Guantanamo Bay
The United Kingdom Attorney-General Lord Goldsmith presented a speech to the Royal United Services Institute on terrorism and human rights recently. He called the US-run detention centre, where Australian David Hicks is detained, a symbol of injustice. He said its existence “remains unacceptable”. Our Prime Minister naturally joined with the US government in rejecting Lord Goldsmith’s comments by saying:
Mr Howard told ABC radio: “Irrespective of what Lord Goldsmith, or indeed anybody else, may say, we make up our own mind about these things and that’s our position. We listen to what others say on these matters. We don’t necessarily agree with them on everything.”
I guess we will make our mind up when the Bush Administration informs us of what that will be.
Lord Goldsmith states clearly what Guantanamo has become
“It is time, in my view, that it should close. Not only would it, in my personal opinion, be right to close Guantanamo as a matter of principle, I believe it would also help to remove what has become a symbol to many — right or wrong — of injustice.
Let us not forget Mr Howard that if the Bush Administraton and yourselves were so sure of the legality of this detention centre, then I doubt Guantanamo would have become infamous. Afterall, it is in Cuba and off US soil for the very reason that there are doubts about its legality.
At our recent Churches of Christ conference AGM in Victoria and Tasmania a motion was moved protesting about this detention centre. The motion was moved with the reminder that these things are being done “in our name”. How true and how embarassing!
Read the full text of Lord Goldsmith’s speech here
May 12th, 2006 at 11:01 am
Unfortunately, so many of the US’s actions are also (erroneously!?) declared to be in HIS name!!
Heaven help us all…
May 12th, 2006 at 12:23 pm
But of course, the protest motion was accompanied by similar motions condeming genocide in Dafur; Al Quaeda’s continuing terrorism in Iraq; suicide bombings of civilians in Israel; the Iranian nuclear program; Castro’s imprisonment without trial of journalists, gays and librarians in Cuba; Robert Mugabe’s persecution of his own people; Persecution of Christians in Indonesia, China & most of the former USSR; the slave trade in Africa and Asia; UN peacekeepers raping and prostituting girls in places like Liberia & Burundi … wasn’t it?
Because you were talking about symbols of injustice.
I struggle with this issue a lot. Not because I don’t see anything wrong with imprisoning someone for 4+ years without trial (although, to be fair, a lot of the length of time has been caused by continuing appeals) - it is wrong, and that it is an injustice.
My struggle is that there is a world of real injustice and real evil that is getting forced off the TV screens, newspapers and websites because there is a target for outrage that doesn’t cause any pain to pursue.
There are only 2 jobs for the Christian in this world: Preach the Word and Live it. Our call to live as Christians is a call to highlight injustice, to comfort the oppressed and the fatherless, to visit the prisoner, care for the sick. We need to show love to the weak, poor and loveless because that is what we were before Christ saved us. It is not for us to pick and choose - it applies to both a girl sold into prostitution in South East Asia and to a terrorist wannabe held for too long in questionable circumstances.
As I said prior, the cause of David Hicks costs us nothing to pursue. It also has the added benefit of providing some fun government-bashing :-). My point is that there are other battles to fight right now, in defence of people who the world is ignoring. Joining in the world’s chorus of disapproval over the topic du jour doesn’t really set us apart.
My other struggle in this is that there is so much that needs to be done and I do so little. This comment is more about me throwing stones at my own glass house than anyone else’s.
May 12th, 2006 at 1:49 pm
Actually, the motion was accompanied by a number of other motions. It is also another in a long line of such motions that get presented by our social justice comm each AGM.
I guess I feel that the Hicks story is in the lime light at the moment and we should add our voice to the protests of others.
