The sudden silencing of Guantanamo's artists(bbc.com)
bbc.com
The sudden silencing of Guantanamo's artists
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-62399826
163 comments
> Until the end of 2017, Guantanamo detainees were allowed to take their art with them when they were released, or give it to their lawyers to take out.
> The artists could bring their work to meetings with their lawyers, who would submit it along with their meeting notes to a "privilege team", which assesses everything leaving Guantanamo for classified material or national security issues.
...
> Then in late 2017, under the Trump administration, it became clear that art was no longer being allowed out. Like lots of things in the world of Guantanamo, there was no official notification to the lawyers, no memo. Artwork was all of a sudden simply bounced back from the privilege team to the detainees.
...
> Keeping his art in Guantanamo would be "the same as keeping me here", Qasim said.
> "The art I made is me," he said. "If they keep my art here, my soul will stay here."
Sometimes it really does seem that "the cruelty is the point".
> The artists could bring their work to meetings with their lawyers, who would submit it along with their meeting notes to a "privilege team", which assesses everything leaving Guantanamo for classified material or national security issues.
...
> Then in late 2017, under the Trump administration, it became clear that art was no longer being allowed out. Like lots of things in the world of Guantanamo, there was no official notification to the lawyers, no memo. Artwork was all of a sudden simply bounced back from the privilege team to the detainees.
...
> Keeping his art in Guantanamo would be "the same as keeping me here", Qasim said.
> "The art I made is me," he said. "If they keep my art here, my soul will stay here."
Sometimes it really does seem that "the cruelty is the point".
> Sometimes it really does seem that "the cruelty is the point".
Yes, this is very much as American as apple pie, as they would say.
Yes, this is very much as American as apple pie, as they would say.
Cruelty is worldwide. See: Rwanda, Yemen, former Yugoslavia, Mexican cartels, ISIS, etc. for a small sample of non-US cruelty in the twenty-first century.
The US would not like to think of itself in that company. But it seems that quite a few Americans see ourselves as better only because of our identity as Americans and not because of any difference in behavior.
American exceptionalism goes both ways. Yes, people who see the US as uniquely moral and good are wrong. So are people who see the US as uniquely bad. It’s somewhat better than most countries in the world, and somewhat worse than some others, especially Western and Northern Europe, i.e. the most developed part of the world.
If it’s not fair to compare the US to Yemen, then it’s not fair to compare it to Norway either. It simply is what it is.
If it’s not fair to compare the US to Yemen, then it’s not fair to compare it to Norway either. It simply is what it is.
I wouldn't compare countries. But I can recognize what the OP said, that for many Americans the cruelty is the point, and I find that unpleasant all on its own. The comparison to the worst may not be apt, but I feel disgusted to be even inaptly associated with it.
By saying “Americans” rather than “human beings in general” you are implicitly comparing countries.
I am referring to a specific movement within the US.
Yeah, there's two ways to look at this:
* The US is doing better than you might expect from an influential, powerful country, that could be abusing its power much more (but that's how empires fall, and the US has learned from the lessons of history)
* The US is doing worse than you might expect from a prosperous and stable country, one that doesn't need to be driven by desperation and genuine threats to survival
* The US is doing better than you might expect from an influential, powerful country, that could be abusing its power much more (but that's how empires fall, and the US has learned from the lessons of history)
* The US is doing worse than you might expect from a prosperous and stable country, one that doesn't need to be driven by desperation and genuine threats to survival
Unlike these countries US is supposedly a part of the democratic and free where rule of law and human rights are a thing.
Also, apples and oranges. Cartel violence is a failure of the state but at least not a systemic cruelty by the state itself.
Also, apples and oranges. Cartel violence is a failure of the state but at least not a systemic cruelty by the state itself.
[deleted]
Lots of countries bake apple pies too.
Those countries aren’t first world, and they most certainly don’t claim to be the world superpower.
Plenty of cruelty has been perpetrated by rich, Western countries too, the Holocaust for example. What’s your point?
Also, whether a country is a superpower has no obvious connection to whether it commits human rights violations.
Also, whether a country is a superpower has no obvious connection to whether it commits human rights violations.
> Sometimes it really does seem that "the cruelty is the point".
This extends very far beyond Guantanamo. I really wonder where all these sick fucks come from. I don't remember much of a psycho vibe from classmates or work colleagues. Yet the US makes them in sufficient quantity that they seem to pop up wherever authority is. Prisons, police, military, they all seem to have endless human garbage that enjoys being cruel if they can. How has this country produced these "people" and why do they achieve positions of power instead of failure?
