AN AMERICAN AGREEMENT WITH THE BELARUSIAN POSITION

AN AGREEMENT WITH THE POSITION OF THE REPUBLIC OF BELARUS REGARDING -- The recent draft resolution to the UN: "Inadmissability of human rights violations through the practice of secret detention and unlawful transfers while countering terrorism."

I am very proud to be an ardent supporter of the Lukashenka Administration, and of the Republic of Belarus as a whole under any circumstances, but very much so now that Belarus has drafted a resolution to the U.N. addressing Illegal U.S. detentions, transfers, and tortures of persons suspected of terrorism.

Belarus is very qualified to protest against modern war crimes such as illegal detention, kidnapping, and torture because she sufferred numerous and extreme textbook examples of these same offenses during WW2 at the hands of Nazi Germany.

Belarus sufferred the worst examples of these abuses, and therefore Belarus is clearly qualified to discuss what constitutues an illegal occupation, and what constitutes torture, and what constitutes a war crime. The definitions of these ideas are painfully burned into the general Belarusian psyche and thus, Belarus is PRECISELY THE COUNTRY that should be authoring U.N. resolutions against any activity in the modern world that is even remotely similar to the Nazi crimes causing Belarusian suffering , or even activities of the same Genre.

Any country such as Belarus that endures the violent death of 25% of its citizens because of a a criminal occupation is forever qualified to critique the behavior and policies of the United States when American troops illegally attack and occupy a smaller and weaker country such as Iraq.

I won't rewrite the Belarusian resolution to the U.N., but it contains some very important language and ideas.

For instance the resolution condems torture, illegal detention, and illegal transfer of suspected terrorists, but it also condems the use of CIVILIAN AIRPORTS to enable these practices.

Perhaps Belarus should have explained that the use of the same CIVILIAN AIRPORTS likely makes civilians more of a target for terrorists, but perhaps Belarus should also have explained that there is a moral and legal difference between a partisan fighter and a terrorist.

The use of civilian airports to help enable the U.S. criminal detention, and transfer to torture, of "suspected terrorists" hyper-endangers innocent civilians because perhaps now they can be accidently injured by legitimate partisan interests as well as by planned terrorist attacks.

As Belarus is a country that was liberated from her Nazi occupation in some signifigant part by "partisan forces", I believe that it would be intuitively obvious to most Belarusians, that the practice of using civilian airports to assist in the surpression of partisans or terrorists is dangerous to say the least, for the innocent civilian air traveler.

U.S. Lawmakers should demonstrate levels of personal and professional integrity that are equal to the levels held in the hearts and minds the of common U.S. citizens they represent, and acknowledge the qualifications of Belarus to offer such resolutions and critiques instead of resisting such humane ideas only to Kow Tow to the American War Criminal President George Bush and his cadre of stoolies and henchmen.

This will be immediately painful for the short term politicial future of any public figure that chooses to come forth and stand up against Bush era war crimes and dangerous practices, but the long term results will be exponentially beneficial for the future of the United States as a whole.

MICHAEL MILLER
INDIANAPOLIS
2006