The Deaths at Guantanamo
Below is the June 13, 2006 lead editorial of the Boston Globe and my letter responding. Also below are two other letters that speak to the fantasy world of the left-wing extremists that the Boston Globe chooses to publish.
Deaths at Guantanamo, editorial, June 13, 2006, The Boston Globe
Guantanamo made a mockery of US claims to respect human rights before three inmates committed suicide there last weekend. The deaths have brought renewed criticism from Washington's closest ally in the fight against terrorism, Great Britain, among others. The continued detention, without charges, of hundreds of men caught mainly in the Afghan war in 2001 isolates the United States in world opinion. Many of the detainees doubtless are dangerous, but the United States should have long since used either criminal trials or military tribunals with full due process rights to determine which detainees should be held and which freed.
The 460 detainees (there were about 600 at one point) have been at Guantanamo for a period almost as long as US involvement in World War II, but just 10 have been charged with any offenses. None of the three who committed suicide had been charged. One, though he apparently didn't know it, was on schedule to be released to his homeland if an appropriate form of detention could be arranged there.
Many detainees, facing the prospect of no trial and endless separation from family and friends had attempted suicide in the past. Inmates trying to kill themselves with food strikes are fed through tubes and strapped in restraint chairs to keep them from intentionally vomiting. A policy of guard checks every two minutes had kept other inmates from succeeding at suicide until last weekend, when at least one prisoner tricked guards into thinking he was sleeping.
Instead of recognizing the three suicides as acts of hopelessness, US officials said they were ``an act of asymmetric warfare waged against us" and a ``good PR move." The graceless remarks bring further dishonor on the United States.
In 2004, the Supreme Court ruled that the Bush administration had no right to hold persons without charge at Guantanamo and without a right to challenge their detention in court, after which Congress passed a law stripping the inmates of even that right. Since then, not just British officials but Germany's chancellor, Denmark's prime minister, a UN commission, and the European Union have all called for closing Guantanamo or decried the US treatment of its inmates.
By the end of this month, a Supreme Court with new Bush appointees John G. Roberts Jr. and Samuel A. Alito Jr. is expected to rule on the case of Salim Ahmed Hamdan, whose detention was ruled by a federal district court judge to violate US and international law. The court could spare the Bush administration further shame by ruling in Hamdan's favor and pushing the United States to do what it long since should have -- resolve the cases of the detainees fairly and close Guantanamo.
The letter:
Editor,
At first, I thought you were being funny with your lead editorial of June 13, "Deaths at Guantanamo", lending sympathy to the detained terrorists at Guantanamo while at the same time mocking a U.S. general that claimed the recent suicides there were acts of "asymmetric warfare". Then, I realized you were serious. Now that's hysterical! (End of fist letter.)
Actually, not so funny as more U.S. troops will be killed because of this editorial than if the editorial wasn’t written . . . and published.
Two more letters:
Editor,
The only way Mr. Rob Stegman (letters, June 8) can stick his finger in the eye of the Bush Administration in his letter of June 8, which I repeat in its entirety here, "The arrest of the alleged terrorists in Canada should put to rest another of the Bush administration's fabricated reasons for the war in Iraq: that fighting them over there means we won't be fighting them over here. Last time I checked, Canada was over here", is if he's prepared to drop the word "alleged". (End of second letter.)
Get it? The liberal extremists can’t bring themselves to convict a terrorist before the trial but their hatred of Bush is so blinding and logic-blocking that they overlook the terrorist hasn’t been convicted just to attack the President. And the Letters Editor at the Boston Globe printed it! Dummies all around.
Editor,
Can you please provide the "google" search criteria so that I, too, can see the factual evidence that the President of the United States ever said, "mission accomplished"? Oh, you can't because the President never did say it? Well, then I guess you can continue to publish letters and cartoons that suggest he did, but then that would only negatively reflect on the intelligence of the letter writers and the cartoonists. Maybe a disclaimer should accompany all such ignorant letters and cartoons so that a reader doesn't embarrass her/himself at a dinner party, in the workplace, or other by repeating this lie as fact. (End of third letter.)
Below is the June 13, 2006 lead editorial of the Boston Globe and my letter responding. Also below are two other letters that speak to the fantasy world of the left-wing extremists that the Boston Globe chooses to publish.
Deaths at Guantanamo, editorial, June 13, 2006, The Boston Globe
Guantanamo made a mockery of US claims to respect human rights before three inmates committed suicide there last weekend. The deaths have brought renewed criticism from Washington's closest ally in the fight against terrorism, Great Britain, among others. The continued detention, without charges, of hundreds of men caught mainly in the Afghan war in 2001 isolates the United States in world opinion. Many of the detainees doubtless are dangerous, but the United States should have long since used either criminal trials or military tribunals with full due process rights to determine which detainees should be held and which freed.
The 460 detainees (there were about 600 at one point) have been at Guantanamo for a period almost as long as US involvement in World War II, but just 10 have been charged with any offenses. None of the three who committed suicide had been charged. One, though he apparently didn't know it, was on schedule to be released to his homeland if an appropriate form of detention could be arranged there.