This extends very far beyond Guantanamo. I really wonder where all these sick fucks come from. I don't remember much of a psycho vibe from classmates or work colleagues. Yet the US makes them in sufficient quantity that they seem to pop up wherever authority is. Prisons, police, military, they all seem to have endless human garbage that enjoys being cruel if they can. How has this country produced these "people" and why do they achieve positions of power instead of failure?
Haven't you encountered "The Banality of Evil," yet? It doesn't take "sick fucks" to operate a detainment facility and/or concentration camp. The staff at these institutions are simply operating in accordance with handed-down procedure designed in abstract by remote administrators.
I think a better book on this topic would be "Ordinary Men". It covers the "growth" of ordinary police reservists that had little to no Nazi tendencies to brutal mass murderers of Jewish men, women, children, elderly "just following orders". "The Banality of Evil" has legitimate criticisms directed at the book and most notably the narrative Eichmann sought to paint himself in (just an administrative employee), which contrasts with what his co-workers and superiors thought of him.
Beauracracies can be extremely cruel without a single cruel person. All is takes is diffuse, disconnected decision making to produce ridiculous rules.
I have never felt more oppressed than when my wife was intentionally disallowed from re-entering the U.S. with me during COVID, since we happened to be out of the country when Trump levied his moronic bans against visa holders. It wasn't until Biden became president that she was able to return. If Trump had remained president, it's likely I would have had to leave the country to see her again. We were separated for 15 months, for literally no reason other than Trump's idiocy and a bureaucracy that has no thinking mind of its own. I felt helpless, and I think the scary thing was that I was helpless. No one cared, at all. There was not even a person you could speak to for help or guidance.
It boggles the mind how these prisoners and others can remain even remotely sane during their times in literal holes and figurative holes of bureaucracy while being mentally and physically assaulted and tortured.
While I do agree about the bureaucracy, I believe that these bureaucracies don't have to be this way. But what it requires is that the people in charge of the bureaucracies care about finding deficiencies and fixing them, assuming they aren't the ones directing the non-niceties in the first place.
It boggles the mind how these prisoners and others can remain even remotely sane during their times in literal holes and figurative holes of bureaucracy while being mentally and physically assaulted and tortured.
While I do agree about the bureaucracy, I believe that these bureaucracies don't have to be this way. But what it requires is that the people in charge of the bureaucracies care about finding deficiencies and fixing them, assuming they aren't the ones directing the non-niceties in the first place.
> No one cared, at all.
I know the feeling, having been involved with the US immigration process since the start of covid & living here through the last couple Trump years.
I know the feeling, having been involved with the US immigration process since the start of covid & living here through the last couple Trump years.
In case of American law enforcement (of every level), it is not just that. It's permeated with that "sheep / wolf / sheepdog" mentality, thanks to Dave Grossman and his lectures. And once you've neatly subdivided people like that, it's only natural to dehumanize the "wolves" if you're the "sheepdog".
Well, one answer would be that there’s no need for a “psycho vibe” on the road to heartless acts. It can look a lot more like complacency.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eichmann_in_Jerusalem#Banali...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eichmann_in_Jerusalem#Banali...
It's important to acknowledge that there's a tendency to consider certain sets of people subhuman and deserving of anything bad thing that happens to them. Consider how America treats its poor and its sick.
> "Consider how America treats its poor and its sick."
No matter how valuable we were perceived to be or treated as (by some folk at least) prior to our illness (and subsequent "poor-ness"), or how valuable we're capable of being if only we could get one tiny shred of help or luck dealing with our medical needs, we're treated like worthless garbage and kicked to the curb to suffer miserably the moment we're no longer able to continue as a functional part of the money-producing machine for the rich and powerful. That's the truth of life on a planet where money is literally God to most people.
No matter how valuable we were perceived to be or treated as (by some folk at least) prior to our illness (and subsequent "poor-ness"), or how valuable we're capable of being if only we could get one tiny shred of help or luck dealing with our medical needs, we're treated like worthless garbage and kicked to the curb to suffer miserably the moment we're no longer able to continue as a functional part of the money-producing machine for the rich and powerful. That's the truth of life on a planet where money is literally God to most people.
I suspect they look for positions of power, sadly.
I'm against prisoners in non-wartime being held without allegations or trials... I mean, Khalid was held pre-9/11...
That said, I do not care about the art, or even speech, of prisoners--of which who are properly convicted, beyond speech with their attorneys and allowed contacts (whom must be able to communicate on behalf of them). The bothersome part of this is Guantanamo's non-wartime use in-and-of itself.
That said, I do not care about the art, or even speech, of prisoners--of which who are properly convicted, beyond speech with their attorneys and allowed contacts (whom must be able to communicate on behalf of them). The bothersome part of this is Guantanamo's non-wartime use in-and-of itself.
