You’re not suggesting they’re innocent, are you? Why would we be holding them if they were innocent? Doesn’t the fact that they have no regard for human life, as proven by the fact that they’d rather die than remain in captivity for who knows how long, prove that they’re murderous terrorist scum? They’re the worst kind of murderers: self-murderers! How much more proof do you need?
This looks bad. But what can the US do with these people? To release them will provide propaganda for the enemy. To keep them alienates our allies. No good will come of this.
Judicial due process in a court of law.
Yeah, 'effin crazy, I know, but it just might be crazy enough to work.
Or we could just throw 400 years of the development of human rights out the window and permit an exexcutive to detain people indefinitely without trial.
Said just before Feroz Abbasi and Moazzam Begg were shipped from Guantanamo back to the UK and released without charge.
You’re pulling my pisser. Having them illegally and indefinitely incarcerated, treated as guilty-until-not-proven-anything provides mor propaganda to the enemy (and your friends too) than Bin Laden could possibly have thought of in his wildest wet dream.
To release them or charge them, after a fair trial makes the US good. (Er… by “good”, I mean “slightly less criminal”.)
Yet another reason why this was stupid from the beginning. I don’t give a shit if releasing them provides propaganda material - if they’re innocent, you do it anyway.
What’s the current plan, ralph124c? Hold them there until they die of old age? Like a camp full of 70-year-old alleged terrorists makes us look good? I guess there’s ‘shoot them all,’ but aside from that, can we have a plan that’s worse than no plan?
The fact that you apparently consider this to be a reasonable justification for continued incarceration speaks volumes about what justice means to you.
It’s a terrible development when even considering justice is out of the question because of this “what the enemy wants bullshit.” Unfortunately, things have been that way for about three years at least.
I know it’s old news, but that was my daily reminder that we’re through the looking glass.
I can perhaps imagine why he might feel it necessary to frame the events in these sorts of terms, though. Here’s the guy’s career biography: studied at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, Moreau Scholar… “studied international relations and ethics of war at Oxford and Georgetown Universities” (!) He’d set himself up as a committed career military man, whose education had no doubt impressed upon him the proper uses and limits of military force in a democratic society. The whole history of the 20th Century spoke of the significance of the United States Armed Forces as a bulwark against totalitarianism. And then he woke up one morning, and-- *doodley-doodley-doop!-- * His job description had been rewritten for Werner Klemperer.
“Congratulations! You’re the new Commander of Joint Chiefs Task Force Guantanamo! You’ll be in charge of incarcerating hundreds of detainees from all over the world, to prosecute the War on Terror. But they’re not considered prisoners of war, because we can’t allow them to have those rights. And they can’t have civilian legal rights either, so they may never be charged with anything. But hold on to them anyway, because they really are extremely dangerous. Except we don’t have any evidence to prove it in a court of law. And we can’t allow them any contact with their families, because of the danger they pose. And of course, the more we keep them here, the greater the enemy propaganda value would be should they ever be proven innocent, even though they’re certainly not. So there’s a chance that we may just keep them incarcerated forever. And we’ll be interrogating them with methods that may seem like torture, but since we don’t torture people, our methods aren’t torture by definition. Also, some of the prisoners are made of antimatter, and may explode. Ha, ha! No, we just made that up to make sure you were paying attention. But they really are extremely dangerous terrorists, every one of them, never forget that…”
I think if I were him, my brain would be desperately trying to rewrite my situation into something, anything, that I could live with: “Oh Jesus, another attempted suicide on my watch… Three of them?! Ahh shit, is there anything about this that could make my men culpable under the Geneva Convention?.. GAH! I didn’t think that! The detainees don’t count toward Geneva, because they’re not prisoners of war! There is no war! There are no prisoners! I’m still the good guy! Why are they torturing me by killing themselves like this? They’re… they’re trying to start a war! They’re attacking me with their deaths! Please, someone stop the ducks in my head!!!”
