Gitmo revisited
Let's take up where we left off last night.... You have to remember the Special Raporteurs (investigators) are dependent -- their way of life, grants, status etc. -- on finding human rights abuses. These are professional watchdogs (mostly self motivated and appointed through adept politics within a bloated and intensely corrupt bureaucracy) whose sole mission and goal is to find what they are predisposed to find anyway.
It turns out that the Gitmo 5 did not even visit the camp. They refused to go there after the US refused to allow free access to all prisoners. Ok, that does not look too good for the US, but you can put that into the report. But, how can they make an unbiased assessment of the camp without having been there? How many prisoners can you actually get in to see? If all you listen to for evidence is hearsay, and the evidence is not independently verifiable then that evidence is worthless. It would be thrown out in any court, US or EU. But not, apparently, by judicial experts from the UN. And of course if the hearsay used as a basis for the report is the crap put out by lawyers for the detainees, then it is worse than hearsay, but propaganda and possibly slander.
The UN report pointed to cases of excessive violence during transport of prisoners and force feeding of hunger strikers. Lemme see... he wants to die to become a martyr for the cause, and the US wants the detainee to live -- you can't let them all starve to death, because then you will be blamed for that too. So the human rights activists say that their human rights are being infringed by detention and also lack of self determination (being allowed to starve themselves). But if you hold them in the Hilton and they starve, you are just as "at fault."
Net of all of this is that according to the human rights experts, holding them at all is wrong. For the sake of argument, let's say that this is correct ... but then you let them go and next week they are back at their own games in some far off 'Stan: "you, woman, you have no Burqua on. You must die. You, flying a kite, you must die. You, American, minding your own business in New York City, you offend me in any number of ways ... you must die too." WHAT ABOUT OUR HUMAN RIGHTS? DOES BEING AN AMERICAN MEAN THAT WE SHOULD NOT HAVE ANY OR THAT WHATEVER WE HAVE SHOULD BE SUBORDINATE TO THOSE OF THE REST OF HUMANITY? Is it OK to attack us, but wrong for us to defend ourselves? Is it OK for the grossest human rights violations to occur in distant dusty lands, simply because they are sovereign nations? Is it ok to deny whole segments of the human race the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?
The UN has stood by while Saddam killed hundreds of thousands. The UN played the fiddle while genocide has occurred all over Africa -- many times. Sudan is the site of the latest show of ineptitude: Arab Muslims from the North have systematically exterminated the largely black Christians in the South. Khartoum doesn't even seriously deny it, calling it and internal affair. There is good evidence -verfiable- that slavery continues to exist on a large scale in the Sudan. Where is Kofi-bloody-Annan whenyou need him. The UN has always stood by while the forces of militant religion impose regimes of repression all over the world. And it is not only the third world where the UN failed to do anything. Consider the brutal years of sectarian violence in Balkans. The UN? Over at the HQ on the East River, taking serious lunches, power dinners, handing out human rights investigation franchises to the nomenklatura. But effecting change? Don't be stupid.
So what to do about Gitmo? You can't just keep the detainees there until they are old men, can you? But you can't just release them either. Mostly, they are there for a damn good reason, but there has to be some review based on security needs of the US -- a start would be membership or affiliation with Al Qa'ida. You fit that, you might as well start to call Gitmo home. Then perhaps a proved set of human rights violation (yes, that again): you go around killing people because they do not believe in your brand of whatever religion -- start collecting towels and a welcome mat for your hut. Taliban commander? Here's the SPF 40 for the Cuban sun. Not nice, not too efficient, but a start. This IS a war with real enemies of the United States and our rights. 500 or so detainees? Is that number perhaps too low?
It turns out that the Gitmo 5 did not even visit the camp. They refused to go there after the US refused to allow free access to all prisoners. Ok, that does not look too good for the US, but you can put that into the report. But, how can they make an unbiased assessment of the camp without having been there? How many prisoners can you actually get in to see? If all you listen to for evidence is hearsay, and the evidence is not independently verifiable then that evidence is worthless. It would be thrown out in any court, US or EU. But not, apparently, by judicial experts from the UN. And of course if the hearsay used as a basis for the report is the crap put out by lawyers for the detainees, then it is worse than hearsay, but propaganda and possibly slander.
The UN report pointed to cases of excessive violence during transport of prisoners and force feeding of hunger strikers. Lemme see... he wants to die to become a martyr for the cause, and the US wants the detainee to live -- you can't let them all starve to death, because then you will be blamed for that too. So the human rights activists say that their human rights are being infringed by detention and also lack of self determination (being allowed to starve themselves). But if you hold them in the Hilton and they starve, you are just as "at fault."
Net of all of this is that according to the human rights experts, holding them at all is wrong. For the sake of argument, let's say that this is correct ... but then you let them go and next week they are back at their own games in some far off 'Stan: "you, woman, you have no Burqua on. You must die. You, flying a kite, you must die. You, American, minding your own business in New York City, you offend me in any number of ways ... you must die too." WHAT ABOUT OUR HUMAN RIGHTS? DOES BEING AN AMERICAN MEAN THAT WE SHOULD NOT HAVE ANY OR THAT WHATEVER WE HAVE SHOULD BE SUBORDINATE TO THOSE OF THE REST OF HUMANITY? Is it OK to attack us, but wrong for us to defend ourselves? Is it OK for the grossest human rights violations to occur in distant dusty lands, simply because they are sovereign nations? Is it ok to deny whole segments of the human race the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?
The UN has stood by while Saddam killed hundreds of thousands. The UN played the fiddle while genocide has occurred all over Africa -- many times. Sudan is the site of the latest show of ineptitude: Arab Muslims from the North have systematically exterminated the largely black Christians in the South. Khartoum doesn't even seriously deny it, calling it and internal affair. There is good evidence -verfiable- that slavery continues to exist on a large scale in the Sudan. Where is Kofi-bloody-Annan whenyou need him. The UN has always stood by while the forces of militant religion impose regimes of repression all over the world. And it is not only the third world where the UN failed to do anything. Consider the brutal years of sectarian violence in Balkans. The UN? Over at the HQ on the East River, taking serious lunches, power dinners, handing out human rights investigation franchises to the nomenklatura. But effecting change? Don't be stupid.
So what to do about Gitmo? You can't just keep the detainees there until they are old men, can you? But you can't just release them either. Mostly, they are there for a damn good reason, but there has to be some review based on security needs of the US -- a start would be membership or affiliation with Al Qa'ida. You fit that, you might as well start to call Gitmo home. Then perhaps a proved set of human rights violation (yes, that again): you go around killing people because they do not believe in your brand of whatever religion -- start collecting towels and a welcome mat for your hut. Taliban commander? Here's the SPF 40 for the Cuban sun. Not nice, not too efficient, but a start. This IS a war with real enemies of the United States and our rights. 500 or so detainees? Is that number perhaps too low?
posted by Zaphod at Friday, February 17, 2006
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home