> who are properly convicted
They haven't been. Legally speaking, the remaining detainees at Guantanamo are basically victims of indefinite government kidnapping, as the US government has specifically refused to actually put them on trial because there isn't enough admissible evidence to do so.
They haven't been. Legally speaking, the remaining detainees at Guantanamo are basically victims of indefinite government kidnapping, as the US government has specifically refused to actually put them on trial because there isn't enough admissible evidence to do so.
Perhaps I wasn't clear, I am saying that this is bothersome because he wasn't convicted. It's my first sentence. I just don't care about the art angle.
This. If they were convicted, they’d be in a US prison, not a place that the US just indefinitely “rents” so it can be off US soil.
Remember: military bases are US soil and subject to the Constitution. Except for when they’re not.
Remember: military bases are US soil and subject to the Constitution. Except for when they’re not.
You don't put lawful combatants "on trial". In fact, it is illegal to do so under the Geneva Conventions.
Unlawful combatants, by contrast, are not entitled to a trial, and can even be executed on the spot if it seems advisable.
Being a lawful combatant requires, among other things, that the combatant wear a uniform or other insignia recognizable at a distance.
No uniform -> no POW rights has been the rule for a very, very long time.
Unlawful combatants, by contrast, are not entitled to a trial, and can even be executed on the spot if it seems advisable.
Being a lawful combatant requires, among other things, that the combatant wear a uniform or other insignia recognizable at a distance.
No uniform -> no POW rights has been the rule for a very, very long time.
> Unlawful combatants, by contrast, are not entitled to a trial, and can even be executed on the spot if it seems advisable
When you write these things, imagine how they work when your simply replace names of countries involved.
You are saying it's right and proper when a Russian soldier executes a Ukrainian civilian putting up resistance? Or a civilian that looks like the guy that was putting up resistance?
Either you are a combatant, or you are a criminal. If you are a combatant, Geneva convention applies. If you are a criminal, system of justice applies. There isn't some sort of third subhuman category you can just execute willy-nilly.
Civilians can and do take up arms to defend their homes. They do not have uniforms just for such an occasion and Geneva convention recongises that.
When you write these things, imagine how they work when your simply replace names of countries involved.
You are saying it's right and proper when a Russian soldier executes a Ukrainian civilian putting up resistance? Or a civilian that looks like the guy that was putting up resistance?
Either you are a combatant, or you are a criminal. If you are a combatant, Geneva convention applies. If you are a criminal, system of justice applies. There isn't some sort of third subhuman category you can just execute willy-nilly.
Civilians can and do take up arms to defend their homes. They do not have uniforms just for such an occasion and Geneva convention recongises that.
> If you are a combatant, Geneva convention applies.
Only if you are wearing a uniform and otherwise abiding by the laws of war.
Look it up.
Edit: Read it yourself.
https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Article.xs...
Note that even resistance forces are required to wear insignia.
It doesn't have to be a fancy uniform, even an armband of a specific color will work.
What you cannot do is engage in hostilities while hiding among the civilian population.
Only if you are wearing a uniform and otherwise abiding by the laws of war.
Look it up.
Edit: Read it yourself.
https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Article.xs...
Note that even resistance forces are required to wear insignia.
It doesn't have to be a fancy uniform, even an armband of a specific color will work.
What you cannot do is engage in hostilities while hiding among the civilian population.
And how do we know that the people locked up in Gitmo were not wearing an armband or something similar?
Oh, right, the United States government told us. How convenient.
Truth is, in many cases, those people weren't combatants at all. But when you're denied due process because of the presumption of being an "illegal combatant", it's kinda hard to prove otherwise.
Oh, right, the United States government told us. How convenient.
Truth is, in many cases, those people weren't combatants at all. But when you're denied due process because of the presumption of being an "illegal combatant", it's kinda hard to prove otherwise.
> And how do we know that the people locked up in Gitmo were not wearing an armband or something similar?
> Oh, right, the United States government told us. How convenient.
Yes, the United States government has kept them prisoner for 20 years, at great inconvenience and expense, because they just want to be meanies. You bet.
> But when you're denied due process because of the presumption of being an "illegal combatant", it's kinda hard to prove otherwise.
"Due process" is a feature of United States civilian law.
Not international martial law.
> Oh, right, the United States government told us. How convenient.
Yes, the United States government has kept them prisoner for 20 years, at great inconvenience and expense, because they just want to be meanies. You bet.
> But when you're denied due process because of the presumption of being an "illegal combatant", it's kinda hard to prove otherwise.
"Due process" is a feature of United States civilian law.
Not international martial law.
> Yes, the United States government has kept them prisoner for 20 years, at great inconvenience and expense, because they just want to be meanies.
