Wait a minute! Media disinformation campaign? So you are saying that there never existed a camp in Guantanamo Bay where the prisoners waited eight years without right to trial, placed in Cuba to avoid U.S. constitutional law? I've never used the word Nazi in an argument, so I won't start now, but it's really difficult.
back
1 comments
If you actually examine the legal issues in depth, it's way more complicated and nuanced that what you imply; that simplifies the problem to the point of falsehood. Something that the Obama administration has actually flat-out said (or "admitted", if you prefer), albeit not to anywhere near the media blitz of the accusations, when they said they need a year to look at the issues involved with closure, because it's not a simple, obvious problem after all.
As a for instance... why would "avoiding US constitutional law" matter when it doesn't cover the detainees anyhow, as the Constitution only really covers citizens? You might be able to spin an argument about penumbric emanations or build an ethical argument of some kind out of that, but you certainly aren't going to get a straightforward argument out of the actual text of the constitution. There's been a lot of very careless assumptions about what the US Constitution and the Geneva convention contain tossed around on this issue, and on the whole I've found the debate almost entirely disconnected from reality in these past years.
You are free to "not like it" or think it is immoral, but its actual illegality is way murkier than the disinformation campaign has conveyed, to the point that it may not be actually illegal at all. Moreover, the moral and ethical issues haven't gotten a fair hearing either as the conditions have been routinely grossly misrepresented, to the point that almost universally when somebody actually goes there and visits it they expressed surprised at the way it really was. I totally believe that there are those who would consider the reality immoral or unpleasant, but very few people are actually operating off of a realistic view of the problem.
The real takeaway is that the situation is complicated, and when somebody says "the situation is complicated" and you have a hard time resisting calling that person a Nazi... hello! Wake up! That's a sign you're running on propaganda, not rational thought.
As a for instance... why would "avoiding US constitutional law"
matter when it doesn't cover the detainees anyhow, as the
Constitution only really covers citizens?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yick_Wo_v._Hopkins
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Wong_Wing_v._United_States
Now, the U.S. argued under Bush (and perhaps is still arguing?) that the detainees at Guantanamo are neither citizens nor are they within the territory United States. But I think this theory is far from completely decided. Arguing that Guantanamo is somehow not part of the territory of the United States, when clearly we exert our sovereignty there takes a special sort of blind sightedness. Furthermore, after Guantanamo is closed, if the detainees are brought onto US soil, then the Constitution will unquestionably apply to them.
Getting back to my original point: saying that the Constitution only applies to citizens likewise ignores nuance and simplifies the problem to the point of falsehood.
If you murdered someone, that would be a simple act; the legal process, though, would be complicated. I'm sure there are aspects of the legal process in terms of repatriating the inmates, for example, that are complicated. What is not complicated is the violation of human rights they suffered.
I apologize for the "Nazi thing". I lost my temper; I'm sorry. But that brings up an interesting point: the holocaust was legal. Some did "not like it," but it was legal. So in 1948, the entire world came up with a set of guidelines called the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights that gave everyone -- Jews, Blacks, Muslims, everyone -- basic rights, regardless of what a country currently wants to make legal to "expedite its security".
You talk about propaganda, so let's talk about facts that no one disputes: More than 90% of the inmates in Guantanamo Bay were sold into captivity, most were never even charged with any crime let alone given a trial, and they were tortured. For eight years. Don't you see? If that's legal in any way, it can't be. The minute we make an exception for a dark-skinned Afghani, we send ourselves back to the time when exceptions were made for Jews and Gypsies, and we undo all the good work that was accomplished in the shadow of our shame.
And I'm pretty sure that the U.S. has signed a treaty (treaties?) making torture illegal, so the administration's behavior is illegal in addition to being immoral. The Bush administration gave absurd definitions of torture to try to classify the torture they were engaged in as not-torture, but I do not think anyone outside of the Bush administration, or knee-jerk partisans, take their definitions seriously.