Is Guantanamo Bay not symbolic of everything that America is supposed to stand against, people being detained for years on end with no right at the whims of government officials? Why are more people demanding that this stops? Why are the major news outlets not railing on how unconstitutional this is? I’ve heard reports that read off why someone its inhabitants were incarcerated and its mind boggling, one man a taxi driver was detained for 6ish years because it was believed that he knew or had spoken to people of interested of the US.
Am I the only one who believes this to be an unforgivable violation of human rights, and at the very least a huge embarrassment to a nation that prides itself on freedom and rights of people?
I don’t get that bent out of shape over it because unlike many others, I do believe that almost all of the detainees held there are in fact “the bad guys”.
Accepting that this may be confirmation bias on my part…
…in my opinion, there was plenty of that kind of commentary a couple of years ago. Lots of bloggers talking about how unconstitutional Guantanamo was. Lots of media commentary about the issue. Now it’s much quieter.
Why? Again, my own preconceptions undoubtedly drive this conclusion, but I believe that it’s because it’s Obama, rather than Bush, at the helm. There are definitely several people that have been willing to criticize Obama for his lack of progress on the issue, but for the most part, I think the same folks that were willing to call Bush a fascist for his policies have been unwilling to do the same to Obama.
For my part, I thought it was reckless of Obama, as a candidate, to claim he was going to end Guantanmo’s detainee camp, and I’m pleased that Obama, as President, has chosen to retain the facility and its purpose.
My impression has been that he’s been unable to move the detainees due to purely political pressures. I don’t have the impression that he was persuaded that there’s something good about Guantanamo.
But do you know something I don’t? (Very probably so.)
In my case, I’ve pretty much lost hope. If Obama isn’t going to close it, what can I do? Vote for the Republican who will likely campaign on building a waterboarding assembly line there?
I was noisy about it 2 years ago because it was a campaign issue. I voted for the guy who I thought would close it, and it being an executive branch sort of thing, I considered the matter done and solved. No reason to keep talking about it on message boards, now it’s between me and the guy I voted for. And I’m pretty pissed off about the turnaround. If the Democratic primary meant anything for 2012 I would vote for someone else who promised to shut it down in a heartbeat.
Because America stands for cruelty, bigotry, greed and malice, not the noble sounding ideals it beats its chest about. Most Americans don’t care and never did about the fact that people were being unjustly held and tortured; they only cared that it became public and embarrassed us; America may be barbaric, but it hates to admit that it’s barbaric. And most of the Americans that do care are gloating sadists who are for it.
I think for the same reason more people were not up in arms over the detainment of US citizens of Japanese decent during World War II. They’re different than us. They’re all dark and dirty and speak a different language. And they’re Muslim! Sure some may be innocent, but most probably aren’t, and if they had the chance to kill us they would. And we don’t want them over here in a prison on our soil. What if they break out, who will protect us? Guantanamo Bay is far away and we can forget about them or turn a blind eye to what goes on.
Also, I think most people are more worried about being able to afford food, shelter, medicine, and gas. Detained possible P.O.Ws are pretty far down the list of things to worry about.
If true, so? Don’t the principles of human rights and fair treatment under the law inherently require that they cover those we think are “bad guys”? Aren’t concepts like rights of the accused and right to a fair trial meaningless if they’re not upheld specifically for those we’re most sure are (almost all) guilty?
It’s like free speech; the claim to uphold free speech doesn’t count for much unless you specifically protect it for those whose speech is most objectionable.
We’re just tired. And jaded. I sort of kind of hoped that Obama would be better and he seems to have been cut from exactly the same cloth. There isn’t a political figure out there I would trust. What am I supposed to do? Power is in the hands of the banks and the rich people. Democracy is a joke.
I can sit here and be bitter about it and protest and scream and yell and have absolutely nothing happen. Or I can shut my eyes and ears and live my life and do the best I can with what I have in front of me. I have a job, a home, a family.
I’m brown so I’m not thinking of the Guantanamo “detainees” as foreigners. And I know we have enacted cruelties beyond belief, and no, I definitely don’t believe they all deserved to be there. So? What can I do? Like I said, power is in the hands of the top 1% and not in my puny little hands.
So, I can only do my small part to make the world a better place, and I continue to do that and not burn myself up politically.
No, I think you’re right… except that “purely political pressures” are what motivated Bush, too, in the sense that it would be bad politics to release a detainee who then committed a further act of terrorism. In this case, “politics” and “wise policy” happen to dovetail in their objectives.
So your point is that all detainees are innocent? I doubt that this is the case. Yes everyone deserve a fair trial. of course. I do think though that most people at gitmo deserve to be locked up.
Your comparison with the Japanese interncamps is ridiculous and offensive,
Do you think that most of the people are locked up ONLY because they are muslim?
I would presume that imprisoning or torturing people who might/could be innocent (having not been demonstrated guilty), in a political context, generates more enemies and more future terrorism.