Well, no, they took them prisoner and held them there initially for a variety of bad reasons, and then they were kept there subsequently largely because of intrabranch squabbles, radicalization because of long unjust confinement, and foreign reluctance to help resolve the problem (in large part due to the preceding point) making it difficult to find a resolution to the problem created by the initial bad decisions.
(Anthropomorphizing the US government as if it were an individual with general consistence of interest is... not consistent with political reality, often, or on this point in particular.)
Well, no, they took them prisoner and held them there initially for a variety of bad reasons, and then they were kept there subsequently largely because of intrabranch squabbles, radicalization because of long unjust confinement, and foreign reluctance to help resolve the problem (in large part due to the preceding point) making it difficult to find a resolution to the problem created by the initial bad decisions.
(Anthropomorphizing the US government as if it were an individual with general consistence of interest is... not consistent with political reality, often, or on this point in particular.)
Every one of them is there for a "bad reason"? Not a genuine terrorist in the lot?
Sorry, you are not arguing this point in good faith.
Sorry, you are not arguing this point in good faith.
If there are, why is the government fighting tooth and nail to prevent anything pertaining to those cases from ending up in civil courts?
Your "prisoners aren't entitled to due process" point doesn't matter - even if true, if we are the good guys, we should embrace the process that conclusively establishes guilt or innocence for everyone to see, not lock people up in special you-have-no-rights prisons.
Your "prisoners aren't entitled to due process" point doesn't matter - even if true, if we are the good guys, we should embrace the process that conclusively establishes guilt or innocence for everyone to see, not lock people up in special you-have-no-rights prisons.
> Yes, the United States government has kept them prisoner for 20 years, at great inconvenience and expense, because they just want to be meanies. You bet.
So there are no political prisoners in China?
So there are no political prisoners in China?
The United States is not China.
It's not like these people were found in a battlefield. Most of them were kidnapped from their homes in air raids. It's pretty hard to argue that they didn't have a legal right to trial.
A good number were proffered up for cash to the US on a bounty system and were little more than tourists from other parts of the world with few local friends or contacts and ideal patsies for whatever stories local warlords spun about them.
"Tourists" don't generally travel to active war zones.
Sure they do. Folks who have families who live in war zones, for example, will almost certainly fit the definition. Also, I see you've never heard of Miles Routledge, in fact I think he's in Afghanistan right now on a shooting trip with the Taliban - and his next destination is the South Sudan. [1] I myself have been to more than a handful of spicy jurisdictions.
It's fine to say you wouldn't but let's not go projecting.
[1] https://nypost.com/2021/08/18/uk-student-miles-routledge-fli...
It's fine to say you wouldn't but let's not go projecting.
[1] https://nypost.com/2021/08/18/uk-student-miles-routledge-fli...
> Also, I see you've never heard of Miles Routledge, in fact I think he's in Afghanistan right now on a shooting trip with the Taliban
If "Miles Routledge" is on a "shooting trip with the Taliban", he deserves anything he gets.
And if you make a habit of visiting "spicy jurisdictions", you deserve anything you get.
I say this not out of animus for you or Routledge, but if you knowingly and intentionally engage in risky behavior, you don't get to whine when something goes wrong.
Edit: I smoke cigarettes, which I know to be risky behavior. If I get lung cancer, I won't be whining about it.
Similarly, if Routledge's Taliban buddies decide they don't like him any more, and take a notion to saw off his head on video (a rather more likely risk than him accidentally being sent to Gitmo, IMO), that's on him.
If "Miles Routledge" is on a "shooting trip with the Taliban", he deserves anything he gets.
And if you make a habit of visiting "spicy jurisdictions", you deserve anything you get.
I say this not out of animus for you or Routledge, but if you knowingly and intentionally engage in risky behavior, you don't get to whine when something goes wrong.
Edit: I smoke cigarettes, which I know to be risky behavior. If I get lung cancer, I won't be whining about it.
Similarly, if Routledge's Taliban buddies decide they don't like him any more, and take a notion to saw off his head on video (a rather more likely risk than him accidentally being sent to Gitmo, IMO), that's on him.
right, but the fact that you smoke cigarettes doesn't give the US the right to lock you up without charges. The problem isn't that these people got hurt, it's that they got illegally imprisoned for decades without charges or trials.
Smoking cigarettes exposes me to the risk of lung cancer.
Being buddies with the Taliban exposes you to the risk of them sawing off your head, or being taken prisoner as an unlawful combatant.
And no, imprisoning unlawful combatants indefinitely is not "illegal", neither under United States law nor under the international laws of war.
If you claim otherwise, I'm going to have to ask for a citation.