May 12th, 2006 at 2:08 pm
PZ - let’s add our voice wherever we can. i think Guantanamo Bay is a symbol of something much, much bigger than simply a person who is being detained beyond what is just. We need to speak out against this issue because if this continues, our country loses something of its soul.
for the same reason, i’ve been protesting for the last week about the government attempting to push through its legislation that will mean asylum seekers (only the poorest ones, of course - those who arrive by boat) will get sent to a detention centre on a pacific island for processing… which means asylum seekers will lose many of their rights under UN conventions, and that children will be put back into detention centres again.
both these issues are about the australian government dehumanising people. if we don’t say something, we become dehumanised ourselves.
May 12th, 2006 at 2:19 pm
There’s a group called Christians Against All Terrorism that have recently been chardged under federal laws for entering a prohibited area and taking photos on December 9 last year of Pine Gap. Donna Mulhern, a Christian pilgrim and former human shield in Iraq has been charged under the Defence (Special Undertakings) Act of 1952 with entering a prohibited area and taking photos . The charges carry jail terms of up to seven years and their use had to be decided by Attorney General Phillip Ruddock.
you can read more about it at my blog
I think that Christians need to get far more involved in action that informs peopoe about the attrocities that are occuring and that we, as citizens of a country involved in committing the attrocities, are actually implicit in.
I appluad the making of motions and the actions of peopoe such as Donna Mulhern http://pilgrimstoryteller.com/ former Human Shield and one of the people who are “Christians Against All Terrorism. as Donna says:
There’ a guy sitting in the back room of a smoky café in Pakistan planning a suicide bomb for London aiming to kill hundreds of innocent people. Its terrorism and we vigorously condemn it.
There’s a guy sitting in an air-conditioned computer room at Pine Gap, the US military base in Australia’s desert. He’s planning the manoeuvres of a jet bomber that will kill hundreds of innocent people in Iraq. Its terrorism, yet we remain silent!
May 12th, 2006 at 3:37 pm
All wrong is wrong, all injustice is injustice. None of us can fight it all, we must each do whatever we can. I don’t know how to measure one kind of agony against another, in reality, as an ordinary wife/mother/student i don’t even know all the wrongs that are going on. Some I’ve never heard of. But when I do know, I must respond in whatever way is open to me, according to my own equipping, or I become guilty of passing by on the other side. Having said that, i must agree that I, too, find particular offence when injustice and immoral actions are done in my name. i have never consented to any of these things, and I will make my dissent known whenever I have the opportunity.
May 12th, 2006 at 3:44 pm
Thanks Greg, I had a look at the pilgrimstory site and I can appreciate what Ms Mulhearn and crew are trying to do and their motivations, maybe not the methods.
Like I said prior, we’re called to address injustice everywhere. But I contend that there are far more evil governments in this world, doing far more evil things than ours.
By all means, let’s highlight where our governments fail, but …
I guess I feel that the Hicks story is in the lime light at the moment and we should add our voice to the protests of others .
Of course, but then the smaller voices don’t get heard.
On Hicks, it’s my prayer than he gets released and we find out he’s a misguided young man who got caught up in the wrong crowd. It would be awful if he turned out to actually be a terrorist psycho.
May 12th, 2006 at 3:54 pm
true
May 12th, 2006 at 6:29 pm
PZ - i feel a bit like we’re frogs in water that’s slowly being boiled. the government is gradually eroding away human rights, but it’s subtle and gradual, so we let them get away with it. it’s getting worse and worse each time.
(and let’s not forget who the south african government learnt apartheid from)
i’m not saying that we shouldn’t condemn other governments for the often unspeakable evil they commit, but when some of the leading human rights bodies in the world - Amnesty International and the UN - are condemning the current actions of the australian government, i think we need to be getting very concerned.
May 13th, 2006 at 1:33 pm
PZ,
you make a good point that there are countless issues that should offend Christians and provoke a thoughtful response.
However, there is something unique about G Bay. The issue is that a government and nation that have long held themselves up as a beacon of good in a world of evil, are doing something that most people would intuitively find “wrong”. It causes the same sense of outrage that happens when a policeman is corrupt, or a teacher abuses children.
