Before the Law stands a door-keeper. A man from the country comes up to this door-keeper and begs for admission to the Law. But the door-keeper tells him that he cannot grant him admission now. The man ponders this and then asks if he will be allowed to enter later, 'Possibly', the door-keeper says, 'but not now'. Since the door leading to the Law is standing open as always and the door-keeper steps aside, the man bends down to look inside through the door. Seeing this, the door-keeper laughs and says: 'If it attracts you so much, go on and try to get in without my permission, But you must realise that I am powerful. And I'm only the lowest door-keeper. At every hall there is another door-keeper, each one more powerful than the last. Even I cannot bear to look at the third one'.
This man was kidnapped and tortured without trial.
I did not downvote you, but somehow I feel that your comment does not do justice to the plain reality of the situation. Which is decidedly not allegorical and not abstract at all.
Have you read The Trial? Josef K was arrested basically without trial, as well.
In fact, I read this article and I see many parallels to the novel by Franz Kafka.
The reason I quoted it was because the following (from the article) reminded me of it:
"Latif sank deeper into depression and hopelessness as the futility of the legal efforts towards winning his freedom became clear. In one of his last letters to his lawyer he tells him: 'Do whatever you wish to do, the issue [of my defence] is over', and includes with it a message of farewell written both to him personally as well to the world at large: 'With all my pains, I say goodbye to you and the cry of death should be enough for you. A world power failed to safeguard peace and human rights and from saving me. I will do whatever I am able to do to rid myself of the imposed death on me at any moment of this prison... the soul that insists to end it all and leave this life which is no longer anymore a life'".
Josef K thought the law was accessible and would protect him, because he was innocent--so there is nothing to fear, right? Wrong. The excerpt from above is taken from a central piece of The Trial--the parable "Before the Law", which was a conversation Josef K had with the priest.
Franz Kafka studied law. He thought it was made to confuse the layman and that the law was not blind and balanced, as the statue so famously demonstrates, but rather has wings and shifts.
Though The Trial is a work of fiction and Latif is a real man, when I first read this book, it helped me realise and gain more compassion towards those who have been treated unfairly by the law.
Completely coincidentally, I just bought the novel by Gabriel García Márquez, "Chronicle of a Death Foretold" (in Spanish: "Crónica de una muerte anunciada") today.
It's a short novel by the Columbian author that I had read ~10 years ago, and thought of it again today when reflecting on the nature of journalism. The novel is a commentary on the notion of "truth". Its plot involves a murder in a small town in Columbia, and is told in a journalistic style, where you, the reader, learn new facts that reshape the perception of the "whole story" as the story itself unfolds through the narration. As the novel unfolds, you start to question the veracity of the facts presented to you, causing you to question whether the "true reality" of what happened is even knowable.
The spelling difference doesn't change the fact that this is the same word: land of Columbus. This was an early proposed name for the country of the United States, Columbia, today most famously personified in the Columbia Pictures logo (and I think in the Statue of Liberty, but I'm not sure).
I kind of wish sometimes that the US had used that name instead of appropriating the name "America" from the rest of the new world.
I think we know what happened - the attacks on the WTC.
However, the response has been staggeringly perverse; we have had hundreds of thousands of people die (you don't even hear about the daily bombings in food markets in Iraq or Afghanistan now and that's without counting Syria, Lybia, Egypt etc.), we have Orwellian surveillance which only a few years ago would have been dismissed as crazy tin-foil hat nonsense but for the fact Edward Snowden revealed all the theories were true and things were much worse than even the tin foil hat people yelling at secret-spy-trees said. And that does not start to cover the censorship (see elsewhere on HN today for that).
The response has grown a whole industry of fear-mongering and schemes to stop crazy make-believe terrorist plots which simply defy the laws of physics (and common sense) yet no-one will tell The Emperor that he has no clothes on. Well, not anyone he is prepared to listen to. The clothes makers have become insanely rich in the process of making their wares too. What's a few dead people in far off places if you're getting rich, right ?
Meantime, US judges complain about the crazy Catch-22 goalpost moving unfairness and still people languish innocently in Guantanimo and die in what can best be described as "unclear circumstances".