Being buddies with the Taliban exposes you to the risk of them sawing off your head, or being taken prisoner as an unlawful combatant.
And no, imprisoning unlawful combatants indefinitely is not "illegal", neither under United States law nor under the international laws of war.
If you claim otherwise, I'm going to have to ask for a citation.
> I'm going to have to ask for a citation.
And it gets a downmod, rather than a citation. Hint: that means you lose.
And it gets a downmod, rather than a citation. Hint: that means you lose.
> And if you make a habit of visiting "spicy jurisdictions", you deserve anything you get.
So far what I've got is a broader perspective so thank you.
So far what I've got is a broader perspective so thank you.
[deleted]
so in civilized countries, we have these things called trials where evidence can be weighed rather than kicking people up without charges for a few decades and speculating.
It is forbidden under the Geneva Conventions to put lawful combatants on trial.
Unlawful combatants are not entitled to a trial.
It is a grievous error to assume that civilian law applies in a military context.
Unlawful combatants are not entitled to a trial.
It is a grievous error to assume that civilian law applies in a military context.
It's wrong to assume that all of the several hundred prisoners from multiple countries were "unlawful combatants".
As stated, a large number were delivered to the US in exchange for bounty and were alleged to be working with terrorists, allegations that were taken at face value, not looked into for years, if ever, and often lacking evidence.
Attempting to slide out of this via a false binary (ie. either lawful or unlawful combantants) is simply sleazy.
As stated, a large number were delivered to the US in exchange for bounty and were alleged to be working with terrorists, allegations that were taken at face value, not looked into for years, if ever, and often lacking evidence.
Attempting to slide out of this via a false binary (ie. either lawful or unlawful combantants) is simply sleazy.
That's so weird then that the US was putting them up for trials. Not all of them, only some of them - and not on any particular schedule. In fact 10 of them are awaiting trial at this very moment.
You can't have it both ways.
You can't have it both ways.
I'm not "having it both ways".
Unlawful combatants are not entitled to a trial. That doesn't mean you can't give them one if you feel like it.
You can basically do anything you want with them, including giving them a trial or even simply shooting them on the spot.
Unlawful combatants are not entitled to a trial. That doesn't mean you can't give them one if you feel like it.
You can basically do anything you want with them, including giving them a trial or even simply shooting them on the spot.
> You can basically do anything you want with them
Unless "you" accidentally transport them to the United States like any other prisoner of the US government, in which case they are entitled to legal due process. It's a very principled system that we should all feel great about.
Unless "you" accidentally transport them to the United States like any other prisoner of the US government, in which case they are entitled to legal due process. It's a very principled system that we should all feel great about.
“Like almost all the men sent there, he has never been charged with a crime.”
Perhaps I wasn't clear, I am saying that this is bothersome because he wasn't convicted or charged. It's my first sentence.
I just don't care about the art angle.
I just don't care about the art angle.
[deleted]
[deleted]
When can we finally close this farce.
Obama will get around to that promise any day now.
Seems he fell victim to that classic 'easy to make promises when you're running for office, difficult to follow through when you have access to state secrets you can't share with the public.'
More likely, "difficult when there are important people complicit in all this, but whom you must retain as your allies to exercise political power".
It's part of why the whole thing is rotten and can't be fixed from within the system by the system's own rules. Too many skeletons in too many closets.
It's part of why the whole thing is rotten and can't be fixed from within the system by the system's own rules. Too many skeletons in too many closets.
I think it's fairly unlikely to be explained by "there's secret evidence". We've pulled "whoops, wrong guy" a few times; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Guantanamo_Bay_detaine... contains a number of "determined to be innocent" listings.
The truth is probably closer to "there were a lot of people who sabotaged the attempt"; Republicans, Democrats in swing states, Pentagon officials. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/08/01/why-obama-has-...
The truth is probably closer to "there were a lot of people who sabotaged the attempt"; Republicans, Democrats in swing states, Pentagon officials. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/08/01/why-obama-has-...
[deleted]
There are other plausible explanations. That old “if only you knew what I knew” excuse is a bit tired
[deleted]
Guantanamo will exist until everyone involved in its creation and maintenance has been prosecuted for engaging in torture.
the state isn't going to do that by following its own rules or acting in its own interest
[deleted]
Its not hard to see why. The novelty of being "made in Guantanamo" could turn these into sought-after collector items that wealthy buyers, primarily in the middle east, would easily pay tens or hundreds of thousands for, if that isnt already the case. It doesnt seem fair to the victims of terrorism that the perpetrators/conspirators gets to make hundreds of thousands of $ while in custody and then live a lavish life once released.
> A few weeks ago, Khalid Qasim got some news he'd been waiting 20 years for. He had been cleared for release from the prison at Guantanamo Bay.
