Closing Guantanamo

I guess this is why I’m glad Ian uses his powers for good and not for ill.

And no sentence about Gitmo should omit the word “Bagram.”

4) No longer at “Guantanamo” and with “Guantanamo” closed, break the media narrative.

Um, many of the prisoners have been cleared of any wrongdoing. So we should continue to imprison innocent people?

This, among the questions hopefully raised if the narrative is broken.

Am I missing something, Ian? Isn’t a conviction required before sending someone off to a US prison? Wishful thinking on your part, perhaps and a taste for what the “War on Terror” has done to your brain.

They’ll probably just rename Guantanamo – they could do it every time that the Company formerly know as Blackwater changes its name. I wonder if that symbol Prince used is available?

Now, if we could just apply Steps 1-4 to our failed three branches of government, then we might be on to something. Ahh heck, speaking of bad press, let’s not leave out the corrupted fourth estate.

I think they should keep it open, but now under the auspices of Disney. It can be made into an interactive attraction for their patrons. People can pay top dollar to pull the lever that shocks the testicles (and clitorides for the now welcome females) of the inmates and push a button that force feeds the detainees of all genders. As an added bonus, to top it all off of course, you get to order a code red before disembarking the ride. Don’t laugh, I think this idea has traction. Anything and everything is exploitable in this bold and brave new world. And, just to show us how humane it all is, the detainees will be given the right of gay marriage if that is their wish.

Carol Newquist
May 2, 2013
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Oh, god’s be good; you’re still a twisted fuck; but that’s a very amusing comment.
It actually has some merit, IMO.

Lisa, who is the “we” in that equation? Surely it’s not you. You didn’t condone it. You didn’t direct your extorted tax payments to that activity. Since you have been outspokenly critical of it, it wasn’t done in your name, mfi be damned. So, you shouldn’t have to pay reparations for the wrongdoing, and you shouldn’t have to apologize.

I’m sorry, but the “we” thing has got to stop. There is no “we,” merely the presumption of it. In actuality, “we” doesn’t exist. Now, let’s talk about who should pay those reparations and who should apologize. Any ideas? I have some. Pat Lang is included in that compiled list. There are many more of the same ilk.

And I’m willing to take my share of the blame for being a U.S. citizen and playing a part, however small, in allowing these abuses to go on in my name. So yes, I think I should pay some.

If that’s the attitude, then it will just keep on happening in perpetuity until the sun goes supernova or we blow the planet up, or runaway climate change does us in, or a plague extincts us, or an asteroid hits, and so on and so on.

You are paying, Lisa, and you’re going to pay a whole lot more for the sins of the other that you are now saying are your sins since they were done in your name. Your perspective is all wrong, and you’re not alone, most people’s perspectives on this issue are conditioned by the system. You are forced to pay tribute to them to perform all manner of degradations and atrocities presumably in your name and you are are made to pay again for any and all repercussions. And here’s the kicker; you, and like I said you’re not alone, are willing to play that part. To change any of this, that conditioned response has to change first, and yet I see no sign whatsoever that’s even a possibility.

I admit I’m not that brave. Are you?

I don’t view it as a matter of brave or not brave. Going to jail is a win for them, regardless of any “bravery” that may, or may not, be involved. My obligation is to family first, and I do them no good in jail. That being said, there are other ways of non-cooperation with this system up to, but not including, stabbing yourself in the heart or setting yourself on fire in the middle of the public square. How about minimizing your income to the point where you pay no, or a very minimal amount of FIT? How about advocating for a mass taxpayer revolt/boycott? They can’t jail us all, although I’m sure they want us to believe they can, and Boston is part of that perception management. But equally important is not playing the role you’ve been allotted, meaning you don’t say “we” when referring to their grievous crimes, and you don’t apologize on their behalf. You distance yourself from “them” as much as possible in word and deed. They must stand alone, naked, in front of all the world. Cleaning up their mess and apologizing for them is like enabling an alcoholic. Don’t enable. Not to mention, if you continue to use the word “we” and don’t distance yourself from the transgressors, then you play into the hands of the official narrative as it relates to terrorism. According to that narrative, the so-called “terrorists” consider ALL U.S. citizens as one, and therefore feel justified in blowing up anyone on the street because everyone is an enemy combatant. Saying “we” only plays into that. It’s not “we.” It’s them, and we can never let “them” forget it. Ever. You are not “them.” I am not “them.” There is no “we” when it comes to the crimes they have committed against all humanity, past, present and future.

I get the sentiment, but it is a virtue to aspire to responsibility. Contrary to your prescription, it’s the only way that things get done.

