Imagine if, after Manson was imprisoned, one of his lackeys had murdered two policemen and refused to return the bodies unless Manson was released. Don’t you agree it would set a terrible precedent to allow that exchange to go forward? To allow future murderers to purchase their freedom by taking hostages, even if they kill the hostages during the kidnapping attempt?
That is a stupid argument. One, even if Aamer was no different than any other captive, you have to start somewhere. It is not hypocritical to approach the problem piecemeal, trying to convince people that the captives should be released, one person at a time. Two, Aamer is different to other captives, as the US cannot fall back on the “he has nowhere to go” excuse and his purchase is one of the more glaring cases of US incompetence.
Because that is what a British Protected Person is. You seem to have a problem with the glaringly obvious.
And also because there is a mind set that sees the detainees as alien third world people not worth a value of a full life. Reminding people that he is a Brit with a British family helps to stop rabid xenophobes from demonising him.
It also demonstrates the contempt in which the USA holds its allies.
We have kept those men in prison for things they did over 10 years ago. To me, we have probably gotten any intel we could from them. They are old men whom we gain nothing by holding any longer. I say go ahead and free them. I doubt they will be able to get back into their former positions and achieve the same things they did before.
So you did not just torture a person, you tortured a person who was not in command of thier mental faculties, who was unable to express a rejection of the torture and was unable to defend themselves against your abuses? Monster.
At least she didn’t write a blog about you.
To be fair, we have only fought the Taliban once. We have had to fight the British at least twice.
Do you understand nothing about illnesses such as chronic paranoia and severe anorexia where gastro-nasal feeding or parenteral feeding are necessary. Happens almost everywhere, but only with people subject to legal detention and legal suspension of rights, and not for political purposes.
You are being silly and defensive because you know there is no excuse for treating a fully compis mentis person in this way to merely defend the state.
I don’t know. If the choice is force feeding somebody or letting them starve to death, then that’s a bad situation all around, right? And if they’re a prisoner, the state has a duty of care. We don’t recognize suicide as rational behavior, and if the prisoner was trying to kill himself some other way, I think most people would support the state stopping him. So it seems like forcefeeding is acceptable to prevent the death of someone in your care.
See, you don’t support your own case. The only actual ‘rank hypocrisy’ I see on the US’s part would be
1/ We don’t negotiate with terrorists!
2/ Except when we want to get one of our own back, then it’s ok.
THAT is ‘rank hypocrisy’.
I think the disconnect here is that you and perhaps the UK feel that their appeal to the US government for this guy to be release should be taken seriously because this guy is the equivalent of a green card holder in the US (using your terms here). But the US doesn’t look on green card holders the same way. So, it would be up to Saudi, who I believe this guy IS a citizen of, to demand his release and do whatever needed to be done to ensure it.
After all, from what I can tell we have released several Brit citizens from Gitmo over the years, many, ironically, when Bush was president. So, there must be something else preventing this guy from being released (outside of the ‘US is evil’ standard explanation).
When suicide is a rational behaviour (if you’re suffering from a painful and terminal illness, for example), forcibly preventing the person from committing suicide is inhumane, even if your methods are not in themselves inhumane.
The efforts to keep the Gitmo prisoners alive have nothing to do with the prisoners’ best interests - at best it is an attempt to avoid the bad publicity of people you tortured demonstrating that they literally believe that continuing to be the victim of your torture is a fate worse than death.
I am talking of those with publicly acknowledged positions of authority in the political and military structure of the Taliban and Al Qaeda neither denied by themselves nor the organisation concerned.
The earlier people released were full British citizens and att that time the UK Government was dragging its feet over supporting Ameer and others- trying to deny responsibility for them. The courts here soon indicated that the Government was resposnible under Human Rights Law to defend their interests and there was a turnaround in Government behaviour then.
What did happen was that the literate English Speaking westernised people who were released wrote books and newspaper articles which helped make Guantanamo seem the hell hole and torture centre that it was and is. I suspect that they are releuctant to let the last one go as he is apparently the Ring Leader of the hunger strike and seems to be a barrack room lawyer who will get massive publicity, a million pounds compensation (the UK government bought off Human Rights Cases for the others with that sort of payment each) and a decent book probably written with his lawyer or one of the others involved in the case.
[QUOTE=Pjen]
The earlier people released were full British citizens and att that time the UK Government was dragging its feet over supporting Ameer and others- trying to deny responsibility for them. The courts here soon indicated that the Government was resposnible under Human Rights Law to defend their interests and there was a turnaround in Government behaviour then.
[/QUOTE]
Right…they were full British citizens, and this guy isn’t. Because your government now wants to look at it a certain way doesn’t mean the US government agrees. Regardless, I don’t see this as hypocrisy on the US’s part…I see this more as possibly a Kafka-esque type situation. As I said, the only hypocrisy I see on the US’s part is the whole ‘we don’t negotiate with terrorists’ ‘except now’ thingy.
Rather than look for CT type reasons, I’m going to go with my own Occam’s Razor and say the simplest explanation is that this guy isn’t a citizen of the UK (from the US’s perspective), and that unless Saudi is eager to get him back that’s why he’s still there. YMMV of course, and I have to admit I only know a little about this thing you seem so focused on, so I’m willing to see more evidence. Regardless, I’m not seeing the hypocrisy in what you seem vertically wanting to discuss.
It’s a bit like Reagan invading Grenada without caring about it being British Protected. If a person qualifies for consular protection from Britain one would expect a reasonable ally to agree that with them. The US is obviously not a reasonable ally, but will always act purely in its own domestic interests.