> By that point, Qasim had been in Guantanamo nearly half his life, aged 23 to 43. Like almost all the men sent there, he has never been charged with a crime.
Most people at Guantanamo haven't been charged with anything, and about a quarter of the rest have been cleared of any wrongdoing. It's a travesty that the place continues to exist and has ever existed.
Your "primarily in the middle east" comment is also really confusing to me -- first, citation needed? Second, even if true, so what? Why should it be worse that wealthy buyers of these pieces would be "primarily in the middle east" than anywhere else?
> By that point, Qasim had been in Guantanamo nearly half his life, aged 23 to 43. Like almost all the men sent there, he has never been charged with a crime.
Most people at Guantanamo haven't been charged with anything, and about a quarter of the rest have been cleared of any wrongdoing. It's a travesty that the place continues to exist and has ever existed.
Your "primarily in the middle east" comment is also really confusing to me -- first, citation needed? Second, even if true, so what? Why should it be worse that wealthy buyers of these pieces would be "primarily in the middle east" than anywhere else?
Reminder that the remaining detainees in Guantánamo have never been convicted of a crime; the government explicitly refuses to put them on trial. This makes them political prisoners at best.
[deleted]
Maybe unpopular opinion - the people held at Guantanamo are responsible for killing humans via cowardly terrorists attacks, either indirectly or directly. The “art” they make while being held is simply their coping mechanism. If they truly want to be released, then worrying about what happens to their art should be the least of their worries. Their art should be a trivial concern in the grand scheme of things when compared to their potential freedom. They weren’t concerned about the innocent lives of men, women, and children they killed or plotted to kill. Why should anyone be concerned about their art?
> the people held at Guantanamo are responsible for killing humans via cowardly terrorists attacks, either indirectly or directly.
The people held at Guantanamo Bay are not considered POWs by the US, nor have they been given a trial. They're held in violation of even US law. The US has let some go saying they picked up the wrong person. Who determined they are responsible for what you say they are responsible for? Even the US doesn't agree as they say they picked up some in error and let them go.
On top of this - for over half a century the country of Cuba has demanded the US withdraw its military base from Cuban territory. As US presidents piously intoned about Russian troops in Donetsk, that a sovereign nation wants US troops out of its territory is considered so unimportant it is practically unknown.
The people held at Guantanamo Bay are not considered POWs by the US, nor have they been given a trial. They're held in violation of even US law. The US has let some go saying they picked up the wrong person. Who determined they are responsible for what you say they are responsible for? Even the US doesn't agree as they say they picked up some in error and let them go.
On top of this - for over half a century the country of Cuba has demanded the US withdraw its military base from Cuban territory. As US presidents piously intoned about Russian troops in Donetsk, that a sovereign nation wants US troops out of its territory is considered so unimportant it is practically unknown.
Westerners don't seem to realise how much damage shit like Guantanamo bay have done to the image of US and to the idea of International law.
It indicates that ther is no such thing as justice, only rule of the strong.
These failures to live up to the standards we set is the first thing out of the mouth of any 'patriotic' Russian when you point out the cruelty of war in Ukraine.
It is big reason why in countries like India do not trust Europe and the West, and did not go along with recent sanctions
It indicates that ther is no such thing as justice, only rule of the strong.
These failures to live up to the standards we set is the first thing out of the mouth of any 'patriotic' Russian when you point out the cruelty of war in Ukraine.
It is big reason why in countries like India do not trust Europe and the West, and did not go along with recent sanctions
The prisoners at Guantanamo haven’t even been charged. How can they be guilty if you can’t even say what they’re allegedly guilty of?
> the people held at Guantanamo are responsible for killing humans via cowardly terrorists attacks, either indirectly or directly
Surely if there’s compelling evidence that this is true, we can put it in front of a judge and jury and have them sentenced properly.
Surely if there’s compelling evidence that this is true, we can put it in front of a judge and jury and have them sentenced properly.
aallaqh(1)
Some people here are asking why should someone care about people who killed innocent men, women, and children. It's a question worth answering.
Since 2002, nearly 779 Muslim men and boys have been held at Guantanamo, nearly all of them without any charge or trial. Of those, 532 were released by the Bush administration itself, and 197 later by Obama [0]. Today the number of detainees is 39.
Almost all of them had nothing to do with the 9/11 attack.
0. https://www.aclu.org/issues/national-security/detention/guan...
Since 2002, nearly 779 Muslim men and boys have been held at Guantanamo, nearly all of them without any charge or trial. Of those, 532 were released by the Bush administration itself, and 197 later by Obama [0]. Today the number of detainees is 39.
Almost all of them had nothing to do with the 9/11 attack.
