http://al-sidra.com/english/ar/ar-1-5.htm
The Superficial and Lame Srguments of the Gadhafi Supporters
By: Mrabit BuM3erga
Very often, the Libyan regime and its sympathizers attempt to deflect criticism of its brutal record by making superficial comparisons with others governments' records and by childishly directing the same criticism at other systems. Three areas where one often hears or reads about this kind of simplistic and superficial thinking are: (a) When the regime is accused by Libyans and International human rights advocates that it has wrongfully imprisoned and brutally executed many of its opponents, they claim that American prisons are full of inmates and that many people are executed every year in the United States. (b) When the regime is criticized for its suppression of free speech and its ban on free press, they make the claim that free speech and free press do not really exist in the United States either since, in their view, American media is dominated by Jews. (c) When they are faced with ample evidence of the lack of any democratic institutions in Libya and the obvious despotic nature of Gadhafi's regime, they claim that democracy does not work. They use the recent close presidential election in the United States and the ensuing ballot recounts and legal haggling in the state of Florida is a 'proof' that the American system does not work and some of them have the audacity to say that the Libyan comedy they call direct democracy is a better system. Here, I will attempt to point out the flaws in such arguments.
The regime's record on Human rights
Inform one of the regime's defenders of any of the annual reports on human rights by International groups like Amnesty International, particularly on the regime's brutal practice of imprisoning, torturing and executing its political opponents, and if he or she does bot stupidly claim that such reports are written by the CIA, he or she will naively point you to that organization's report on Human rights abuses in the United States and other developed nations.
Even if we were to ignore the obvious distinction between detainees in the United States and Libya, namely that the latter are political opponents of the regime and prisoners of conscience, it is still beyond one's comprehension how one can even compare the legal system in the United States to the oppressive, unjust and inhumane setting of Gadhafi's 'courts' and prisons.
While It is true that numerous people are imprisoned and executed in many countries including the United States, only brain washed individuals and those who let their interests force them to stick their heads in the sand can compare convicted criminals with prisoners of conscience and make the claim that that those executed in Libya were convicted in the same manner as those in the United States. Convicted criminals in the United States are given fair trials where they get to choose their legal representation, their guilt gets examined, usually by three levels of courts and any physical evidence used to incriminate them can be examined and challenged by the defense and/or independent sources.
Can any of the regime's sympathizers or hired mouth pieces claim that such thing is afforded those poor souls who got convicted by the revolutionary courts in the great Jamaheria? Can they speak of any evidence, besides the pathetic repeated drivel about the victims being CIA agents, was used against them? Had those victims had a chance at legal representation and had their legal representatives had a chance to freely refute the regime's claims? Of course, not. A great number of those detainees and victims of the regime were never even charged with any specific crime. Those hired mouth pieces and sympathizers can not even plead ignorance of the workings of the Libyan legal system. Many of these revolutionary 'mock' trials were shown on Libyan television and one does not need to be a lawyer or a human rights activist to ascertain that those events could not even be called trials but rather a public display of the regime's manipulation of its brain washed and hired thugs and its total disregard for civility, human life and decency, never mind human rights or democracy.
Free Speech and Free Press
Again, the graduates of the Gadhafi school of twisted logic, empty slogans and stating the obvious blindly defend the lack of free speech and press in Libya by stupidly pointing to the deficiencies of free press and limitations of the effectiveness of free speech in the United States and other democratic countries. They often claim that the biased reporting of many American media outlets on the Arab-Israeli conflict is a proof that free speech does not exist in America.
What these intellectually challenged people fail to understand is what the idea of free speech is about and how, despite all its deficiencies and shortcomings, the press is free and thriving in most democratically run countries. Free press does not necessarily mean that the press can not be biased, influenced by interest groups or even bought out by those with deep pockets. It means people are free to establish their platforms and promote their ideas. In short, what is meant by free press is the multiplicities and independence of platforms.
Many individuals and groups, both inside the United States and outside it, complain that most popular American media outlets are dominated by the views of certain interest groups (Jewish groups, for example) or political parties. The fact that such complaints are made and heard is a testimony to free speech and freedom of the press in the United States. Arabs and Muslims complaining about the obvious bias of American media, and American public opinion in general, towards Israeli interests and views should not blame those outlets but should blame their failure to commit enough resources and effort at propagating their own views and advancing their cause. Arab and Muslim Americans have the same legal opportunities that pro Israeli interest groups have in lobbying politicians and influence groups and affecting public opinion.
American Elections
Those of us advocating democracy do not pretend that it is a perfect system, immune to abuse or manipulation. However, in democratic systems, particularly well designed ones, unlike the case in despotic and tribal systems, the process is widely open and transparent. Even if we were to assume that an election process is fraudulently manipulated, the stability of the system and its overall integrity is maintained over the long haul by the presence of systems of checks and balances, through the separation of powers and by the fact that the system can be and usually is continuously modified and improved to prevent such occurrences of abuse and minimize their impact.
The confusion, haggling, legal maneuvering and uncertainty that the closeness of the recent American presidential elections may have given Americans and outsiders alike a chance to poke fun at the American system or criticize certain aspects of it but to suggest that democracy is not workable or that some laughable third world elections, where wide spread fraud is the norm, is better than the American system because the outcome of the latter is taking longer than usual to be determined is naive and even comical. The suggestion by some mouth pieces like Dorda that the Libyan system is better is even more laughable. The fact that the American election has been unfolding in an open manner and Americans are able to uphold their laws while opponents seek civil means of advancing their interests is a testimony to the strengths of the system.
Contrast that with despotic and semi despotic systems in most of the world where no clear separation of the executive, legislative and judicial systems exist and one group or even individual can manage to control and manipulate all three systems. In the extreme case of Libya, all three branches are done with and the country is simply run on the whims of one individual!
|