A nation founded on rebellion against unfair and unjust oppression, seeking life and liberty. Indeed, the question is "America, what has happened to you ?"
But also, what has happened to all the other countries who joined in this madness and keep it going ? They have responsibility too.
Yes, as compared with around three thousand. Incomparably more innocent people killed by the actions of the USA and other western nations. The arrogance, the lack of understanding that life is similar in other countries, the unquestioned greater value of the life of an American than the life of a ragged brown man we pick up in a far off place that we shouldn't have been in at all. Now more than a decade later all that's clear is that I will spend the rest of my life despising the countries in which I am likely to live.
The entire premise is staggeringly stupid, and the disease that afflicts America is the same that has eaten every empire built on the premise of never-ending expansion and unending military dominance.
> But also, what has happened to all the other countries who joined in this madness and keep it going ?
At that high of a level once a "war on X" is created and billions are poured into it, whole branches of industry are opened up, whole new government agencies are created, thousands are send to kill and thousands will be killed. Things just keep going because they already are going. It becomes a self-sustaining reaction.
Nothing actually, US has always been like that, only that now people can see how absurd it all is.
But ask anyone that got "democracy" by the United States, not only in middle east, but for example in South America during the cold war, several african countries, and so on, and they will tell you that this behaviour from the US government is not unexpected, and that the US population approval (even if implicit and indirect) of it, is not unexpected either.
IMHO, just because everyone calls a country with a foreign military base in the heart of it's capital a "democracy" doesn't make it so. I believe this kind of thinking is called normative ethics : "it's OK because it's the norm". I'll call Japan a democracy when there are no foreign military bases on it's soil, at least definitely not in the centre of the capital.
I think a lot of people aren't aware of this, but the US has helped (sometimes very directly) to overthrow quite a few democracies. Look at Iran, and their transition to the Shah; or Allende/Pinochet and Milton Friedman's experiments.
I've looked into some detail on the Iran issue and i suggest others do to. To say the US "overthrew" the Iranian gov't does tell the whole story. There was a large, domestic grassroots effort in Iran to overthrow Mossadegh. Did the US and Britian help that effort? Sure, but to say they imposed their will on the country is going a bit far.
Indeed. And there are others too, not to mention the fall of the Soviet Union liberating lots of countries in no small part due to America and it's allies fight against communism. Whenever I hear people imply the US just makes things worse most if not all of the time, or never does anything for any country but itself, I'm reminded of this scene from Life of Brian:
What have the Romans done for us?
And after all the characters rattle off a long list of things the Romans have done, and no one seems to want to hate the Romans anymore, Reg says:
"All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?”
I can't help but be reminded of that scene. Is the US perfect? Far from it, but the implication that the US is some pox on the world is just as absurd.
Edit: for anyone too young to know what the Life of Brian is, it's a comedy by Monthy Python.
> not to mention the fall of the Soviet Union liberating lots of countries in no small part due to America and it's allies fight against communism.
Was it though? I've heard that repeated so often. If it was how come it was such a surprise to all the Sovietologists at the time?
The thing is, those that worked for the CIA thought they won because their spies did this and that. Those working for the Dept of State thought they won because this and that diplomatic trick. Those in Congress throughout the years thought they won because they enacted these economic sanctions and so they killed the "Bear".
The truth is probably that it would have collapsed with or without the help of anyone from outside.
So not sure if US should be thanked for liberating Latvia, Georgia and Poland , ironically, Soviet Union's polices and base system setup should be thanked because it was so rotten at the core.
But another thing is interesting, and it shows in your post. This thing is very dangerous and it is the very thing that many hate US for -- exceptionalism. It shows implicitly in your comment and it is often assumed in political debate. It is this idea that US is special in some objective sense. That it doesn't have to abide by rules. It shouldn't be judged by same criteria as everyone else.
Equating it to the Roman Empire. Attributing it wondeful qualities of slaying a the great Satan of Communism and so on.
> Is the US perfect? Far from it, but the implication that the US is some pox on the world is just as absurd.
It is good to find out if people judge US based on comparing it to other countries or to the propaganda image it presents of itself. I find the disconnect and hypocrisy that shows in in the latter is one reason people might dislike US.
