such thing as a necessary evil. If something is evil, then it's not morally necessary; if it's morally necessary, then it's not evil.

The 6th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him, to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Article I, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution also addresses this issue. It states:

The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.

"Habeas corpus" is Latin for "to have the body." So, if the government has you in detention, then the Writ of Habeas Corpus means that the government has to justify keeping you confined. It can't arbitrarily confine you to prison without informing you of the charges and without some initial evidence of your guilt.

- Bill

P.S. I'm starting another thread with the title "Guantanamo Bay" and will be inaugurating it with this post, so that others can access the discussion more easily. Evidently, it isn't possible to edit a thread's title, and since the original poster, Mr. Skinner, neglected to add the subject name and wanted Admin to do it, I think that starting a new thread with this title is the only reasonable alternative. Of course, those who want to read the previous posts will have to access the original nameless thread, but they'd have to do that anyway.

(Edited by William Dwyer
on 3/06, 5:20pm)

(Edited by William Dwyer
on 3/06, 5:26pm)

Post 14

Monday, March 6, 2006 - 5:40pm

Link to Guantanamo Bay thread.

Post 15

Tuesday, March 7, 2006 - 12:28pm

Dear Kurt,

You present an argument that I disagree with profoundly. The world probably would be safer if we locked people up indefinitely and tortured them to obtain confessions based on suspicion, . That is not however a country that can claim to be champions of freedom, and a police state isn't something that deserves to be defended (I'm not advocating terrorists attacking the US BTW).

Everytime Rumsfield is questioned on the detention centre he tells us that they are; the worst of the worst, people who will kill US citizens if released etc. But the facts don't support that assertion. Very few charges have been brought against the 450+ detainees, according to this lady it is 10 in total http://www.amnestyusa.org/askamnesty/live/display.php?topic=50 .

Everytime an infringement of human rights are legislated, perpetrated and found (torture, indefinite detainment, Patriot Act, various acts in the UK, ID cards in UK), the same 'to protect us from terrorists' argument is repeated and repeated. Here's maybe a controversial statement; I don't want to be that safe. If my safety is depended on circumstances such as the detention centre at Guantanamo Bay, and the infringement of freedom by various acts passed in the UK (I'm a resident)... I don't want it.
I don't want my safety to depend on this http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR510072006 , http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/19913leg20050712.html

If you do have concerns about the dentention centre please...

email President Bush; president@whitehouse.gov

email Tony Blair; http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/page821.asp

If in U.S. email senators; http://www.senate.gov/general/contac...nators_cfm.cfm

If in U.K. email your MP; http://www.locata.co.uk/commons/

Post 16

Tuesday, March 7, 2006 - 1:53pm

Look Skinner - according to the agreed upon rules of war, if we capture the enemy during the course of the war, we can detain them until said war is over. That is not a violation of their rights and we don't have to charge them. We didn't release the Germans we captured until the war was over, and that took years. So why then is it a problem when these folks were captured during the course of a war? There are, as I said, some areas that could use some clarification, but to treat them as if they were someone the police caught is an absurdity. It is not the same, and if Europe continues to hide its head in the sand, you will be whinging about rights until the moment your own muslims come and cut your heads off.

Post 17

Wednesday, March 8, 2006 - 8:47am

Well, to play devil's advocate - this is a 'forever' war - so this, by you, amounts to eternal incarcaration.....

Post 18

Wednesday, March 8, 2006 - 9:56am

I don't think it needs to be a "forever" war at all. Once things are stabilized in the area they come from or sufficient time has past, then they should be released (or charged). I am not trying to defend everything being done, and I do think that the whole Geneva convention thing needs to be re-done to reflect today's realities, but I also emphatically believe that the standards simply cannot be as high as US civilian standards are... and that does NOT mean all standards are thrown out the window and anything goes, either! Once standards are in place, this issue can settle down because what is needed now is some measure of transparency - in other words when no one says what the standards are, people are free to imagine all sorts of horrors, so it is to our benefit and everyone else's to create new standards that will be known.

Post 19

Wednesday, March 8, 2006 - 3:38pm