The New York Times book reviewer recalled that the day after the 9/11 attacks, US President George W Bush declared the strikes by Al Qaeda "more than acts of terror. They were acts of war".
Bush's "war on terror" was "not a figure of speech," he said. It was a defining framework.
At the same time, the US government has classified detainees at Guantanamo as "enemy combatants" rather than prisoners of war. They have claimed the Geneva Convention (article 4) allows them to do so.
If, as Bush asserted, the strikes by Al Qaeda were "acts of war", why have Guantanamo prisoners been labelled enemy combatants rather than prisoners of war?
The answer is immoral and illegal: The US says "such a definition, which allows indefinite incarceration, is justified because detainees do not have the status of either regular soldiers or guerillas and they are not part of a regular army or militia".
What sort of twisted reasoning allows the US administration to call Al Qaeda's strikes acts of war while disallowing their classification as men of war? What sort of double talk refuses to allow them even "guerilla" status?
The answer to that is simple: the double talk definitions self-justify the illegal holding of prisoners indefinitely while torturing them for information.
If the government admitted that, they would have to also admit that they believed the detainees to be a part of a "regular" army or guerilla group.
Self-justification is almost always a contradiction.
Known and very popular cialis coupon which gives all the chance to receive a discount for a preparation which has to be available and exactly cialis coupons has been found in the distant room of this big house about which wood-grouses in the houses tell.
What about the detainees? Between 2002 and 2006, only 10 detainees were actually charged with terrorist offences.
Yet, the US government continues to claim that it has justification for holding the detainees indefinitely. If only 10 have been charged with offences, it is safe to assume that there isn't enough evidence to charge or convict the remaining prisoners.
According to Frontlines: "There is growing evidence that detainees at Guantanamo have suffered torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. Reports by FBI agents who witnessed detainee abuse have recently emerged, adding to the statements of former detainees describing the use of painful stress positions, extended solitary confinement, use of military dogs to threaten detainees and prolonged exposure to extremes of heat, cold and noise."
Experience suggests that when the US government has no evidence implicating detainees of any crime or an Al Qaeda connection, even after months and years of cruel treatment and interrogation, they send the detainee back to his home country, assuming that the home country accepts him.
When the released detainees arrive home, they don't want to talk about their experiences at Guantanamo.
They say that they are so happy to be reunited with their families that they don't want to be reminded of their imprisonment.
Four or five years of internment at Guantanamo have been enough to completely silence its victims. Should anyone doubt this, try to arrange an interview with an ex-resident of the camp to discuss what it was like.
According to an earlier report in the GDN, one of the detainee's lawyers said: "The US government had no desire to hold people who are not considered to be a danger."
Does anyone believe the incredulous illogic of that statement? Why would a lawyer make a statement that assumes it might take five years to determine whether or not a detainee might be dangerous?
Evidence suggests that the released detainees have been instructed, under threat, not to discuss their experiences in Guantanamo. Clearly, many of the detainees were wrongly held in the first place.
Fleeing from US attacks on Afghanistan, many were wrongly captured, tortured and finally released with sealed lips.
By Dr. Paul J. Balles If the world will be gulled, let it be gulled. -Robert Burton Americans refuse to end the reign of the National...
by Dr. Paul J. Balles “I am an invisible man," said Ralph Ellison in the prologue to his novel The Invisible Man, "When...
by Paul Balles Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost. --Thomas Jefferson ...
by Paul J. Balles Paul J. Balles argues that the Democrats' gains in the US mid-term elections will not lead to a change in US policy in the...
by Paul J. Balles Paul J. Balles considers the psychopathic phenomenon of the "superiority complex" as an explanation of...
Add this page to your favorite Social Bookmarking websites