In other words, it is because it tells others how "perfect" it is, that imperfections and transgressions that are excusable for other countries become very noticeably with US. Like say torture. Ok, Somalian government chops children's arms off say if they don't want to convert or something like that. It would not shock too many people to learn that for example. The fact that US engaged and probably still does engage in torture (even thought they've redefined it as whatever enhanced interrogations something) is very shocking and disturbing vis-a-vis the "we are the great human rights champions of the world" type proclamations.
> And after all the characters rattle off a long list of things the Romans have done, and no one seems to want to hate the Romans anymore, Reg says
I do. They raided and conquered the territory of my country, killed and destroyed many villages. Destroyed local culture and language and imposed theirs. It is easy to look back and say well ok, Romans turned out pretty ok. We had roads and wheels. How do we know that not having Romans invade would have turned out? Maybe it would have been even better? We can't quite run that experiment to check.
Anyway this comparison with the Roman Empire doesn't quite work well for me on multiple levels, as you can see, sorry ;-)
The collapse of the soviet union was caused by the prolonged stagnation of its economy in the 70s and 80s. This lead to all the events that followed (glasnost, perestroika, etc.) in failed attempt to fix it.
And the cause for the Era of Stagnation in the mid-1970s? The Cold War. Starting with the war in Afghanistan in 1979, funded of course by the US, this aggravated the stagnation and then led to a period of economic standstill between 1979 and 1985. (The USSRs economy was somewhere between 30% and 50% that of the US at the time). Couple with added global military pressure from the west caused the Soviets to put military buildup at the expense of domestic development. This kept the USSR's GDP at the same level during the first half of the 1980s. As spending out stripped both growth and capacity, again due to military spending, the rest as they say is history.
I don't see how that would have happened without the military pressure from the west. Look at China, it didn't have those costs, and it's still around, as is Cuba, Venezuela, etc. they didn't call it the Cold War for nothing, and it was expensive!
The US most certainly funded the afghan war against the soviets to hurt the soviets, and hurting the soviets was all about stopping the spread of communism. You're looking at this too narrowly, some would call it a proxy war, it was yet one more hot war in the cold war. They used to call it the domino theory. And it worked, because the Soviet Union did fall. And it fell because it's economy couldn't keep growing with all those resources going to the soviets wars of expansion.
But thanks for reminding me, another example: the US liberated Afghanistan from the Taliban.
Cold War was going on from the late 40s. It wasn't the singular reason that caused the stagnation and collapse.
Stagnation was caused by mismanagement, people not working, cutting corners, corruption. The war in Afghanistan was big but that country had worse wars to deal with. Chernobyl disaster was another blow, don't think that was US industrial sabotage, it didn't need to be. Incompetence, cutting corners and inefficiency were the reason. But a drop in oil prices in the 80s is what probably did it in.
> Couple with added global military pressure from the west caused the Soviets to put military buildup at the expense of domestic development.
By that time USSR had more nukes ready to be launched than US. US threat wasn't perceived any worse than it was during the Cuban crisis.
> Look at China
Doesn't China have military pressure from the West? In fact China had to enact some serious economic reforms without which one can argue it might have met the same fate.
Also China, Cuba and Venezuela don't have as much internal fragmentation. Even after 70 years of occupation there was enough national sentiment and tension to easily break off all those Soviet republics. So it is very different.
In the end, yeah, we like to believe what we want to believe. You want to think US did this great work at eliminating the great Evil Empire. That US "won" due to its hard work. I don't agree with that. The proverbial "Bear" got sick and rotted away from within.
Well sorry then. I know it is humor but it was presented here as part of a serious comment. So I took it seriously. Well disregard what I said then ;-)
Please don't take this as a defense of everything America has done:
The US is currently at war with both Al Qaida and the Taliban. Members of these organizations which are captured are allowed to be held as POWs until hostilities are formally ended.
What else is the US supposed to do? These men didn't necessarily commit crimes - prisoners of war are simply fighting for their country or side.
Release them? What about the prisoners who are 'high risk'?
Try them? You're not really supposed to charge prisoners of war with a crime. I mean I guess that you can, but why? The US is still at war with them. They'll have to be exchanged for US prisoners eventually (the Taliban have one still, if memory serves).
