Comments on: Testament of humanitarian aid worker who spent seven years being held and tortured in Gitmo

By: Doug Horne

Doug Horne — Sat, 14 Jan 2012 13:51:00 +0000

Pssst … they can’t be POWs because there was no “war”. There still hasn’t been a war. Wars are declared, etc. The person featured in this article certainly was not involved in a war. Just flying around the planet picking up anyone who looks like a villain from a Stallone movie is not war. If you would not be able to stand this treatment of yourself or a family member, then it’s probably not a good idea … if you or your kid were subjected to this, you’d be screaming about your rights and the “destruction of America”. It’s really no wonder that the US as a nation has become more than a little psychotic … trying to rationalize these things (and this is just one of the mind-benders for America … add into that an Iraq war that made no sense, Jessica Lynch (remember her?), the mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners, killing non-combatants in Iraq, entering foreign countries for hostile actions against their wishes, having to admit that Iraqis didn’t meet the US with flowers and candy as predicted, Blackwater committing evil acts on a daily basis, torture as a common practice, firing missiles at weddings in Afghanistan, the fact that the media doesn’t actually cover ANY of this … this is messing up American minds, and you’re only very slowly starting to realize what’s going on.

By: travtastic

travtastic — Thu, 12 Jan 2012 03:28:00 +0000

Yes, our overwhelming violence.

By: Guest

Guest — Thu, 12 Jan 2012 01:55:00 +0000

This is a disappointment to those of us who believed in the declaration of Independence as some form of measurement of justice. If these “unalienable rights” are not for everyone, then they are for no one.

By: elix

elix — Thu, 12 Jan 2012 01:24:00 +0000

Yeah, after all, assholes help move shit away from you.

By: W Parrish

W Parrish — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 23:26:00 +0000

“More than half the men still detained at Guantánamo –89 of the 171 – have been cleared for transfer or release, yet no one has been transferred since January 2011, the longest period without a transfer in the prison camp’s 10-year history. Obama has refused even to release the names of the 89 detainees cleared for release or transfer. ”

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/01/10/opinion/warren-close-gitmo/index.html?hpt=hp_c1

By: Shinkuhadoken

Shinkuhadoken — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 22:43:00 +0000

I think if we were to reasonably discover how we arrived at this point, we can’t give in to the emotional response that the Bush administration was inherently, purposefully evil (as tempting as that is). Even if you wanted to justify it as the “party line,” there were plenty of congressional Democrats around at the time who could have reigned in this “crazy train” at will but didn’t. Even when Democrats had sweeping control of all three levels of the federal government, they not only didn’t let the Patriot Act die, they expanded upon it. And Guantanamo Bay is still around, last I checked.

Fact is, the American public is to blame, as much as I hate to point it out. There is no political will among the population to stop the War on Terror. Over a decade later and you’ll still find an easy 80% like the mandatory ball groping / porno scanning you have to subject yourself to just to walk on a plane because people are still irrationally scared of the 9/11 bogeyman.

Until bravery returns to the Home of the Brave, when people are willing to die than live without freedom, I think we’ll see more of the same for the long term.

By: Shinkuhadoken

Shinkuhadoken — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 21:37:00 +0000

Maybe some famous quotes would help.

“better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer” – William Blackstone, 1760

“it is better [one hundred] guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer” – Benjamin Franklin, 1785

By: mattcornell

mattcornell — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 21:15:00 +0000

Obama is doing the same damn thing with prisoners at Bagram, so don’t pretend he’s opposed to this practice.

By: Deidzoeb

Deidzoeb — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 13:23:00 +0000

Reply to ffabian: ‘Problem is they’re NOT Prisoners of War. POWs would have rights granted by the Geneva Convention. The US unilaterally invented the term illegal combatant (=”not-POW”) to deny them any rights.’I would phrase it a little differently. They are prisoners of war by all normal standards, by the Geneva Convention. The Bush administration used the euphemism “enemy combatant” as if that should let them off the hook for observing the Geneva Conventions, or applying the kind of standards that every American with one of those black POW/MIA flags wanted for the treatment of US soldiers in Vietnam. (How many of them pushed Bush or Obama for fair treatment of POWs? The hypocrisy is massive and sad.)

I very consciously used the phrase prisoner of war, because that is more appropriate than Bush’s euphemism. They are NOT “illegal combatants” or “enemy combatants”, in as far as those are very limited terms intended to subvert international law. They ARE “prisoners of war” if we are using and endorsing and trying to follow international law (including our own laws that say we must follow international treaties).

By: Andrew Molloy

Andrew Molloy — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 10:49:00 +0000

That being said is there anything to stop a country kidnapping GWB from within the USA and use their own extraordinary rendition. USA want to “export democracy” so presumably we should learn by their example of what they consider democracy to be. ;)

By: ffabian

ffabian — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 10:44:00 +0000

Problem is they’re NOT Prisoners of War. POWs would have rights granted by the Geneva Convention. The US unilaterally invented the term illegal combatant (=”not-POW”) to deny them any rights.

By: benher

benher — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 10:08:00 +0000

“Nowadays these people in secret detention even have actual names!”

Not all of them, I’m sure.

By: D Wyatt

D Wyatt — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 07:01:00 +0000

”Most of them in Gitmo are not US citizens”
Not yet, but if current legislation holds expect to have a lot more names synonymous with the dreaded gitmo…. Gitmo2….Gitalotmo…etc.