Many detainees, facing the prospect of no trial and endless separation from family and friends had attempted suicide in the past. Inmates trying to kill themselves with food strikes are fed through tubes and strapped in restraint chairs to keep them from intentionally vomiting. A policy of guard checks every two minutes had kept other inmates from succeeding at suicide until last weekend, when at least one prisoner tricked guards into thinking he was sleeping.
Instead of recognizing the three suicides as acts of hopelessness, US officials said they were ``an act of asymmetric warfare waged against us" and a ``good PR move." The graceless remarks bring further dishonor on the United States.
In 2004, the Supreme Court ruled that the Bush administration had no right to hold persons without charge at Guantanamo and without a right to challenge their detention in court, after which Congress passed a law stripping the inmates of even that right. Since then, not just British officials but Germany's chancellor, Denmark's prime minister, a UN commission, and the European Union have all called for closing Guantanamo or decried the US treatment of its inmates.
By the end of this month, a Supreme Court with new Bush appointees John G. Roberts Jr. and Samuel A. Alito Jr. is expected to rule on the case of Salim Ahmed Hamdan, whose detention was ruled by a federal district court judge to violate US and international law. The court could spare the Bush administration further shame by ruling in Hamdan's favor and pushing the United States to do what it long since should have -- resolve the cases of the detainees fairly and close Guantanamo.
The letter:
Editor,
At first, I thought you were being funny with your lead editorial of June 13, "Deaths at Guantanamo", lending sympathy to the detained terrorists at Guantanamo while at the same time mocking a U.S. general that claimed the recent suicides there were acts of "asymmetric warfare". Then, I realized you were serious. Now that's hysterical! (End of fist letter.)
Actually, not so funny as more U.S. troops will be killed because of this editorial than if the editorial wasn’t written . . . and published.
Two more letters:
Editor,
The only way Mr. Rob Stegman (letters, June 8) can stick his finger in the eye of the Bush Administration in his letter of June 8, which I repeat in its entirety here, "The arrest of the alleged terrorists in Canada should put to rest another of the Bush administration's fabricated reasons for the war in Iraq: that fighting them over there means we won't be fighting them over here. Last time I checked, Canada was over here", is if he's prepared to drop the word "alleged". (End of second letter.)
Get it? The liberal extremists can’t bring themselves to convict a terrorist before the trial but their hatred of Bush is so blinding and logic-blocking that they overlook the terrorist hasn’t been convicted just to attack the President. And the Letters Editor at the Boston Globe printed it! Dummies all around.
Editor,
Can you please provide the "google" search criteria so that I, too, can see the factual evidence that the President of the United States ever said, "mission accomplished"? Oh, you can't because the President never did say it? Well, then I guess you can continue to publish letters and cartoons that suggest he did, but then that would only negatively reflect on the intelligence of the letter writers and the cartoonists. Maybe a disclaimer should accompany all such ignorant letters and cartoons so that a reader doesn't embarrass her/himself at a dinner party, in the workplace, or other by repeating this lie as fact. (End of third letter.)
posted by Zack at 6:49 PM
4 Comments:
Ah, Conscience, you were missed. Though I did not express an opinion on maintaining Gitmo, I will do so now: I'm completely OK with maintaining the status quo . . . until the Courts decide the fate of military tribunals . . . the ush Administration has been pushing for timely adjudication since the inception of the detainment camp . . . the delay has been from left-wing court challenges. My point above was none other than the General suggested the suicides were an act of warfare. The Globe mocked him. Opposite the editorial was the lead editorial cartoon doing the same mocking. So, exactly what the terrorist wanted to happen, with a complicit liberal media, did happen. Support for the war will further wane and more deaths will be the result. Asymmetric warfare? You bet.
Also, I fail to see where I've expressed an "extreme" view of anything, can you be specific?
Liberal Senator Jack Reed has used very strong language to describe how bad these detainees are. If he's saying it, then I pretty sure we have the most dangerous 460 folks down there . . . and there not killing anyone.
Conscience, let there be no mistake, I despise the Boston Globe and their Editorial Board of 8 which consists of 6 white men. As long as the white men are flaming liberal extremists then I guess it's OK if the group doesn't "look like America". So, yes, I despise everythign about the Boston Globe; it is the basis for my blog.
How about the second letter to the Editor. The terrorist lover cannot help but interject "alleged" but then must assume he is a terrorist in order to slam the President. And no one at the Letters desk gets it. Dummies all around.
The third letter - simply never said it. Oh, well, idiots will believe what they want regardless of the facts. I love running into them at dinner parties, well, where I'm not the host, of course.
The mechanics of this blog site do not allow for a spell check or other edit features; no one holds it against anyone here for typos or duh! usage errors - I will def. use "they're", "their" and "there" interchangeably.
Nothing on al Fedaban Americans?
"terrorist lover" was too harsh in the prior comment; I withdraw the use of that phrase and substitute "terrorist sympathizer".
Conscience, it's so nice to have you back! Catalyst, can you be far behind?
Post a Comment
<< Home