I Agree With Russia (On Syria)

Absolutely.

I agree with Russia.

I actually should not venture my opinion at all because I don't read enough, know enough, or understand enough, and I am not even psychicly gifted enough to feel like I intuit things correctly.

My sense though, before I had ever heard of anything going on with Syria at all, was that it was another attempt to oust a long-time leader to implement a new "world order" (correct!) by a very determined group.

It is not that I approve of killings, or slaying, or violence against the people at all because I would be the first to say I know how it is to be oppressed. But since when do world country leaders get removed, and picked off, one by one, just because someone in the U.S. and Holy See doesn't "like them"? They are not changing any structure to benefit the people--they just want different leaders in, with the same amount of power, to benefit THEM.

The U.S. talks about removing Syria's "terrible President" while they are terrible and tyrannical themselves to allow and conduct torture against their own citizens, on their own soil, for almost a decade. They don't stand up for the rights of children in this country, and use Child Protective Services as a weapon of war.

It is not even as if Russia is saying *nothing* should be done. They are actually, if I read the article correctly, saying they will not sign it unless there is a proviso that states military harm will not then occur. As it did with all these other Middle Eastern and other leaders--the only one who did not get confined to lie in a cage displayed for the world, tortured, and beat to death, was one who stepped down from his "post" voluntarily (thought it wasn't really voluntarily).

So the principle is this--is that what we do now with other country's Presidents and leaders? We don't even plan "hits" of assassination any longer, secretly within intelligence realms...now we openly force leaders to just leave their seats?

Who is telling the Obama administration and CIA to leave their seats? Who is telling Robert Mueller to leave his seat for the torturing of U.S. citizens? Strange how they will tell other leaders to leave their posts and resign their leadership, but no one is daring touch the U.S. on ANYTHING.

The U.S. IS one of the biggest violators of Human Rights. Too many of the other countries are brown-nosing for favors with the U.S. and overlooking this fact.

So knowing nothing, having no training or education to be following this well enough, my initial idea is that YES, the UN should impose sanctions on any country that is terrifying its citizens and NO, they should not use violations as an excuse to remove leadership.

What if another country comes in and stirs up problems and creates a mass casualty and then while they make it appear as though it's citizen-driven and a citizen crisis, they use this as an excuse to get rid of a leader?

I think all that Russia is saying, is maybe they agree but include something that provides for the protection of the leader so that they are not put into a monkey cage that looks like an open coffin and carried into court, or tortured in prison, or beat up by a bunch of thugs over the hood of a truck.

If someone is responsible for torture and casualties, they should be held accountable but they deserve trial first, not torture and assumptions that everything is being ordered by that person.

I feel its like my opinion that it is not possible for a prisoner to consent to being a research experiment in jail. The principle is that even if you don't like the group or the prisoner, you have enough common sense to consider how it might affect things for yourself, your own country and people anywhere in the world, by precedent.

The U.S. has this huge HUGE debate about "end-of-life" assisted death but they don't even put experimentation of prisoners on the front page.

The entire debate about euthanasia, is that creating a law that allows "the ill" to commit suicide or be physician-assisted to die, leaves a huge room for corruption, violation of rights, and even murder. If it's doctor-assisted, and the patient is that ill, who is to say the patient is psychologically capable of deciding to die? it sort of benefits those who might come into an inheritance and those doctors who want to "off" someone and look so very compassionate at the same time. If you're being compassionate, give them the painkillers they need and encourage them. Allowing legal suicide is a great way to legally target a vulnerable population. Death With Dignity?

So we have this enormous debate about the possible consequences of making suicide legal.

Just imagine if the Madame who held the black book on politicians had been ill with lung cancer and wanted to die with "dignity" (her doctor said) instead of being hanged (in a so-called "suicide"). Anyone could threaten other family members and commit abuses even, to pressure someone to die.

The question about manipulation of the vulnerable is the same and possibly worse with someone who is in jail/prison. The U.S. (and other countries) have used prisoners in the past for illegal research experiments. It's a confined and contained way to control all the other causal...forgetting the word, where you have to do an experiment and control all factors and figure in factors that could affect outcome...Variables. How many "variables" are there in prisoner populations or psych ward populations once they're there? You may have to account for their past medical history or habits, but once they're there, there are few "variables". They are confined and "great subjects for controlled experimentation!" Not only that, most people don't care about them because they think prisoners "get what they deserve". So there goes the legal liability.

By claiming a prisoner has "voluntarily" consented or offered to be a research subject, the State or doctors might hope this absolves them of liability and gives them greater freedom to do research that cannot be hidden from the patient or prisoner. For example, you drug their food, they might not know. If you try using them for psi and MK-Ultra style research or torture, they might notice (obviously) and tell a family member or friend.

There is NO SUCH THING as "voluntarily consent" when one is already a prisoner. Someone who is in prison is in duress most of the time, and not free.

It leaves the door wide open for pressuring someone and forcing them to "volunteer" or otherwise be tortured anyway, without having signed the "I consent" form.

I was tortured in Knoxville, TN detention holding facility. They didn't ask for my consent. They didn't have to, did they? so when I notice they are using me as an experiment and say something, that leaves room for "reports" to go out among prisoners to the media, family, friends, about what is going on. They could have kept torturing me there and even had me sign a consent form to be a "volunteer". How was it possible for me to control whether they tortured me or not? I wasn't free. I was trapped.

When you're trapped, you might do things that are not things you'd choose to do, just to avoid worse.

I think it's odd that no news journalist or lawyer or ACLU has even made this a topic to fight legally. Why?

Maybe because they just don't care. It's not them, so who cares.

So the vulnerable and human rights are only worthy of mention if one is a free man? because I guess in the U.S. we have a different constitution and bill of rights for the ones the U.S. takes to be their modern-day slaves.

Not everyone who is in jail is even guilty.

So my point is that, on principle, it is wrong and illegal to "allow prisoners" to be "volunteers of experiments" that harm them or are degrading or where they have little other choice, not because "I think this is a good guy" or "I am looking out for his group" but because it's in the best interests of everyone, and retains a framework that protects human dignity and rights.

For the same reason, on principle, I think that even if the Syrian president is truly guilty of doing horrid things, he should not be ignored or allowed to continue and the UN should act, but they should also act while considering the impact of precedent and the slippery slope.

It's like the U.S. hoping a wanted person ends up in a country that will deport a suspect back to the U.S. For example, when this wikileaks guy was served with a charge in Sweden or wherever, he left to England. Not saying the man is innocent. However, the unfolding of potential can't be missed because the U.S. wants their hands on Assange (right?) and if he gets sent back to a country that will deport a person back to the U.S., the U.S. gets the guy. It's using one legal method or hoping one legal issue and decision will then pave the way for something else to occur.

Is the UN prepared to force the U.S. President out of office?

What if I'm not the only U.S. citizen being tortured? I think it's particularly bad for my family, but what if there are at least 6,000 others?

Has anyone put sanctions on the U.S. out of respect for the human rights of U.S. citizens that are being tortured here? Men, women, and innocent children.

It's bad enough that they didn't even torture my son and try to hide it. They flaunted it publicly. Almost the entire community knew and anyone could see. No one did anything except mock me and make a point of causing my distress by parading my son around me with evidence of torture on his body and knowing I was controlled and helpless.

That is torture. It is torture in the 1st and then it is flaunting use of torture openly to psychologically torture family members.

Who is telling Biden you'd better step aside son, or we have a nice metal cage coffin waiting for you.

So I am just wondering why Hillary Clinton and the Department of State even want to pretend like they care about people from other countries. They don't care about their own citizens, so why care about human rights elsewhere?

Is it like the Gates? Monopolizing everything, cutting out fair and healthy competition and then wanting to plunk a chunk of "goodwill change" into a public forum hoping everyone notices and thinks they are "good" and "charitable"?

For me, if you are destroying your own country and citizens by ignoring laws and putting in religious hate criminals, I hesitate to think you are such a saint and philanthropist and "real go-getter on human rights issues."

That's not even saying I don't believe in democracy or capitalism or whatever either. If this country was only about survival of the fittest and most brutal and rich, we wouldn't have laws about monopoly and anti-trust. The idea is to encourage healthy competition. Not squash the competition and not allow sick and deranged competition. That is set against the idea that regardless of economic and political competition and keeping religion separate from state, no one has to fight and scramble for their right to not be tortured. It's "liberty, justice, property, right to pursue happiness" for all, not just the rich or non-rich and select. Not only does the U.S. allow monopoly now, and practice it, they allow monopoloy of the human rights and give select populations full citizenship rights and deny this to the rest. They allow others to use their influence to bribe people to use the courts and law enforcement and CPS to punish people, torture them, and push them to work for them in forced labor. They create econommic "sanctions" against their own citizens by breaking the law and obstructing education, justice, right to children, right to not be tortured.

I think Russia is also protecting some of their own interests because of their actions in Georgia and I don't know what the issue was, but there were massive casualties and Georgia brought this to the UN and Russia told them to stay out of it.

Which is *possibly* analagous to the US trying to tell the UN to stay out of investigation of torture of U.S. citizens and attempting to remind them about who gives them the most money for UN victims of poverty and injustice funds.

I'm not sure about Georgia because I don't know the dynamics there either, if it was back and forth between them or what.

And with Syria, I haven't followed it either, but I do believe where civilians are tortured or killed or violated within their own "state", if they signed a treaty holding themselves to the UN international law, they should be prepared to answer any complaint and UN members should take action to protect the victims.

And in our situation, I don't really think it's Obama directly but people around him that are responsible for our torture. I would still give Obama a chance to make a decision on a matter involving torture of my family.