0. https://www.aclu.org/issues/national-security/detention/guan...
You’re assuming everyone at Guantanamo has something to do with 9/11. There have been many planned attacks against the the US, UK, and other countries since 9/11. Like, the planned attacks against airplanes full of people in the UK. Lives were saved due to information obtained from detainees.
I am sure you have sources to back up this claim.
Unfortunately there are racist, inhumane a*holes everywhere...
[deleted]
plankers(1)
Some comments in this thread are appalling.
Even if every single person held hostage at Guantanamo was directly involved in a terrorist attack they should not be tortured and detained forever without a proper trial. Revenge achieves nothing but more suffering. What has been done can never be changed but we can ensure that no more innocent will be hurt by setting the bar high enough so that even people proven guilty are not treated like sub humans. How we treat the worst people in our society sets the bar for the innocents inadvertently caught in the cogs of the judicial system.
It is better that 10 guilty persons escape than 1 innocent suffers https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone%27s_ratio
Even if every single person held hostage at Guantanamo was directly involved in a terrorist attack they should not be tortured and detained forever without a proper trial. Revenge achieves nothing but more suffering. What has been done can never be changed but we can ensure that no more innocent will be hurt by setting the bar high enough so that even people proven guilty are not treated like sub humans. How we treat the worst people in our society sets the bar for the innocents inadvertently caught in the cogs of the judicial system.
It is better that 10 guilty persons escape than 1 innocent suffers https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone%27s_ratio
The acts of 9/11 should have been considered a crime, and the remaining planners and perpetrators - and those planning and training for future actions - brought to the USA and tried.
That’s what a country the USA aspires to be in its best moments would’ve done. It would’ve been a shining example of what a liberal democracy could be.
That’s what a country the USA aspires to be in its best moments would’ve done. It would’ve been a shining example of what a liberal democracy could be.
Explain, for instance, where you would have the captured leaders of ISIS tried? In a US court? Where then when they are found guilty? Into a US prison? Returned to their country of origin? There is a reason that after all the talk that Obama did about closing Guantanamo, he didn't even try.
A bunch of them are literally on trial at Gitmo right now. [1]
It shows quite a lack of can-do attitude to think that in the last 20 years we couldn't have come up with something. We did come up with Nuremberg after all.
If only there was an international criminal court set up specifically for "trying individuals for genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and aggression" [2] in which folks could seek justice. Nah, that'd never work, which is why the US is helpfully not a signatory. Even though, and this is true, the US played a central role in its creation.
The issue isn't lack of venue clearly it's lack of due process.
[1] https://www.economist.com/united-states/2021/08/19/the-inter...
[2] https://www.icc-cpi.int/
It shows quite a lack of can-do attitude to think that in the last 20 years we couldn't have come up with something. We did come up with Nuremberg after all.
If only there was an international criminal court set up specifically for "trying individuals for genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and aggression" [2] in which folks could seek justice. Nah, that'd never work, which is why the US is helpfully not a signatory. Even though, and this is true, the US played a central role in its creation.
The issue isn't lack of venue clearly it's lack of due process.
[1] https://www.economist.com/united-states/2021/08/19/the-inter...
[2] https://www.icc-cpi.int/
[deleted]
>It is better than 10 guilty persons escape than 1 innocent suffers
What if the escaped guilty persons cause more than one innocent to suffer? Seems like an obvious flaw in this aphorism. Maybe works for petty thievery, not so much crimes of great bodily harm.
What if the escaped guilty persons cause more than one innocent to suffer? Seems like an obvious flaw in this aphorism. Maybe works for petty thievery, not so much crimes of great bodily harm.
> What if the escaped guilty persons cause more than one innocent to suffer? Seems like an obvious flaw in this aphorism.
It's a principle of justice that was arrived at through a lot of thought and experience. It of course takes into account that the guilty people that slip away due to this principle will cause harm of their own.
But a justice system without this principle, one that does not place a high bar for what makes one guilty, one that isn't very careful about labeling innocents guilty, will cause far more suffering. It makes systematic abuses of power more likely, and affects far more innocents ultimately. This only becomes more and more true as the power and reach of the state gets higher and higher compared to that of an individual who might be a potential criminal.
It's a principle of justice that was arrived at through a lot of thought and experience. It of course takes into account that the guilty people that slip away due to this principle will cause harm of their own.
But a justice system without this principle, one that does not place a high bar for what makes one guilty, one that isn't very careful about labeling innocents guilty, will cause far more suffering. It makes systematic abuses of power more likely, and affects far more innocents ultimately. This only becomes more and more true as the power and reach of the state gets higher and higher compared to that of an individual who might be a potential criminal.
