• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Turkish doctors condemn government curbs on emergency treatment

Dittohead not!

Dittohead not!

master political analyst
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2009
Messages
52,009
Reaction score
33,943
Location
The Golden State
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
It seems that Turkish doctors face huge fines and as many as three years in jail for providing emergency medical aid to protesters:

Turkish government measures curbing the freedom of doctors in administering emergency treatment have been condemned by medical and human rights groups, with professionals accusing the government of intimidation and seeking to criminalise urgent assistance to street protesters.
President Abdullah Gül signed into law the contested bill drawn up by the government of the prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, compelling doctors and health professionals to apply for government permission before they may administer emergency first aid.
Medical personnel could face jail terms of three years and fines of up to 2.25m lira (£600,000) for breaking the law. The crackdown by the governing Justice and Development party (AKP) is seen as the latest in a long line of repressive measures enacted since Turkey was rocked by awave of anti-government street protests last summer.
The legislation is part of an omnibus bill approved by parliament this month. Critics denounced it as an attempt to criminalise doctors and silence dissent.
Click to expand...

link
 
Docs really have little avenue for social protest. They strike and while that would bring down a government, it's a major moral burden to bear.
 
Ben K. said:
Docs really have little avenue for social protest. They strike and while that would bring down a government, it's a major moral burden to bear.
Click to expand...

But to prohibit doctors from treating people injured in the protests? What is that? and Turkey is supposed to be an ally of the USA, is viewed as one of the sane nations of that area of the world?

Holy crap, what is going on over there anyway?
 
Dittohead not! said:
But to prohibit doctors from treating people injured in the protests? What is that? and Turkey is supposed to be an ally of the USA, is viewed as one of the sane nations of that area of the world?

Holy crap, what is going on over there anyway?
Click to expand...

U.S alliances in the Middle East are based on human rights now?
 
Red_Dave said:
U.S alliances in the Middle East are based on human rights now?
Click to expand...

Not exclusively, that would be impossible. You don't think it's a factor?
 
Dittohead not! said:
But to prohibit doctors from treating people injured in the protests? What is that? and Turkey is supposed to be an ally of the USA, is viewed as one of the sane nations of that area of the world?

Holy crap, what is going on over there anyway?
Click to expand...

I know you're aware of how the US looks the other way on all manner of humanitarian abuses when to not do so would run counter to our "interests"!
 
Red_Dave said:
U.S alliances in the Middle East are based on human rights now?
Click to expand...

Sarcasm noted. Of course US alliances are based on narrow interests of the few. When its expedient to point to human rights abuses, it will be in the news at nauseum, if a war is desired, the drum beat doesn't cease. Turkey is helping our covert little effort to topple another ME government so this is understandable.
 
ecofarm said:
So you admit that your comment was disingenuous?
Click to expand...

Not really? I would say there are more examples in recent history of the U.S allying itself with authoritarian forces in the region then democratic ones. Note covert interventions in Iraq, Syria and Iran during the 1950s and the 1980 coup in Turkey and well as further human rights resolutions during the 1990s (around the same time that we were bombing Yugoslavia for doing the same things to the Kosovar Albanians Ozal was doing to the Kurds with our help). I will admit that there has been a slight change in policy in recent years with the new administrations focus on soft power but it has to be said that Mubarak, Ben Ali, Gaddafi and even Assad were all supported with arms, military aid and intelligence until it was clear that they were not going to be around for long, and the military regime in Eygpt still enjoys the support of the U.S and the Western world as a whole. Hell we are even fighting a war to defend a dictator in Afganistan.

The post i responded to implied that the politics of the region were defined by endogenous 'insanity' and exogenous 'sanity' which was largely the result of foreign intervention. On the contrary many of the saner leaders in the region where overthrown with U.S support.
 
Last edited:
Red_Dave said:
Not really? I would say there are more examples in recent history of the U.S allying itself with authoritarian forces in the region then democratic ones. Note covert interventions in Iraq, Syria and Iran during the 1950s and the 1980 coup in Turkey and well as further human rights resolutions during the 1990s (around the same time that we were bombing Yugoslavia for doing the same things to the Kosovar Albanians Ozal was doing to the Kurds with our help). I will admit that there has been a slight change in policy in recent years with the new administrations focus on soft power but it has to be said that Mubarak, Ben Ali, Gaddafi and even Assad were all supported with arms, military aid and intelligence until it was clear that they were not going to be around for long, and the military regime in Eygpt still enjoys the support of the U.S and the Western world as a whole. Hell we are even fighting a war to defend a dictator in Afganistan.

The post i responded to implied that the politics of the region were defined by endogenous 'insanity' and exogenous 'sanity' which was largely the result of foreign intervention. On the contrary many of the saner leaders in the region where overthrown with U.S support.
Click to expand...


Are you against diplomacy entirely? The only interaction with authoritarian regimes should be war?
 
Red_Dave said:
How about not giving them arms, intelligence and military aid?
Click to expand...

Then they'll tell us to **** off, they'll get that stuff from Russia or China and we'll have no influence whatsoever. Let's be realistic.
 
ecofarm said:
Then they'll tell us to **** off, they'll get that stuff from Russia or China and we'll have no influence whatsoever. Let's be realistic.
Click to expand...

