Senior US Officials Cozy up to Dictator Who Boils People Alive

[poncho]

Independent human rights groups estimate that there are more than 600 politically motivated arrests a year in Uzbekistan, and 6,500 political prisoners, some tortured to death. According to a forensic report commissioned by the British embassy, in August two prisoners were even boiled to death.

The US condemned this repression for many years. But since September 11 rewrote America's strategic interests in central Asia, the government of President Islam Karimov has become Washington's new best friend in the region.

SOURCE

 

[LadyEagle]

From the Official Embassy of Uzbekistan to the United States web site:

Improvement in human rights now a top government priority
As the security situation in Central Asia improves and Uzbekistan pursues its goal to integrate more closely its civilization, culture and economy to Europe, the government of Uzbekistan continues its deliberate pace of improving human rights practices. Officials have repeatedly said that the government "views the ensuring of human rights and freedoms of its citizens as its highest priority."

The government has taken steps across a broad range of activities in the last three years.

To strengthen the legal basis for human rights practices, the parliament has adopted more than 120 laws and ratified more than 60 international treaties on human rights, including six major United Nations human rights conventions. The government is integrating universally recognized norms of international law into national legislation. Various government agencies are developing action plans to implement major provisions of international human rights instruments.

Moreover, a number of national human rights institutions have been established, including the Constitutional Court, the Ombudsman's Office, the National Human Rights Center, the Institute for Monitoring of Current Legislation, a Parliamentary Committee on Democratic Institutions, as well as non-governmental organizations (NGOs). The Ministry of Justice has established a special department on the protection of human rights.

Since 2002, the government has been pursuing widespread reforms of the court and judicial systems, and liberalizing criminal law. In August of that year, adoption of major legislation made substantial changes to the system of criminal law and court practice.

Among these were significant changes in sentencing. For some crimes, penalties were changed to avoid arrest, detention and imprisonment. This has dramatically decreased the number of convictions resulting in imprisonment. According to government figures, in 2000, the number of convictions resulting in imprisonment was about 47 percent. By 2003, that number had dropped to about 35 percent.

In addition, the government of Uzbekistan annually grants a number of amnesties. Since 1997, the government says, nearly 200,000 people have benefited from its amnesty programs. As a result, the rate of imprisonment as a percentage of population in Uzbekistan has dropped to 184 per 100, 000, the lowest rate in the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS).

The death penalty, once provided for in 35 articles of the criminal code, has been eliminated in all but two: terrorism and premeditated murder. It should also be noted that the Uzbekistan government has about 3,000 criminal cases pending concerning taxation and currency violations.

Prison reform is also advancing. Uzbekistan is providing the international community unprecedented access to its prisons and jails. Human rights organizations, other NGOs, and the diplomatic corps have made numerous visits to the country's penitentiaries. For example, in 2001 the International Committee of the Red Cross made five spot visits to prisons; in 2003, it made over 50. In late 2003, President Karimov signed a decree easing restrictions on family visits for first time offenders of lesser crimes.

Last month, the Cabinet of Ministers announced the formation of an interagency task force to study issues concerned with the observance of human rights by law enforcement agencies and improve legislation pertaining to this area. In close cooperation with a number of international partners including embassies and NGOs, the government is developing an action plan to implement the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. That plan was signed by the prime minister March 9, 2004, and incorporates recommendations by UN Special Rapporteur on Torture Theo van Boven.

In a Brussels press conference in late January, 2004, Uzbekistan's Foreign Minister, Sodyq Safayev, said that "For the first time, the Uzbek civil code has a special article which recognizes torture as a crime. Fifteen people from the interior ministry were convicted and brought to justice for committing violations of human rights."

Source:

http://www.uzbekistan.org/social_issues/

 

[poncho]

Uzbekistan

Country Reports on Human Rights Practices - 2004
Released by the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor
February 28, 2005


Uzbekistan is an authoritarian state with limited civil rights. The Constitution provides for a presidential system with separation of powers between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches; however, in practice, President Islam Karimov and the centralized executive branch that serves him dominated political life and exercised nearly complete control over the other branches. On December 26, elections were held for seats in the lower chamber of the Supreme Assembly (Oliy Majlis) that fell significantly short of international standards for democratic elections. The Constitution provides for an independent judiciary; however, the executive branch heavily influenced the courts and did not ensure due process.

