Since 9/11 and the subsequent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, new forms of terror have become part of the risks of day to day operations for overseas military personal, reporters and foreign workers. Kidnappings and how to deal with them have become a more normal occurrence. The days of beheading for shock value and political gain have been mostly replaced by demands for money. This has extended to the coast of Somalia where pirating is rampant in search of the ultimate ransom.
On Friday a video was released to show that the Americans have a different problem on their hands. Pfc. Bowe Bergdahl was captured in Afghanistan 6 months ago by Taliban forces. US Army officials were upset at the insensitivity of the video being released on Christmas Day and the use of a prisoner for propaganda purposes. The Taliban are interested in a prisoner swap.
How will the United States respond? Will Bergdahl's parents have to travel the world looking for world leaders to take up his plight? Will they have to plead for the Red Cross to demand that his Geneva Convention POW rights of visitations by the Red Cross and contact with his family be granted? Should there be a prisoner swap? What is a fair trade? Is 1000 terrorists for 1 soldier a good deal? What if they have killed American cvilians and/or soldiers? How many need to be released just to confirm he is alive? How about just sending all prisoners from Guantanamo Bay back to their families for a heroes welcome? Will Bergdahl's plight factor in to the Mid-Term Elections? Will Barak Obama hold regular meetings with Bergdahl's parent's to update them on efforts to get their son home? Will the released prisoners kill again? Will there be massive rallies demanding the US Government do more to help gain his release? Are US soldiers leaving graffiti after military operations to let him know that they were there and they were looking for him?
These are ridiculous questions. The story barely made the news. Israel has been dealing with these type questions for 3.5 years over kidnapped soldier Gilad Shalit. He is being held by Hamas the defacto government in Gaza. He has been denied access by the Red Cross and denied communication with his family. Both are major violations of the Geneva Convention. Shalit's parents have travelled the world trying to build the political resolve to free their son. The price of his freedom still sits at 1000 criminals, including terrorists with blood on their hands. The on and off again negotiations got so serious at one point that Israel released 4 prisoners just for the video tape to prove that he is alive. The entire nation is yearning for his return home. It is the only reason why anyone would even be willing to entertain the prospect of such a ridiculous and potentially dangerous trade.
The United States, European Union and others who enjoy condemning Israel don't understand how important it is for Gilad Shalit to safely return home. If only they put a fraction of an effort into caring about this issue instead of trying to turn up the heat on Israel over petty issues. They would get far more cooperation on issues they see as critical in the region. Those who cannot even relate to this major issue cannot possibly relate to what Israel needs to receive in return to go along with any other peace process. Putting more pressure on Israel does nothing to address these issues. It only strengthens her resolve that Israel needs to protect itself because when push comes to shove nobody else will.
Showing posts with label Iraq. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Iraq. Show all posts
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
Friday, March 13, 2009
Does the Shoe Fit?
In Canadian politics there have been many incidences that could have been major issues. They range from a pie in the face, to a Prime Minister being defended in his own home by his wife with an Inuit statue, to a pie in the face, to people eating their electoral ballots. The Canadian psyche has been to downplay the significance of these events. No harm, no foul and good for a laugh.
The case of Muntadhar al-Zeidi, who through his shoes at George Bush would have fallen into the same category. The fact that shoe throwing has become a popular form of protest around the world adds to the amusement factor. Even George Bush was willing to shrug it off when it happened.
Then the lawyers and the courts got involved. All of a sudden they are dealing with serious charges. Someone attempted to physically assault a foreign dignitary, who happens to be the President of the United States. This is the frame of mind the court took when the handed out a 3 year jail sentence. It appears that the courts only showed leniency because of his clean record and age rather than in reality it was really a minor incident.
The arguments put up by his defence team are quite disturbing. What is more disturbing is that these arguments have been picked up around the world and are being used to justify other acts of violence. He told the judge that it was a natural response to the occupation. This seams to be a growing trend. Any action can be justified by blaming the situation around them. It is amazing that in the entire country he is the only one who was forced by the occupation to throw his shoes at politicians. It is still better than bombing civilians or military personal. In some cases Aboriginal groups in Canada have turned to blockades to fight for their land claims. They seem to be getting more violent. Can they now blame the 'occupation', if they choose to attack police officers or others that stand in their way? How far can society go with 'natural responses' until enough is enough. Why can't people take responsibility for their own actions.
The most unusual argument was that Bush was not on an official visit and therefore just an ordinary visitor (who happens to be President of the United States). If his actions were motivated by the occupation what difference does it make if an official invitation was issued? Is it normal to throw shoes at other people?
The most ironic argument was that his actions should be protected under freedom of speech. Tariq Aziz was sentenced to 15 years in jail for his role in the execution of 82 merchants. They were guilty of price fixing. Without, the liberation of Iraq Aziz actions would have gone unpunished. Sadam Hussien tested chemical weapons on his own people and was executed for murdering 148 people in response to an assassination attempt. Does al-Zeidi really believed that his freedom of expression would have been protected if he decided to throw a shoe at Saddam Hussein. The death sentence would have been carried out quickly.
This incident was relatively minor and the court should have taken that into consideration. His justifications for his actions should not be used to condone what he did. He should have never done it. This incident is minor enough to justify a more lenient sentence.
The case of Muntadhar al-Zeidi, who through his shoes at George Bush would have fallen into the same category. The fact that shoe throwing has become a popular form of protest around the world adds to the amusement factor. Even George Bush was willing to shrug it off when it happened.
Then the lawyers and the courts got involved. All of a sudden they are dealing with serious charges. Someone attempted to physically assault a foreign dignitary, who happens to be the President of the United States. This is the frame of mind the court took when the handed out a 3 year jail sentence. It appears that the courts only showed leniency because of his clean record and age rather than in reality it was really a minor incident.
The arguments put up by his defence team are quite disturbing. What is more disturbing is that these arguments have been picked up around the world and are being used to justify other acts of violence. He told the judge that it was a natural response to the occupation. This seams to be a growing trend. Any action can be justified by blaming the situation around them. It is amazing that in the entire country he is the only one who was forced by the occupation to throw his shoes at politicians. It is still better than bombing civilians or military personal. In some cases Aboriginal groups in Canada have turned to blockades to fight for their land claims. They seem to be getting more violent. Can they now blame the 'occupation', if they choose to attack police officers or others that stand in their way? How far can society go with 'natural responses' until enough is enough. Why can't people take responsibility for their own actions.
The most unusual argument was that Bush was not on an official visit and therefore just an ordinary visitor (who happens to be President of the United States). If his actions were motivated by the occupation what difference does it make if an official invitation was issued? Is it normal to throw shoes at other people?
The most ironic argument was that his actions should be protected under freedom of speech. Tariq Aziz was sentenced to 15 years in jail for his role in the execution of 82 merchants. They were guilty of price fixing. Without, the liberation of Iraq Aziz actions would have gone unpunished. Sadam Hussien tested chemical weapons on his own people and was executed for murdering 148 people in response to an assassination attempt. Does al-Zeidi really believed that his freedom of expression would have been protected if he decided to throw a shoe at Saddam Hussein. The death sentence would have been carried out quickly.
This incident was relatively minor and the court should have taken that into consideration. His justifications for his actions should not be used to condone what he did. He should have never done it. This incident is minor enough to justify a more lenient sentence.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)