Colleen Graffey the US Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy displayed astonishing callousness when she described the suicides of three detainees at Guantanamo Bay as a "good PR move to draw attention". Speaking to the BBC she stated that the deaths were part of a strategy and "a tactic to further the jihadi cause" and that the men did not value their lives nor the lives of those around them.
Meanwhile, Base Commander Rear Admiral Harry Harris stated that he believed that “this was not an act of desperation but an act of asymmetric warfare against us."
These are the first successful suicides since the Camp was opened over four years ago although there have been dozens of previous attempts. Rather than a calculated statement it is far more likely that they were driven by despair. Whether guilty of terrorist acts or not, years of incarceration without the prospect of trial or release are likely to drive a person to despair.
Having said that, the suicides will almost certainly lead to more calls for the closure of the detention camp. The US Government must heed these calls and act appropriately: Indefinite detention without trial would be utterly unacceptable if the camp was on the mainland. Despite what the inmates may or may not have done they deserve due process.
15 comments:
I just can't work up any sympathy for men who would have no qualms in beheading my entire family due to our "Infidel" status. It is precisely due to a destructive liberal mindset, courtesy of "death culture" radicals like the ACLU, that we don't bring them to the mainland for trial. I can envision their lame excuses now, "They had a difficult childhood", or "It's not his fault, he was oppressed".
We do not have to comply with the traditional rules of engagement that apply during wartime, as laid out in the Geneva Convention, because our enemy is waging an undeclared battle using non-uniformed soldiers. Rather than target legitimate military sights, they turn their maliciousness against innocents and civilians. As such, they do not deserve civilities like due process. In my opinion they don't deserve the luxuries as provided to them at Guantanamo either such as Halal approved meals, air conditioning, prayer mats, etc. It's hardly torturous treatment. Coming from hard scrabble, impoverished countries, I wager that some of them have probably never been fed and treated so well in their pitiful lives.
I have a feeling that given the forum provided here, my opinion will be lambasted. Se la vie.
ELasticwaistbandlady you are welcome to post our views without fear of censorship here (unlike another forum we both know and love!). I reserve my lambastings for racists and the idiotic brand of fellow leftist who will support any brutal dictator just so long as they are anti West!
Seriously, I find the actions of the Islamic terrorists an affront to humanity. Some may describe 9/11, 7/7 Madrid, Bali et al as some form of justice agains the western oppressors. Me? I call it murder. I took the same atitude towards the IRA.
My gut instinct would be to send the bastards off to get their quota of virgins with the most extreme of prejudice. My head,however, realises that if we wish to demonstrate that we are better than them then we must apply international and national law. If we don't then we run the risk of moving down that slippery slope where any action will be deemed acceptable if it is deemed to be fighting terrorism
With regard to the Guantanamo detainees, the conditions are almost certainly far better than they would receive had they been incarcerated in their own countries (the odd briton and australian excepted). While I have a lot of respect for the work Amnesty does it was foolish when it recently described the camp as a gulag.
I have no doubt that quite a lot of the inmates are extremely nasty characters. but having detained them, what now? They will have undergone substantial interrogation and some will have provided useful intelligence. I get the feeling that the US government does not really know what to do with them. In a fair few cases there will be no evidence of terrorist activity but to release them now would indicate that it was wrong to detain them in the first place.
You win the grand prize trophy as my new favorite leftist Jams!
I'm still puzzled as to why Amnesty is so focused on supposed atrocities by the U.S. while overlooking the persecution and murder of Christians throughout Asia and the Middle East. What about the genocide of Darfur? How about the human rights abuse occurring in China. Surely Amnesty International have better things to do with their time than plead the case of vermin who would turn around and kill them immediately upon their release. My best friend is Bulgarian. The word gulag being bandied about made her laugh and shake her head. "If they only knew what a gulag is really like", she said.
You're right though about the quandary of keeping these prisoners. They're not standard prisoners of war that can be dealt with in a traditional manner. I'm a just a tired American Mom who can only offer opinions and ideas. Solutions is something else altogether.
While I can't and don't sympathize with terrorists, when we deny some people due process, we have begun a slippery slope to deny it to any who are unpopular. Who decides? Even the Stalinists had a fake trial.
Your Bulgarian friend is very right. I talk a lot to a Hungarian on line who echoes her sentiments. The overuse of words like holocaust and genocide debases their currency and spits in the face of those atrocities that really do warrant such descriptions.
Human Rights are absolute rights in my view and are applicable to all, even those who perhaps deserve the most hideous of treatment.
While it may seem so at times Amnesty's attention is on human rights worldwide. Amnesty's home page at present is centred on abuse of women, Darfur and China (btw watch this space. My next post will be based on an Amnesty report on China).
You are not alone in the offering of ideas: liberal or, conservative, radical or reactionary we are good at outlining the problems according to our viewpoints but less good at working out the solutions...
Nicely put Fraser but I would rather not see the return Stalinist style show trials!!
i.e a thief has no legal right to compalin that he was robbed?
*complain
Red, It may stick in the craw sometimes but yes.
I'm having a problem with the 'asymmetrical warefare' thing.
What is that supposed to mean? Are both sides not equal????
It now transpires that one of the guys was to be freed - does this mean that some of those detainees are innocent??????
I'm still confused.
Asymmetrical warefare?
Is tragic and there is no excuse.
Pisces, two of them were set free, and most of them could be...
I loathe such expressions too Pisces.. I wonder if "friendly fire" waves and says have a nice day before blowing your head off!
Red, Pisces, While a fair few of the detainees may be very nasty I am sure a fair few (ie far too many of them) were just in the wrong place at the wrong time.
The situation at Guantanamo, Bagram and other places cannot go on.
My English is rusty. What is unfriendly fire?
Unfriendly fire nicks your wallet, kicks your dog and takes a dump on your living room carpet before blowing your head off!
Post a Comment