Fine, off with your fucking head then. Right now, step up to the guillotine and place your head zealously on the block for decapitation for everything you have done, are doing and will do against humanity. You are guilty as charged. You have charged yourself. In your own words you are them and they are you. You are one. You will gladly and bravely serve as their surrogate in taking the punishment that will ultimately be doled out. Oh wait, now you’re not so brave. But you’re brave enough to say shit like “it is a virtue to aspire to responsibility” and equate that with taking responsibility for the grievous transgressions of others under the rubric of the pollyannish “we”. This is typical “Liberal” claptrap. It’s disingenuous. It’s phoney. It’s bullshit. And worst of all, it’s completely ineffective and delusional. No, it’s not the way you get things done. Yes, it is the way things are done, and it’s part and parcel as to why humanity is in this mess. Psychopaths rely on you to do this bidding because you do it so well.

Have you heard of the suspects who confess to crimes they have not committed? That’s what Petro wants us to do because it’s a virtue to aspire to responsibility. Unbelievable! Really, it is. Like I said earlier, it’s not even a possibility. It’s why this will all end so badly.

Petro, I am so pleased to have seen your work and values over the last several years: I admire both. Hang in there, honest and decent soul.

Close all these political prisons we have around the world and send all the prisoners home.

@ Lex May 3, 2013

Our indefinite detention and terror paranoia state has imprisoned itself far more effectively than it has the residents of Guantanamo, given that they still have the self-respect and moral courage to hunger strike against their oppressors. We Americans from the working poor too busy to think about deep concepts while struggling day-to-day all the way up to the President are trapped in that rank confines of our own construct. I’d like to call it a shame, but it isn’t. It’s well deserved.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hear, hear!

@ wendydavis

A few postings ago markfromireland answered your question about hyperlinks. This is where he went through the process (if you click on the link). Indebted to markfromireland for teaching old bear new trixez.

@ Gerald Perkins May 1, 2013

Isn’t a conviction required before sending someone off to a US prison?

and

@ Ian Welsh May 3, 2013

I’m telling you what he wants to do

Something Obama and his administration do not want is to put any of these prisoners on trial. The problem is that group cannot legally be tried because the USG treated them as POWs and POWs are not legally subject to trial for their actions except under certain clearly defined and exceptional circumstances. I see no suggestion from USG that any of these prisoners committed war crimes. The evidence against them therefore, such as it is, has been contaminated by treating them as POWs. The doctrine of the “fruit of the poisonous tree”, applies and I find it difficult to imagine any circumstance in which a properly constituted court be it civilian or military could admit statements and evidence garnered from the prisoners at the time of their capture as evidence. (And that is before we get into how the evidence was obtained – for example under unlawful duress). From what I’ve seen the JAG is painfully aware of these difficulties.

mfi

@ Lex
May 4, 2013

haven’t really been treated as POWs,

Try telling that to the JAG who see themselves as bound by the rulings of the US courts in:

Salim Ahmed Hamdan v. Donald H. Rumsfeld, United States District Court for the District of Columbia, Civil Action No. 04-1519 (JR), pp. 13-14.

They’re also well aware of Article 5 of Geneva Convention III the latter part of which reads:

Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.

see: Article 5: Geneva Convention III

This has been upheld internationally see for example Abbasi & Anor., R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Foreign & Commonwealth Affairs & Secretary of State for the Home Department [2002] EWCA Civ 1598 (06 November 2002), the effect of which is that where the status of a detainee at the time of capture is unclear they are to be treated as POWs until such a time as a decision that they are not POWs has been made by a properly constituted and competent tribunal and not by either the executive or by some other (military) person.

The US courts have not ruled on this point as yet. However until such a time as the USG abrogates the Convention the Convention and the provisions of API 75 is the law of the land as far as the JAG is concerned.

All of the legal and extra-legal shilly shallying revolves around the fact that detainees are to be given POW status until it is determined they’re not entitled to it by a properly constituted tribunal. Once the USG persuades the American courts to rule that the detainees are not POWs the USG will be able to do what they want and all under cover of law. Given the general thrust of the judgements in

1. Hamdi et al v. Rumsfeld, Supreme Court of the United States, No. 03-6696, Opinion of O’Connor, J., 28 June 2004, 542 U.S. _ (2004) ;
2. Rasul et al v. Rumsfeld, Supreme Court of the United States, No. 03-334, Opinion of the Court, 28 June 2004, 542 U.S. _ (2004)
3. Rumsfeld v. Padilla, Supreme Court of the United States, No. 03-1027, Opinion of the Court, 28 June 2004,

I think it likely that the USG will get what it wants but it hasn’t got it yet.

mfi

@ Ian Welsh May 4, 2013

I’d put it somewhat stronger than you have Ian by putting it the other way around — I’d say that the illegality always been clear and grows clearer by the day as does the fact that gross injustices have been committed and continue to be committed. There’s a legal maxim on this side of the Atlantic:

Fiat justitia ruat caelum which translates as ‘Let justice be done though the heavens may fall’.