>What else is the US supposed to do? These men didn't necessarily commit crimes - prisoners of war are simply fighting for their country or side.
This shows a deep misunderstanding of the situation. The Taliban and Al Qaida were always criminals. Its not like they are simply members of the Afghan and Iraqi armies that were present before the United States entered, they are a small minority of religious extremists that that are attempting to impose their idiotic beliefs on other nations.
With that in mind, those who are in Guantanamo that are suspected members of the Taliban and Al Qaida should not be held indefinitely without charges or trial. If we have evidence, we should prosecute them. If not, we should release them after a reasonable amount of time.
I'm a former Soldier and I know how much it would suck to know in your heart that a person you detained, was in fact a terrorist, yet they walk due to a lack of evidence. However, if we don't observe the rule of law, there won't be an America to defend anymore.
I'm inclined to believe that quite a few of the people in Guantanamo are guilty. But we also know for a fact that certain groups, such as bounty hunters, were shipping lots of innocent folks off to prison simply for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. We need to start looking for these innocents and set them free in a timely manner. We already have enough blood on our hands.
There is no established rule of law regarding so-called criminal enemy combatants (as the Am Qaida detainees are classified - Taliban detainees are not thus considered). Insofar as I am aware, the US could execute them en masse perfectly legally.
The Taliban detainees have always been provided full legal POW rights. This means that they must he released after hostilities have ended.
I may well he misinformed. If so please correct me.
You are most certainly misinformed, and most of your comments here appear to be ignorant of the excessively creative dodging of the law the US has engaged in since 2011.
The Taliban prisoners have not always been afforded full legal POW rights. What do you think the category of unlawful combatant is all about? You quote a bit of that in another comment, but appear not to comprehend what you're quoting.
Taliban prisoners were begrudgingly [allegedly, according to official statement] afforded POW privileges, not legal rights of POW status. There is a vast difference between the two. The privileges include meals, communication, and some other humane things. But the entire purpose of the unlawful combatant designation was to deny the legal status of POW altogether. This was done with disingenuous arguments denying the Taliban recognition as the government of Afghanistan, as well as denying satisfaction of other requirements under the Geneva Conventions that would require POW status. The Bush administration was adamant about denying Taliban captives POW status.
There is no requirement that unlawful combatants be released after hostilities are ended, nor has there ever been an offered picture of what it would mean for hostilities to end. Were these prisoners declared as POWs, they could never have their detainment and crimes reviewed, presided over, or decided by tribunals. That violates international law.
I agree the U.S. could definitely "get away" with killing them all, I'm speaking more about the intent behind the rule of law.
In my humble opinion, "after hostilities have ended" is too weak of a standard. I'm still a young man, yet I would be surprised if hostilities ended before I die of natural causes. Perhaps we can argue that we didn't know better before this conflict, but now that we do we should make some changes.
I was not aware that the Taliban were given POW rights. That was an extremely poor decision but I guess I stand corrected on that issue.
I don't really have a solution, I'm just weary of watching the slowest train-wreck in the history of the world. We should be better than this.
The problem is that these are organisations, not sovereign states. It's a bit like saying that since the US has declared a war on drugs, it should be able to hold drug dealers forever without trial.
According to him, this guy went to Afganistan for a cheap medical procedure and bounty hunters handed him in as a foreign combatant. None of us knows whether this is true or not, but the issue is that suspending judicial procedure is going to lead to horrific injustice - even if you're at war.
And the Taliban would never swap a high value American hostage for anyone, particularly if it was someone they'd never heard of.
States are perfectly within their legal right to declare war on organizations. If the US were to declare war on FARC or Los Zetas, then yes the US government could detain prisoners until the end of hostilities. (Note that that's not the same as indefinitely)
Whether or not this guy was actually fighting with Taliban or Al Qaida is an important issue, but not really at the heart of the broader issue regarding Guantanamo detainees.
According to him, this guy went to Afganistan for a cheap medical procedure and bounty hunters handed him in as a foreign combatant. None of us knows whether this is true or not, but the issue is that suspending judicial procedure is going to lead to horrific injustice - even if you're at war.
That's a pretty glancing reference. Would it have been better to say that suspending judicial procedure as evidenced by the experience of Adnan Latif constituted a horrific injustice?