Source:

U.S. Dept Of State

The government has made no visible progress on ending the use of torture in practice and only minimal progress on implementing the recommendations made by the United Nations (U.N.) Special Rapporteur on Torture after his visit to Uzbekistan in 2002. The Supreme Court issued an instruction to judges to exclude defendants’ testimony and confessions extracted under torture. In practice, however, judges do not implement this instruction. Although the government states that it has prosecuted law enforcement officers for torture and other illegal methods, Human Rights Watch has received no response to its request for further information about theses cases. Judges routinely accept as evidence testimony and confessions in cases where torture is alleged as well as base convictions solely on confessions made by defendants during the investigation. Human Rights Watch continued to receive credible allegations of torture in investigations and pre-trial custody as well as in prisons

Human Rights Watch

In Uzbekistan, domestic radio, television and print media are subject to close government scrutiny and censorship.45 There is no national independent news coverage. The import of most foreign newspapers, magazines, and broadcasts is blocked. Locally broadcast, foreign-run radio programs are available only to a limited degree, as the government assigns them frequencies that are difficult to find on most modern radios. Government control of local newspapers, radio, and television assures the Karimov government a twenty-four-hour vehicle for the propagation of its views. The government re-monopolized access to the internet after a brief period of decentralization, giving it the capacity to more closely monitor communications and to restrict access to web sites. The vast majority of Uzbeks have no access to cable television, which broadcasts foreign news programs.

Human Rights Watch

 

[LadyEagle]

Thank you, Poncho. Of course, you probably already know, we needed to use Uzbekistan as US military bases to launch the war in Afghanistan. Plus, there is the oil and the Baltic Sea business. Yesterday's enemy is today's friend and tomorrow's enemy, etc., as per usual US Foreign Policy. We will certainly have a lot to be judged for as a nation one day.

 

[ASLANSPAL]

If the United States would form a manhattan
style project before we lose all our best and
brightest because of the race to the bottom.
We could solve our energy woes...and not have
to make deals with the devils and put lipstick
on those pigs.

Perhaps this guy in Uzbekistan has reached the
Saddam threshold and now we can invade him...
not!

 

[poncho]

Always gotta be on the lookout for another good boogeyman. Besides dictatorship's and Communist countries make better business partners. Just look at all China has done for us.

 

[gb93433]

I wonder what the pastor in NC would say about voting for Bush if he read this article?

 

[poncho]

Originally posted by gb93433:
I wonder what the pastor in NC would say about voting for Bush if he read this article?

What's his email address?

 

[Pastor Larry]

Perhaps this would be a good opportunity to explore the necessity and limits of strategic alliances for various reasons. They are a fact of life, even in our lives, where we accept certain things we don't like because of the necessity of it. For instance, late on a Friday night, we will buy a 2 liter of Sprite at a very high price at a nearby convenience store because one in our family is sick to their stomach, even though we would never buy it there under normal circumstances. Their selling of alcohol and pornography make it distasteful to shop there, but the need of the moment demands a "strategic alliance." We make these kinds of choices every day.

How do those kinds of choices play out in international politics where the stakes are much higher?

 

[poncho]

Perhaps this would be a good opportunity to explore the necessity and limits of strategic alliances for various reasons.

Whose reasons, the American citizens or the globalists?

They are a fact of life, even in our lives, where we accept certain things we don't like because of the necessity of it.

I don't think I'm ready to accept what I see as hipocracy on the part of "our leaders" that send our best and bravest men and women to die fighting to remove one tyrant they coddled for years while their kissing up to yet another tyrant.

For instance, late on a Friday night, we will buy a 2 liter of Sprite at a very high price at a nearby convenience store because one in our family is sick to their stomach, even though we would never buy it there under normal circumstances.

This may be true but, it's been normal operating procedure for our government to align themselves and our money with tyrants for quite some time now.

Their selling of alcohol and pornography make it distasteful to shop there, but the need of the moment demands a "strategic alliance." We make these kinds of choices every day.

I have a choice when I walk into the store and buy and bottle of soda pop. I can choose to walk past the alcohol and pornograhy and not spend my money on it. I'm there to buy a bottle of soda. Not to befriend the guy selling pornography and alcohol.

How do those kinds of choices play out in international politics where the stakes are much higher?

So far the choices our courageous leaders have made in international politics have been to befriend tyrants, give them cash money, look the other way while the commit atrocities on their own people, then wage war against them when the political timing is right. There is a pattern.

Set em up and knock em down.

BTW, congrats on your moderatorship Pastor Larry.

 

[Pastor Larry]

So should we not "befriend" Musharref in Pakistan because he can help us get Bin Laden? Why can we not, to use your words, "choose to walk past the alcohol and pornograhy (or other human rights violations as in the case of international relations) and not spend my money on it"? Why can we not be "there to buy a bottle of soda (or an international benefit)" (again using your words). Why is it acceptable to do business in the community with someone who degrades women and endangers families by selling pornography and enslaves and endangers people and families by selling alcohol because you are "buying a soda," but in the international world where things are much complex it is wrong to overlook human rights violations (that often aren't as bad or dangerous as porn or alcohol)? Can you help me understand your reasoning there?

To me, international relations are not always black and white, nor are they consistent. Someone who might serve our interest in one period might harm them in another. Consider WWII, where Russia fought with us, and indeed had they not, the Allies would have lost the war. But as soon as the war was over, they turned against us and started a 45 year cold war. Did not the best interests of the US and the world at large demand cooperation with the Soviets, even to the extent of backing off outside of Berlin so they could be the first to enter?

To be honest, I am not sure how that all works out. Far brighter people than you or I have to make these decisions. It just seems to be a little less than cut and dried.