That’s good advice and a good way of doing business and running a civilised State in which the rule of law applies. I agree with you that the US constitutional protections are essentially a dead letter at this point.

I agree further that Obama is like Bush – indeed both you and I have argued that his administration is worse than that of Bush because it’s more efficient and effective.

Between their acceptance of the abandonment of the rule of law by their government and their acceptance of the reintroduction of mercenaries onto the battlefield and into war by their government the current generations of American adults have a lot to answer for.

mfi

markfromireland

It should be disconcerting that the US military is the last institution extant that requires some semblance of reality, all other governance exhibit various degrees of degeneration e.g. imperial presidency, judiciary by seance and legislature moribund in corruption and a population catatonic from propaganda, lobotomized by absence of education. There are no more Rubicons to mark boundaries and dies are easily cast.

Clarification:

IIRC the Rubicon and Arno rivers marked the boundary that command of Roman legion’s terminated. An automatic death penalty for both commander and legions for crossing violation. Therefore the Rubicon represented a protection for Rome against military overthrow (until it didn’t work). “No more Rubicon’s” may be easier as nothing remaining to hide behind. As for dies are easily cast may also be stated as decisions are easily made when there is no opposition.

@ MFI you are correct the travails are only beginning, although I was not aware of MBA degeneration of the military. Once institutional memory disappears, no institution is ever the sane, but had not considered that as having silver linings.

It’s apparent to me that America/Americans doesn’t/don’t understand the importance of closing Gitmo.
They miss the deep responsibility of “their” actions in continuing to permit such a travesty of human rights and the deficit of compassion laid bare by this continuum of cruelty.
And make no mistake; it continues as a direct result of our apathy and worse; complicity.
Fear is the mental illness exhibited by all but a few, outspoken and brave, citizens who genuinely see this whole gambit for what it is in actuality. Fear, is of course, a thief and we’re allowing it to continually steal from us.
As time moves forward it becomes harder and harder to stop the momentum toward the ultimate price paid; freedom for acquiescence; security for acquiescence: The whole second amendment gambit is exactly that; the illusion of a free people who can own “guns”; ooh, the ultimate power (not), (who can be murdered at will if they step out of line).
Which is of course no freedom at all; womb to tomb under control.
We are in fact, the suckers in the ultimate sting…

I believe when people who post here say “Americans” it’s obviously code for “White” third generation or greater. It’s a racist and elitist characterization. There is no defining monolithic entity called “Americans,” anymore than there is a defining monolithic entity called “Muslims.” It’s usually former and now disillusioned “Liberals” who use this stereotype, and it’s quite contradictory and simple-minded. It shows just how jaded they are, and it shows how the “Nazi Credo” resides just below the surface for them. Similar things were said of the Jews to malign them as an entire homogenous group. They were all the same, at least according to their numerous creepy critics.

There are not an insubstantial number of U.S. citizens, and those about to become U.S. citizens, who haven’t the faintest clue what GITMO is, so they are neither apathetic or acquiescent. They’re uneducated, uninformed and distracted. But that’s not all “Americans,” just some.

And, just to show us how humane it all is, the detainees will be given the right of gay marriage if that is their wish.

That gets the Blue Tribe on board.

Now, to get the Red Tribe on board, let’s ban abortions among the prisoners.

Mission Accomplished!

Ha!! I like it, and for the pièce de résistance of rights, the prisoners will be given the right to bare arms, meaning no sleeves. It will help save money due to the strain sequestration is putting on the budget, and using less fabric is environmentally conscious thus it’s Green.

It’s sunny down there. Throw some sunscreen in the vending machines and you’ve enlisted the business sector as well.

That island is toast and that is probably how the problem will be resolved. We’ll blow through 400 ppm this month. Seems to me the conservative consensus will start moving towards 2050 for 450 ppm. The alarmists who keep looking like they’re actually right about it all, are starting to wonder about 2030-ish for that, and then pondering whether that means an ocean acidification level (climate change’s twin crisis) sufficient to wipe out the phytoplankton, i.e. the entry level species on the food chain gone along with 50% of the planet’s oxygen.

But, NY Times shuts down its environmental desk and gives Bill Keller another 1000 plus words to tell us why he’s not wrong this time about invading another middle east nation.

Anyone have any clue what the inside thinking is at the highest levels, or heck, at any level of policy planning? Do they think there’s gonna be a technological breakthrough or are they sitting on one, are they in denial, is someone planning mass planet wide slaughter to bring the population level down? I simply don’t get it.

A great take down of Joel Stein [and other lazy “intellectuals”] by Elspeth Reeve. Long story short, generational warriors are jerks.

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2013/05/me-generation-time/65054/