For those of you who did not hear it, on 3/10/06, This American Life put on a program detailing the facts at Guantanamo. It turns out that Seton Hall conducted a study of the prisoner profiles released by the government, and these show that more than 80% of the detainees were not "scooped up on the battlefield" as Bush, Cheney, and other dittohead Republicans repeat endlessly. They were handed over by Pakistani intelligence -- i.e., many are largely just enemies of the Musharraf regime. Also, there are many Uighurs there, while we tell the Chinese that they are not terrorists. More to the point, they are not prisoners of war in any real sense, but just people fingered by various "friendly" governments. There is obviously no reason for holding such people in something other than according to law.
It also explains habeas corpus very well, and why Bush's phony military "tribunals" are a farce. 1. The evidence against the prisoner is presumed true. 2. The accused may not have a laywer. 3. The accused may not see the evidence against him. Amazingly, some are still acquitted!
Then it explains the torture, electric shocks, beatings, and other things the government claims never happen, but won't let anyone check. Meanwhile, the government insists it can hold and use "coercive techniques" indefinitely. Bush has supprssed a hunger strike by force-feeding dozens.
We know Republicans are loyal little fascists, and nobody expects them to start respecting the rule of law. But where is the outrage from the Democrats? Start talking about how Guantanamo is a violation of everything Americans hold dear, and that patriots must speak out against it.
Wednesday, April 12, 2006
Guantanamo: Our National Shame
Posted by The Law Talking Guy at 10:00 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
You can follow this link to find an amicus curiae brief filed by over 100 active members of the British Parliament urging the United States not to abandon the ancient principle of habeas corpus. Amazing. Never reported in US media, of course.
// posted by LTG
I can only hope that Bush's low approval ratings will allow the Democrats somehow to confront this. However, if it comes to a choice between open confrontation about "Gitmo" and winning the election in 2006 I know what my preference is! First things first. First get a majority in at least one house of Congress then go after The Tyrrant with unbridled fury!
// posted by Raised By Republicans
I completely disagree with RbR in terms of priorities.
I'm not a complete idealist -- I would understand avoiding "open confrontation" over, say, some polarizing issue that boils down to a question of _how_ two sides think we should improve the country, like sunsetting tax cuts.
But if it's a question of what this country is _about_, you don't wait around until after the election to say "Oh, and you know what else we're gonna change? We're only going to keep people in jail that we actually have reason to believe did something wrong, and we're actually going to try them to decide if we're right."
Never mind that I think that favoring "essential freedoms" and "human rights" are strong political positions. There are some things that (as LTG says) "patriots must speak out against". Regardless of what the majority may think.
Grabbing prisoners because it's convenient, "coercing" them because we can, holding them indefinitely without justification or recourse...this is the way of power, of imposing the will of the strong on the weak. It is not the American way. Democrat or Republican. And we shouldn't countenance it until November. Or at all.
// posted by Bob
I agree with Bob. I believe that taking a principled, moral stand is what being liberal is all about. It is the Democrats' unwillingness to do so that has cost them credibility. RxR presents a false dichotomy. I do not think the Dems can win in 2006 without openly confronting Bush on his most egregious violations.
Post a Comment