C’mon Terrifel, they shut down the island a century ago.
Well done Terrifel.
These acts of war cannot be tolerated. I call upon the Bush administration to retaliate immediately using the exact same tactics.
We need to let them go right now. When you’re doing something wrong, STOP DOING IT. They’ve been treated as sub-humans for four years, and every day their ordeal continues, our national soul gets a little blacker.
The problem I have with these guys being part of an organised ‘attack’ is that I’m very familiar with such ‘attacks’ and these just aren’t the same.
If these guys were part of a bigger picture there would be a lot more PR about them from the terrorist side.
When IRA men starved themselves to death the organisation in the wild stirred the public into a rampage of violence and anger. Their deaths spurned a whole new generation of true believers into action. The organisation outside made hay while the sun shone .
I don’t see that happening here. I’m not saying these guys didn’t do it to make a point but to attempt to dismiss these deaths in the way that this dimwit has done is just so stupid it just confirms all the silly ideas one may hold about the people who are in charge.
No matter what the actual truth, these statements place the muppet into a lose lose position. Idiot.
It’s so nuanced that it’s ridiculous. Now everything is an act of war against the Bush administration. Even killing yourself.
You know, maybe they committed suicide because they were distraught over the fact that they were going to be imprisoned for life with no hope of trial, reprieve, or appeal. Doesn’t that sound just as likely as this being some form of warfare?
What organizations are active in pursing justice for the prisoners?
In the 1960’s the students were leaders and others joined in. I know that the ACLU and AI go about protesting in their own way, but for the most part we are quiet. I don’t advocate rioting, but I don’t like silent streets either.
If these men took their own lives based on the myth that their deaths would free the other men, that would mean they sacrificed their lives for others who have not been tried or convicted of any crime, who have not been given access to the American court system, who have not been given the right to a speedy trial, and yet who have not been treated as Prisoners of War.
Someday, when the movies are made about this, they will be known as heroes.
I want to laugh and joke about it, but then I think of three men in chain link cages who were being held indefinitely, who may or may not have done anything wrong; who may or may not have know why they’re there, and who lived each day under the brutal subjugation of soldiers working for a nation that pledged liberty and justice for all.
And our official response is to call their final act of desperation an act of “asymetric warfare”, a phrase that’s as Orwellian as they come. And, ultimately, none of the people responsible for the real injustice–Gitmo, and the conditions that led to those men killing themselves–will be brought to trial.
I don’t know about heroes, Zoe. Gitmo is one of the most wrong things our country has ever done, this is true. But I honestly can’t say I know enough to say that. If it were, say, three Osama Bin Ladens who wanted to hurt the US any way they could, and suicided just to do so, I couldn’t call them heroes, just fanatics.
If if. Big if. Man. And back in '00, I figured that Bush couldn’t do any harm, so I voted Libertarian. Not that it would have made a difference.
I wonder about the next president. How much effort he’s going to be able to put into clearing out the sheer amount of fuckups that this presidency has created.
There’s already at least one movie; I saw it a few days ago. It’s about the Tipton Three, and combines documentary interviews of the wrongly incarcerated men with non-documentary re-creations of the men’s experiences using actors and sets. It’s just about the most horrifying thing I’ve seen in my entire life.
The movie doesn’t really show the three men as heroes, but without question Bush and Rumsfeld and the rest of those motherfuckers are irredeemable villains.
Every single person in the United States needs to see this movie, to see what is actually being done in the name of their freedom and safety, and ask themselves whether or not these violations of humanity and decency are too high a price to pay. For people like ralph124c, apparently, torturing a few innocent brown-skinned people to death is not too high a price. For me, it is. But maybe that’s just me.
My uncle (and other lawyers) along with some retired military officers are actively lobbying for Gitmo inmates to have access to U.S. courts and due proccess of law. You can read about the effort here. (Gary Isaac is my father’s brother.)
Yeah, this looks bad.