Like it or not, the US (and other nations such as Aust) take a high moral ground on many occasions. This is fine - as long as we live up to it. When we don’t, we carry the additional burden of hypocrasy.
When I’ve travelled in developing countries and experienced corruption or other abuse, I knew it was no good. But if it happened in Australia, I’d be much more insensed, because we have long enjoyed the established order of rule of law and a generally transparent system.
So in that sense, it doesn’t surprise me that people are ready to hold the US to account for something like G Bay (even while hundreds of other newsworthy issues elsewhere go largely unnoticed).
I will agree with you on one thing - people do like to jump on a bandwagon! I don’t mind to much as long as the pollies notice the increasing number of voters who are vocal, and as result change gov’t policy to reflect the public will.
May 13th, 2006 at 11:26 pm
Cheryl & Rollsy,
Amnesty International has long stopped being an apolitical organisation. Remember the comparison of Gitmo to a gulag? Read http://www.babalublog.com/archives/002351.html for some perspective.
And the UN is dealing with a multitude of issues, from the 64billion Oil for Food corruption scandal to it’s history of covering up/ignoring sex for food & rape scandals in places like Liberia, Burundi, the Congo, Bosnia, Kosovo, East Timor and so on (lotsa links for this … google is your friend!). Nevermind the new Human Rights Commission is made up of countries like China, Cuba, Pakistan Russia and Saudi Arabia.
Both the UN and Amnesty Int., unfortunately, are bodies that I don’t place a lot of stock in. I wish I could but their high moral standards don’t seem to have resulted in being held to a higher level of scruitiny.
Australia and the US and the UK are held to a higher standard than other countries. By all means highlight where they fail. My comment is that too often this results in silence on other countries (greater) failures. And don’t think that it’s just these countries that take the high moral ground.
Plus, the many faults of the UN and Amnesty are minimised or excused because of all the good work that they do do. Yet US and Australia are pilloried for their faults, despite the good they do. Double standard, anyone?
I think every country should be held to the same high standards. Unfortunately I appear to be in the minority.
And I am well aware of how apartheid came about - it was developed by Protestants. Dont think that that doesn’t shame me.
I also note that apartheid was rightly condemned by the UN in 1973 - only 25 years after it became South African law. Unfortunately, Saudia Arabia is yet to be condemned for it’s persecution of anyone who isn’t, or converts away from, Islam.
But I guess Saudi Arabia is not being hypocritical about it.
Sorry if I’ve seemed harsh. There are many things going on in the world that make my blood boil, but the actions of my government aren’t one of them.
May 14th, 2006 at 9:49 pm
PZ et al: how we treat the least of society is piercingly relevant when we are trying to play a role as a global player, it is also a great indicator of our health as a nation.
Our record on asylum seekers and the mentally ill for example is not brilliant. We need to be highlighting our own stuff, not to beat down our country but to keep us accountable and to be able to act out of integrity.
As christian we need to be backing any and every initaitve that advances the causes of the poor, that’s my soapbox!
May 14th, 2006 at 9:59 pm
From The World Today transcript on http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2006/s1631512.htm
“Australia’s Catholic Archbishop, Cardinal George Pell has sparked furious reaction today with his description of the Muslim holy book as an incitement to violence.”
Before we get too carried away with smug righteousness, think about what motivates some of those interned at Guantanamo and other military prisons.
There seems to be reluctance for a debate about what Islam really is all about. The politically correct description that it is a religion of peace is simply a way to brush the issue under the carpet.
May 14th, 2006 at 11:44 pm
Donna Mull-up-hern is fat and ugly and a communist.
She shoud be put in Gutanamo Bay gaol for 100 years with electric wires & dogs & everything. She is just a Yank hater. Her type aught remember that if it wasnt 4 the Yanks we’d be Japs now.
The mooslims have sown to satan for centuries & are reaping hell. Bad luck eh?
May 15th, 2006 at 8:48 am
Donald Duck: Get Serious! “carried away with smug righteousness”. Have a think about things from the other side.