If we have influence over them, why do we ignore egregious human rights abuses?
 
ecofarm said:
Then they'll tell us to **** off, they'll get that stuff from Russia or China and we'll have no influence whatsoever. Let's be realistic.
Click to expand...

That would be a very valid point if these relationships had some degree of conditionality to them. On the contrary we have been giving them the means to repress their own population without holding them to account whatsoever, or with actual encouragement (See the CIA's role in creating Savak, or the political use of the rendition program against political dissidents)
 
Dittohead not! said:
If we have influence over them, why do we ignore egregious human rights abuses?
Click to expand...

Who says the US ignores these things? The US cannot control every country. It's up to each country to develop. The US must, nonetheless, be engaged.
 
Red_Dave said:
That would be a very valid point if these relationships had some degree of conditionality to them. On the contrary we have been giving them the means to repress their own population without holding them to account whatsoever, or with actual encouragement .
Click to expand...

That's BS. The US takes many measures towards supporting development: USAID, the WB and IMF, diplomatic overtures, development projects, foreign aid and other methods. Do you expect the US to invade every dictator at the same time? That's ludicrous.
 
ecofarm said:
That's BS. The US takes many measures towards supporting development: USAID, the WB and IMF, diplomatic overtures, development projects, foreign aid and other methods. Do you expect the US to invade every dictator at the same time? That's ludicrous.
Click to expand...

No i expect them to not actively particiapate in domestic repression. And where did development come into this?
 
Red_Dave said:
No i expect them to not actively particiapate in domestic repression. And where did development come into this?
Click to expand...

"Actively participate"? Spare us. You don't think development is a goal of diplomacy?
 
ecofarm said:
"Actively participate"? Spare us. You don't think development is a goal of diplomacy?
Click to expand...

Where in the Christ did development come into this discussion? we were talking about human rights.

And how else would you characterize the creation of SAVAK other than active participation in domestic repression in a foreign country.
 
Red_Dave said:
Where in the Christ did development come into this discussion? we were talking about human rights.
Click to expand...

You don't see a link between development and human rights?

Do you know what development means?

And how else would you characterize the creation of SAVAK other than active participation in domestic repression in a foreign country.
Click to expand...

The US providing training does not constitute "active participation".



Look, your argument has been blown out of the water and now your just listing crap that you don't like about the US from the past. Your laundry list of grievances does not change the fail of your unrealistic expectations.
 
Last edited:
ecofarm said:
The US providing training does not constitute "active participation".
Click to expand...

Firstly lets call a spade a spade

Sazeman-e Ettela'at va Amniyat-e Keshvar

SAVAK
SAVAK logo (Expired).PNG
Agency overview
Formed 1957
Preceding Agency Name unknown
Dissolved 1979
Superseding agency VEVAK
Headquarters Tehran, Iran
Employees 60,000 at peak
Minister responsible Intelligence
Agency executives Teymur Bakhtiar (First)
Nasser Moghadam (Last)
SAVAK (Persian: ساواک, short for سازمان اطلاعات و امنیت کشور Sāzemān-e Ettelā'āt va Amniyat-e Keshvar, Organization of Intelligence and National Security) was the secret police, domestic security and intelligence service established by Iran's Mohammad Reza Shah with the help of the United States' Central Intelligence Agency (the CIA).[1]
Click to expand...

1 ^ SAVAK, Library of Congress Country Studies. Retrieved February 21, 2011.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAVAK#cite_note-1
We are talking about the creation of the agency, an agency whose sole purpose was political repression. Thats pretty darn active dont you think?

And sure there is a link between development and human rights, but lets not move the goal posts. One is economic, and one is not killing torturing or imprisoning someone for expressing an opinion.
 
Last edited:
Red_Dave said:
Firstly lets call a spade a spade



1 ^ SAVAK, Library of Congress Country Studies. Retrieved February 21, 2011.

SAVAK - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
We are talking about the creation of the agency, an agency whose sole purpose was political repression. Thats pretty darn active dont you think?
Click to expand...


First, let's get over your minutiae. The US provided support and training for the creation of an intelligence agency by the government. They did not direct that agency to do anything, nor did they participate in any actions. Your portrayal is not legit. You're trying to blame the US for the actions of others - no surprise.


You can't sidestep the fact that your unrealistic expectations are exactly that. You want the US to not engage diplomatically with authoritarian nations. That's stupid. It's impossible. It's counter-productive. Get realistic.



And sure there is a link between development and human rights, but lets not move the goal posts. One is economic, and one is not killing torturing or imprisoning someone for expressing and opinion.
Click to expand...

Human rights are part of development. Development is not merely economic. Learn what the word means and then get back to me.
 
Last edited:
ecofarm said:
First, let's get over your minutiae. The US provided support and training for the creation of an intelligence agency by the government. .
Click to expand...

That would not exist had they not installed it. What do you think they expected SAVAK to do? You really think the CIA were wringing their hands decades later and saying 'we thought the SAVAK would use their training to enforce good recycling habbits but alas they used their training for evil instead of good!'
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom