Topics include Israel/Palestine and the fence, Iraq, Afghanistan, domestic policy, human rights, social justice, activism, racism, homophobia, gay marriage, and other general social issues that have plagued society for the past decade at least.
The PDF linked below is of a report prepared by Robert Goodis for a class in 2008. It has been reformatted, but has not been formally reviewed since submission for academic credit. Because of it’s relevant topic, it is being made available under both the personal & academic writings section of this blog and the section reserved for The Goodis Center.
In the drafting process, this paper was entitled Police Use of Weapons and Force in the United States of America: A Review of Human Rights in Law Enforcement and Relevant Policy. This PDF bears the official title, Human Rights and U.S. Policy Review: Law Enforcement Use of Conducted Energy Devices.
While I will try to keep my personal posts based upon reliable and accurate information, I encourage readers to investigate all of these matters on their own. Do not take the words of this blog to be the truth. This is not the gospel – it is just something to think about. At the same time, I wouldn’t be posting it if I didn’t think it weren’t worth discussing (which is why I’ll also play Devil’s advocate as needed). Comment, reblog, critique, discuss at-length, or just read it and shrug.
Human rights are a contentious and volatile subject. Throw in culture, politics, war, famine, genocide, civil rights, and everything else tied to human rights – all the things that make the world go round – and you’re bound to come across a variety of different viewpoints.
Basically, I’m poking the bear.
Why?
Why not?
Let’s see what happens…
I invite you to join me.
“Bears are lovely creatures that often hibernate and are, for the most part, non-violent. However, when poked, bears can become quite angry. As such, it’s always best to not poke the bear.” – Wikipedia
These are just a few quick points that need to be made. Consider them, if you will.
From the New York Times article, ‘You Have Atomic Bombs, but We Have Suicide Bombers.’ from 19 October 2009, by David Rohde: “One evening, Abu Tayyeb declared that the Taliban treated women better than Americans did. He said women in the United States were forced to wear revealing clothes and define themselves solely as sex objects. The Taliban protected women’s honor by not allowing them to appear in public with their faces unveiled.”
From a CNN report,U.S. won’t join landmine ban, administration decides, from 24 November 2009, by Charley Keyes: “The United States is the only member of NATO that will not sign the landmine treaty, Goose said. Russia and China also have not joined the 156 nations that have endorsed the ban, he said.”
The United States has claimed to triumph human rights. These articles are just a faint glimpse at our failures to support human rights and human advancement. It is time for change.
These videos were prepared by the Brave New Foundation. These are the six parts to the recent documentary, Rethink Afghanistan.
I cannot personally make any guarantee as to their claims, and I remind any viewer that these films are made as a part of a campaign with specific political goals. That said, this documentary is very well-done and thought-provoking.
Part One: More Troops + Afghanistan = Catastrophe
Part Two: Pakistan: “The Most Dangerous Country”
Part Three: The Cost of War
Part Four: Civilian Casualties
Part Five: Women of Afghanistan
Part Six: Security
DVDs of the full documentary can be purchased here.
These videos are not affiliated in any way with Robert Goodis or The Goodis Center. As a personal statement, I have decided to include them here to encourage thought and discussion on important matters. Please refer to the website of the Brave New Foundation’s Rethink Afghanistan campaign for further information and discussion at http://www.rethinkafghanistan.org/.
While I personally agree with the approach of this series, I find it problematic that there is little given in the way of positive or constructive criticism. It is certainly true that we need to rethink and reconsider our current wars, but it is unfair only to condemn the efforts and not to suggest any way to achieve a positive result for the parties. In my personal opinion, acknowledging that I do not have first-hand knowledge of this matter and that I have not put in any extensive amount of research, I think it is naive to suggest that a humanitarian effort could be safely carried-out in Afghanistan without security forces. Still, I see no reason, as the film points out, to send in more combat troops. Further, I find it atrocious that we still carry out air-strikes in Afghanistan, after their repeated catastrophic effects, and that we are one of the few remaining nations in the world that continues to use landmines. The American people and the American soldier need a better cultural understanding of the area, and they need to be in dialogue with the locals to find out what they need and what they want. I think it would be a mistake to turn our backs on the situation, but I also think that a stronger military presence is not the right approach.
The logic offered by some of the strategic generals – that a troop surge in Afghanistan would give insurgents a way to quit with dignity – makes sense. But non-aggressive alternatives need to be tried first, especially given the improbability that any surge would actually work. This war, in the way it has been executed this far, needs to end. It is time for a new strategy. It is time to start making allies and building a supportive community. It is time to show our support for the people of Afghanistan.