On the other hand, systems where the bar for guilt is too high err too much towards not punishing criminals. Eventually such systems are rejected by their subjects and collapse, either totally or into anarcho-tyranny. This is especially true of states with great power over the middle classes, but little power or willingness to exercise it over the worst criminal element. There's a balance to be found in the middle between standards of guilt that are too high or too low.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_T._Francis#Thought_and_...
>Francis's term "anarcho-tyranny" refers to armed dictatorship without rule of law, or a Hegelian synthesis when the state tyrannically or oppressively regulates citizens' lives yet is unable or unwilling to enforce fundamental protective law.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_T._Francis#Thought_and_...
>Francis's term "anarcho-tyranny" refers to armed dictatorship without rule of law, or a Hegelian synthesis when the state tyrannically or oppressively regulates citizens' lives yet is unable or unwilling to enforce fundamental protective law.
> Eventually such systems are rejected by their subjects and collapse, either totally or into anarcho-tyranny.
Are there any actual examples of this happening? The link doesn't cite any.
Are there any actual examples of this happening? The link doesn't cite any.
Anarchy-tyranny in 1980s New York (see “Context and Background”) led to this famous act of vigilantism and subsequent acquittal via what was essentially jury nullification:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1984_New_York_City_Subway_shoo...
Recalling a DA is firm rejection of his vision for a more-permissive justice system:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/chesa-boudin-san-francisco-da-r...
In terms of total collapse, see Venezuela (“Public Opinion” subsection highlights ineffective courts and weak rulings):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Venezuela
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1984_New_York_City_Subway_shoo...
Recalling a DA is firm rejection of his vision for a more-permissive justice system:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/chesa-boudin-san-francisco-da-r...
In terms of total collapse, see Venezuela (“Public Opinion” subsection highlights ineffective courts and weak rulings):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Venezuela
Pretty thin evidence to jump on a white supremacist’s pet theory.
The state of law and order in Venezuela is thin evidence? How many countries’ justice systems would need to collapse to convince you of this concept’s validity?
The “anarcho-tyranny” idea is orthogonal to Francis’s other and later views, and has become a mainstay topic in mainstream conservatism. Here it used in a Newsweek article by Hispanic conservative writer Pedro Gonzalez:
https://www.newsweek.com/president-bidens-anarcho-tyranny-op...
The “anarcho-tyranny” idea is orthogonal to Francis’s other and later views, and has become a mainstay topic in mainstream conservatism. Here it used in a Newsweek article by Hispanic conservative writer Pedro Gonzalez:
https://www.newsweek.com/president-bidens-anarcho-tyranny-op...
> The state of law and order in Venezuela is thin evidence?
It’s evidence of something, but not a too-high bar of criminal conviction.
> has become a mainstay topic in mainstream conservatism
This says bad things about modern mainstream conservatism, not good things about Francis.
It’s evidence of something, but not a too-high bar of criminal conviction.
> has become a mainstay topic in mainstream conservatism
This says bad things about modern mainstream conservatism, not good things about Francis.
If everyone is so sure this is where we're housing dangerous terrorists, why not charge them with a crime and allow them legal defense? If the evidence is so air-tight, so obvious we should deprive them of basic human rights, why not put them in prison instead of "detaining" them forever?
I think it's a two-fold problem. One is they may not be so guilty as they claim. The other is they may be so guilty as they claim, but the methods and torture they were put through are not things the government wants discovered by the public during trial.
I wouldn't call it a problem for anyone else but the government officials who should instead be in prison. Perhaps the problem is that these officials aren't in prison..? Seems more like the true problem.
Sadly putting them (the officials) in prison is probably not practical unless there is a revolution in the US. The best we can probably hope for is to give these officials a way to "save face" and shut the thing down while making it look like a victory for them.
The Punisher sounds like a realistic way to rectify these situations. Why do all the shooters go after schools and grocery stores instead of the people responsible for destroying our nation's moral integrity?
[deleted]
I'll just leave this here:
"Don't throw out the rulebook in a fit of passion. You'll regret it. We did" - Dan Fried
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_DMhb1FWHso
"Don't throw out the rulebook in a fit of passion. You'll regret it. We did" - Dan Fried
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_DMhb1FWHso
[deleted]
To keep it fair, can we burn Bush's paintings of him in the shower? Why should he be allowed to publish his paintings and not these detainees?
Habeas Corpus and Due Process are the first step to human rights >> https://www.virginialawreview.org/articles/habeas-corpus-due...
It's a long shot, but is there any material way of helping these artists be able to take their art with them again? Making noise at specific people? Organizations that specifically target these broken freedoms?
Artistic freedom in particular is a very near and dear subject to me, and would greatly appreciate pointers here if there's any existing work done here.