They were caught resisting what?
I read that the White House is distancing itself from the statements made about the suicides being a PR device. Even the current administration could see the stupidity in the assumption of motives.
Why in God’s name couldn’t they have told the prisoner that he was one of the 141 that were about to be released? What was the point in keeping it from him? How would you feel if that were your brother?
All in all we can agree that the SouthCom’s commander’s statement was remarkably boneheaded.
So be it. I’m really rather indifferent. I’m not going to turn this into a “Duke rape case” thread and argue ad infinitum, no matter how it turns out. Threads like that are infinitely stupid.
Therefore, I will concede. I’ve said enough. You may continue to discuss this amongst yourselves.
So let me get this straight, the US position is that the three suicides by prisoners who were not prisoners of war were acts of war.
I perceive here a subtle but extremely significant difference in perspective. I do not see the prisoners’ suicides as actions which damage the United States (and therefore as classifiable as attacks on the U.S. or more broadly under the heading of warfare). I see the United States as damaging itself by its conduct (or more specifically the Administration as damaging the United States by asking the honorable men and women of the armed forces to engage in such deeply dishonorable behavior), and that the suicides merely throw light on our morally indefensible and ultimately self-destructive behavior. In my view, these men are most accurately perceived as collateral damage (a euphemism chosen deliberately for its repugnant associations) in America’s war against itself.
Good thing Washington D.C. is equipped with a full-scale ABM system (“anti-burning-monk”) so we can defend our leaders against such heinous assaults.
Hey, the Haditha massacre was damaging to the image of the US. Therefore, all those civilians who were killed by US Marines were committing unintentional acts of asymmetric war, those fucks. :mad:
Don’t even get me started on the torture victims.
Why can’t it be both?
Isn’t Gitmo considered US territory? Just like an embassy in a foreign country?
Well they couldn’t do it in the Warroom.
If it’s US territory, then it is very strange territory: a territory into which the US Constitution does not reach (or at least some parts of the Bill of Rights).
Well, the Constitution doesn’t seem to affect the presidency these days, why should it affect a little army base?
It is leased. The lease, which pre-dated the revolution, does not have a termination date.
The lease was first made following Acting Secretary of the Navy / Lieutenant Colonel Teddy R.'s invasion of Cuba (with an American signing for Cuba), and was most recently renewed/ratified by Sergeant / Army Chief of Staff Batista prior to his becoming President (Cuba generally being controlled by the USA in that period).
Cuba considers it to be illegal occupation, and does not cash the lease payments.