Let me ask you: If you had to characterise what Christianity stands for, from all you see in the media (and not from actually knowing any Muslims (do you count any as a friend?)), would you characterise Christianity as a “religion of peace”?
What is your answer?
May 15th, 2006 at 9:37 am
Jo Owen, I was going to say something similar - Our Christian texts can be sited in support of an argument that Christianity is a religion of violence and hatred of those that are different. Get yourself a copy of the world from Islam by George Negus and then we’ll have the debate on Islam. In fact - if we can have assurances from peopoe that we will treat all comments with respect and not attack the posters, I’ll invite some peopoe from Islamic organisations to come over and debate with us.
What do you reckon?
Demented Mars Bar - Donna is actaully very attractive you however look like this
May 15th, 2006 at 10:29 am
FYI, from the preable to the motion passed at the Conference of Chruches of Christ in Victoria and Tasmania:
“Concern for prisoners (the oppressed) was central to Jesus’ understanding of the mission of the Kingdom of God (Luke 4:18-19). And we are admonished to “remember those who are in prison as though you were in prison with them; those who are being tortured as though you yourswelf were being tortured (Hebrews 13:3). It is for these reasons that we cannot be indifferent to those who are in prison and are suffering inhumane and degrading treatment. This is even more the case when those who are suffering in tehse ways are suffering at the hands of those who are Australia’s partners in the Coalition of the Willing. Therefore we have both a Christian responsability and additional moral imperative as citizens of Australia to be concerned with what is happening at Guantanamo Bay and with the immoral practice of “extraordinary rendition”.
And yes the motion called for the release of “all political prisoners, including those held at Guantanamo Bay.”
May 15th, 2006 at 11:32 am
We’re stil not adressing the real issue of how unattractive demented mars bar really is
May 15th, 2006 at 11:39 am
Greg, you really need your eyes checked if you think donna is attractive. Unless you saw her wearing a burquar from a long way off. Id call her a horror head. Breaking into pine gap was a true criminal offence & frankly, if those yanks she hates so much were on the ball, they should have shot her while she was in the act. The SAS failed us all when they didnt pop her in iraq. Silly communist peacemonger. She isnt about Christianity, she is about anti-howard, anti-bush politics.
May 15th, 2006 at 12:16 pm
PZ said
“I think every country should be held to the same high standards. Unfortunately I appear to be in the minority”
i’m not sure why we have to pick only australia or other countries to focus on. can’t we do both? I absolutely agree with you about the high standards. just because other countries standards are lower doesn’t mean that we can let Australia’s drop.
of course, to see things that way means believing that what’s happening in G Bay, or with asylum seekers, is unjust. if you don’t, then this conversation is about the wrong question.
the point on which we differ, though (and i doubt we’ll convince each other), is that i believe i have a responsibility to speak out against the injustices of a government who does them in my name.
May 15th, 2006 at 12:33 pm
Nigel,
The motion was actually ammended from the floor to only focus on gbay as it was felt that it was too broad.
May 15th, 2006 at 8:43 pm
PZ,
Although I didn’t refer to the UN in my initial post, I’m glad you brought it up.
Sometimes the media, particularly right wing conservative media such as Murdoch’s, highlight the UN’s lack of success in various ways. The humorous side of this is that the govts that criticise the UN are inevitably the ones that are being scrutinised and criticised by the UN.
Saddam criticised the UN during Clinton’s era when it was criticized
Deng Xiao-ping criticised the UN during Tienanmin when it was criticized
Mugabe criticised the UN (and UK) during his most recent era when he was criticized
Bush criticised the UN during his terms …
… because during his term the UN had the audacity to live up to its first charter: to prevent the scourge of war. When Bush wanted to invade Iraq, he did so against the expressed will of the world (as offered by the UN, which is made up of the 5 permanent security members plus a forum of other nations).