Thanks for your congratulations ... I have been a moderator for several years however. Perhaps the label just changed under my name.

 

[poncho]

So should we not "befriend" Musharref in Pakistan because he can help us get Bin Laden?

Of course, it is in our national best interest to "befriend" dictators and terrorists. They make for great assets when we are fighting against dictators and terrorists.

Apologies, I never have been able to understand doublethink. Maybe it's just me.

WWII is a favorite example of those defending internationalism. Perhaps one should study WWI first. If it wasn't for the international treaty system in place at that time the war would not have become global and Hitler would not have had a "reason" (treaty of Versailles) to start WWII. Hitler's Third Reich was by the way financed by European banks and some American as well. There again, settin em up and knockin em down. Who really benefits?

I assume Satan benefits, he gets what he wants, death and destruction and another step closer to world government. I assume the finaciers benefit, they get to keep the spoils of war and tighten control of the monetary system. I assume our government and others benefit because they can increase their power and control over the citizens, not to mention increased funding.

But how do the citizens benefit?


How can we as a nation tell the world we will not stand for tyranny and abuse while the record shows that we have time and time again supported it in the name of liberty and "democracy" no less?

We wave our flags and support our leaders. Send our children of to war to die and be mangled while our leaders are selling our national sovereignty and surrendering our constitution to unelected global bureaucracies in one "agreement" after another.

And here we set. Defending their actions with doublethink.

Can you help me understand your reasoning there?

Probably not.

Thanks for your congratulations ... I have been a moderator for several years however. Perhaps the label just changed under my name.

I just noticed it. Congrats just the same.

 

[Pastor Larry]

But Poncho, isn't "doublethink" exactly what you do when you walk in a store, go past the porn and alcohol, to buy your soda? You are supporting a guy who does something you don't like (I presume you don't like porn and alcohol) because he has something you do like. How is that different than when it is done internationally? It seems to me that you are admitting that buying something does not imply support or total endorsement. I would say the same thing about many international relationships. Why wouldn't you?

 

[poncho]

Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth.

Source Of Quote


I think I agree with you on this one Pastor Larry. Best to stay out of the store all together than to make up excuses as to why one went in there in the first place.

 

[poncho]

Doublethink means, according to George Orwell's dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four:

the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them. ... To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies—all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth.

I admit I'm guilty of holding two or even more contradictory beliefs in my mind. This isn't hard to do in todays society, I reckon. I've been working to correct this for sometime now however.

I believe I've made some positive steps in this direction, it wasn't to awful long ago that I wouldn't have even considered questioning our leaders motives at all!

 

[Pastor Larry]

I think I agree with you on this one Pastor Larry. Best to stay out of the store all together than to make up excuses as to why one went in there in the first place.

Actually, I don't think we necessarily need to stay out of the store. If I were, it would be because of 1) high prices relative to convenience and 2) if the store was known primarily as a porn or liquor store. Most convenience stores are not that. I actually believe that one can have a profitable relationship with someone or some country who is not perfect, but who can serve a need ... for instance, Pakistan. The fact that we use them, or build a relationship in one area, does not mean that we endorse other areas.

For instance, the fact that some voted for Bush doesn't mean they agree with him on everything. Nor is it likely that Kerry voters agreed with him on everything. Nor it is likely that Peroutka voters agreed with him on everything. What it means is that there was sufficient similarities given the current state of affairs to make a working relationship beneficial.

I think we do this every day and in fact, I think it is impossible to avoid it.

I think "doublethink" sounds very Orwellian, and is about as useful ...

 

[poncho]

For instance, the fact that some voted for Bush doesn't mean they agree with him on everything. Nor is it likely that Kerry voters agreed with him on everything. Nor it is likely that Peroutka voters agreed with him on everything. What it means is that there was sufficient similarities given the current state of affairs to make a working relationship beneficial.

Okay I think I get it now!

So what your saying is that just because we disagree with the practices of a cruel dictator or a terrorist oraganization that has a record of abuse, torture and murder. That we should be able to overlook these traits because the big picture tells us we really need those bases in order to launch attacks against another cruel dictator that has a record of abuse, torture and murder because we found it easy to overlook his record of abuse, torture and murder becasue we really needed his help in fighting against another cruel regime that had a record of abuse, torture and murder because we outsmarted ourselves by replacing a cruel dictatorial regime that had a record of abuse, torture and murder with a puppet regime and the people gave them the boot and replaced the puppet government we installed with a cruel dictatorial regime and cut the supply of oil to our friends. Is that about right?

 

[poncho]

Massacre in Uzbekistan

Up to 500 protesters feared dead. Ex-ambassador accuses UK of failing democracy movement
By Stephen Khan and Francis Elliott in London and Peter Boehm in Tashkent
15 May 2005


Hundreds of protesters are reported to have been gunned down in bloody clashes with government forces that have ravaged eastern Uzbekistan.

SOURCE

 

[OldRegular]

The Guardian and Amnesty International can not be considered to have the best interests of this country at heart.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Maybe we can go and have a war to remove him from power some day, after he out lives his usefulness to us?