By: D Wyatt

D Wyatt — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 06:57:00 +0000

One thing one might also consider is how many “warm bodies” they put in place of the actual perpetrator of a crime. In other words, how many times does a person get railroaded into the criminal justice system in America the free. Far too many if you ask me.

By: Prismo

Prismo — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 03:53:00 +0000

O RLY?

By: Mujokan

Mujokan — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 03:40:00 +0000

It’s their not being citizens which permits the weird legal dance around their status.

By: Mujokan

Mujokan — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 03:35:00 +0000

As I said a few times, I personally think he should release them all as a matter of principle and precedent.

However, there is no-one who could be elected President who would give a presidential pardon to someone who was centrally involved in the 9/11 attacks and send him on his way.

The thing is that the overwhelming majority of Americans do not want this to happen. A President in a democracy has a responsibility to take that into account. That goes beyond just trying to get a second term for selfish reasons. Obama has to choose from a narrow range of unpleasant options.

By: Thomas Scrace

Thomas Scrace — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 02:13:00 +0000

So the argument is that Obama should not release these people because it would make him unelectable?

The best argument that we can come up with in defence of Obama is that he should keep completely innocent people locked up for years in the most appalling conditions because he might not get a second term?

And this man has a single shred of moral legitimacy left? How anybody still defends this guy is completely beyond me.

By: Thomas Scrace

Thomas Scrace — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 01:55:00 +0000

If he can pardon them, then yes he should do that. Why not?

And since he is the CinC why not just shut down Gitmo?

Bush released 532 prisoners from Gitmo. Obama has so far released 68. Why doesn’t he just release them all.

And why did he sign a law that disallows these prisoners from being moved?

How about insisting on a fair trial for each prisoner?

Time and again he shows absolutely no backbone. It’s pathetic.

By: Incipient Madness

Incipient Madness — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 01:39:00 +0000

Could a coalition of countries stage a secret military raid on Gitmo and close it down?

At least we can be happy that GWB is scared to travel outside the US for fear of being arrested.

By: Deidzoeb

Deidzoeb — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 01:25:00 +0000

Most of them in Gitmo are not US citizens, but there are also some people who go thru the “normal” non-terrorist justice system who are not US citizens either. Haven’t some of them been put in US prisons or even executed instead of being deported? I bet most still got trials. I’m sure there are some criminal suspects who are deported for minor infractions, but I seem to recall Texas executed a Mexican at one point, not too long ago, and the big complaint was that he was not allowed to speak to the Mexican embassy for legal advice or something.
http://www.npr.org/2011/07/08/137685253/supreme-court-wont-halt-mexicans-execution

I don’t know what crimes all the prisoners of war at Guantanamo have been accused of (do they publicize any charges, or tell prisoners what they are formally charged with?), but I think the main difference is not their citizenship. It’s just the fact that terrorism hysteria allows the govt to declare some people terrorists, especially if they’re in places we’re invading, and somehow all the usual rules are set aside because ZOMG TEH TERRORS1SM. Which is to say, there is no good reason, and the same rules that apply to normal criminals or past POWs should apply to the ones at Gitmo.

By: Antinous / Moderator

Antinous / Moderator — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 01:21:00 +0000

Don’t offer them dares.

By: davidasposted

davidasposted — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 01:15:00 +0000

A particularly disturbing turn of events, given his previous career as a constitutional law professor. Thanks for the reply, ;)

By: Mujokan

Mujokan — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 00:52:00 +0000

Presidential pardons come under the Constitutional clause:

“The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.”

What process exactly are you recommending?

By: Snig

Snig — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 00:52:00 +0000

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9o6YAOHuSo&feature=related

By: Mark_Frauenfelder

Mark_Frauenfelder — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 00:50:00 +0000

I don’t know! It’s frustrating. I voted for Obama because I was hoping that civil liberties would erode more slowly under his rule, but it turns out he is scrapping them as fast as the most energetic neocon would.

By: Marko Raos

Marko Raos — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 00:49:00 +0000

What Rule of Law? The last I heard, Habeas Corpus was abolished way back in 2003 with the cynically named “Patriot Act.”
When I learned that NDAA was enacted I heard quite distinctly the words of Peter Cushing: “The last remnants of the old republic are gone…” Y’all know which movie I’m talking about, lol.

By: Marko Raos

Marko Raos — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 00:41:00 +0000

The purpose of Gitmo was to desensitize american public to the ideas of indefinite extrajudicial detention, torture and yes, murder all in the name of security.
In short, it was a preparation for NDAA bill which passed recently and which gives this same power over american citizens on american soil but without any legal defense whatsoever, not even after X years. In fact, according to NDAA even if you are exonerated by the court, the military has no compulsion whatsoever to release you or give out any information about your fate.
That’s why Gitmo was “necessary.”
What goes around, comes around and it seems that the “conspiracy theorists” like Alex Jones and the gang were right after all.

By: mccrum

mccrum — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 00:40:00 +0000

Not just that, land owning white guys! Good point though, but you can state we had freedoms for just about everyone for at least forty years.

By: mccrum

mccrum — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 00:39:00 +0000

Pardons from what? They’ve been accused of military crimes, not civil. They are currently outside the US court system. This is the problem.

As Commander in Chief he has a lot more leeway over the status of these detainees (such a nice word! Who hasn’t been detained at some time? “It wasn’t bad when our flight was detained!”) than the Executive Branch.