Since that precedent, what difference does it make to Bush if he ignores the UN and the rest of world? His agenda is to best advantage the USA according his judgment and backed by about 30% of Americans who still agree with him. So if he wants a prison camp that defies international law, bugger the rest of the world, he’ll do it.
Perhaps this sounds innocuous enough … until China decides it’s in its best interest to reclaim Taiwan via military means. Or Nth Korea decides to “liberate” the south. Or Germany decides to show those pesky French once and for all. Or for NZ to get stroppy over losing a rugby game and invade Australia (once they find a few boats).
The reason the UN exists is because an individual at the helm of a govt can’t be trusted to operate unilaterally, as their agenda is intrinsically self-absorbed. Hitler gave them the idea, and so the UN was set up to prevent momentary farts on a nation’s political history (eg Hitler, Mugabe, Bush) from doing international damage.
If the UN has since been slow to act, does that mean its purpose is no longer valid? Or is there some wisdom to showing caution in crossing a sovereign nation’s borders and bombing a city? Even considering some tragic cases of slow response (eg Yugoslavia, Rwanda), I’d still rather have an international group that shows restraint when it comes to violence.
A lot of the criticisms that Fox News / the Republican’s make against the UN is that it is wasteful and costs a lot of money … they don’t highlight the fact the US is the largest unpaid debtor to the UN.
It’s an old smoke and mirrors trick: if someone makes a valid criticism against you, don’t worry about defending your position, just criticise the criticizer and muddy the waters. When Kerry, a war hero, criticised Bush for dodging the draft, instead of making a legitimate response, all of a sudden “Swift Boat Veterans For Truth” lobby group emerged, not to answer for Bush, but simply to try to discredit Kerry.
When people read a criticism of the UN, they should look at the agenda of the media or spokesperson and see if they’re really just trying to misdirect attention away from a legitimate criticism the UN is making.
All things considered, the UN does an excellent job and without it, the world would simply answer to the mightiest power of the time. Right now: USA. Next generation: China? Russia? A one-Euro govt? Someone else?
In a rare moment of cross-cultural understanding in 1945, war wearied nations put their differences aside to say “never again should one person act in defiance of world opinion”. While some of these countries aren’t my cup of tea, I like the check and balance that happens when they are accountable to each other in the UN theatre, rather than the theatre of war.
Whoa … long post … sorry.
May 15th, 2006 at 8:51 pm
Countries don’t behave morally, people do.
Countries behave strategically in the interests of the wealthy and powerful (these usually go together). Laws are made to facilitate the smooth and safe operation of society to benefit this situation. A natural consequence is occassional immoral activity by state agencies.
It requires a huge amount of effort to reverse this natural order, and the results are almost always temporary in nature.
May 15th, 2006 at 10:23 pm
I just want to say that my intentions weren’t to disagree with anyone’s posts here, because I don’t really … I just see things from a different angle.
I see Australia as one global player among many, and the club is filled with dirty players. If we took my position and concentrated on other countries, the law of human nature would mean the Australian government would slip further down the slippery slope. As as democratic population, it is, after all, our duty to hold our government accountable.
Rollsy, I like your comment (despite it’s length
). I could argue about the opposite point of view, say, the left-wing cheerleading for the UN, but that’s really just continuing arguments that belong elsewhere, and will probably never be solved.
My prayer is that Jesus comes again soon, so that there will be no more sickness, or pain or sorrow, and that justice will be dispensed to those on my shit-list (Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Che Guevera, Mugabe …).
Note: I fully expect the Lord to be both more merciful and more vengeful than I could imagine. I’d like a job as senior adviser in areas of justice, but He’ll probably keep His own counsel.
Now, can’t we slip into some Hillsong bashing instead?
May 16th, 2006 at 12:25 am
PZ -
I was hoping for the senior advisor role! Spose I should concentrate on getting to heaven first.
May 20th, 2006 at 4:22 am
I think this mans story of rendition is exactly why the UN wants to close Gitmo
http://donkephant.blogspot.com/