Something can very well be legal and still be a horrific injustice. And to detain someone because you're supposedly at war with them and they with you, without any trial to actually prove that this is the case, is horribly injust no matter how I look at it. If this is legal, then that just makes the laws that make it legal and the people that obey them horribly injust.
Have you read the article? This man had nothing to do with terrorism, and was only in Guantanamo because of the perverse incentive of bounties given for supposed terrorists. It is completely bizarre that he was not set free when this became clear.
> Members of these organizations which are captured are allowed to be held as POWs until hostilities are formally ended.
Members of these organizations are are not held as POWs. They are held and classified as unlawful combatants. There has not been (and will not be) any formal end to hostilities like history has known. Instead, we've seen agreements that say occupations are ending and troops are being withdrawn, but nothing that states hostilities are formally ended and peace is obtained like most people expect to be in place. This has a lot to do with not bothering to be in declared states of war any longer, because that opens states up to massive legal consequences and responsibilities that states, particularly the US over the last 50 years, are particularly interested in avoiding.
> What else is the US supposed to do? These men didn't necessarily commit crimes - prisoners of war are simply fighting for their country or side.
Charge them with crimes and provide evidence of their guilt or release them. Many detainees have not been "simply fighting for their country or side", which is why they are not POWs. They have been classified as unlawful combatants, removing their legal protections and dooming them to permanent incarceration.
> Try them? You're not really supposed to charge prisoners of war with a crime. I mean I guess that you can, but why?
You absolutely are supposed to charge POWs with a crime or immediately repatriate them upon conclusion of hostilities. But, again, these are not POWs. The US has gone to great pains to deny that protection, opting instead for a policy that affords them what we are supposed to accept as POW privileges in place of, you know, the rule of and fidelity to law. And because there are no official peace agreements that will ever be made for a war that was never declared, there is little chance we will ever see these prisoners released at the conclusion of hostilities--because there are no conclusions. There are only ceremonial conclusions accompanied by agreements to withdraw troops--which does not translate into a legal requirement to repatriate Gitmo's captives.
And just for the sake of it, they did it AGAIN in 2001?
I mean.. I'm not quite sure if I trust Wikipedia here. How can you explain this combination:
United States, Senate Report 93-549 states: "That since March 09, 1933 the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency." Proclamation No. 2039 declared by President Franklin D. Roosevelt on March 9, 1933. This declared national emergency has never been revoked and has been codified into the US Code (12 U.S.C. 95a and b).
United States declared a state of emergency on September 11, 2001, this state of emergency has been maintained without pause into the present.[62]
> The US is in state of emergency, essential martial law since March 9, 1933.
No, its not. That it, it is in a declared state of emergency (often more than one -- sometimes very many at a time) since then, but neither the one declared March 9, 1933, nor all the rest combined create "essential martial law". Each such declaration invokes specific statutory emergency powers, and while (e.g., under the Insurrection Act) those powers could include martial law or something like it, none currently in force do.
The Bush administration announced its policy on captives from Afghanistan in February 2002. It drew a theoretical distinction between al-Qaeda fighters and members of the Taliban forces. Since al-Qaeda was a non-State group, the conflict between the United States and al-Qaeda was outside the reach of the Geneva Conventions, the White House said. By contrast, since the Taliban were the de facto armed forces of Afghanistan, the Geneva Conventions did apply to the conflict between the United States and the Taliban. However, according to the White House, the Taliban forces did not meet the criteria set out in the Third Geneva Convention for attaining POW status. Therefore, in practice, all detainees from Afghanistan were “unlawful combatants” who did not deserve the privileges of prisoners of war.
Nevertheless, the White House proclaimed, the prisoners would receive “many POW privileges as a matter of policy.” Included in the listed privileges which would be extended detainees held at Guantanamo were appropriate Muslim meals, opportunities to worship and correspond and send mail, subject, of course, to the security needs of the facility and the U.S. government. This limitation on the right of correspondence is permitted by Article 76 of the Convention.
Are you attempting to dispute or corroborate that these prisoners are not, in fact, prisoners of war? You're quoting from the creative legal department of the Bush administration, in which it is made clear that the men are not categorized as prisoners of war, but were instead supplied a different distinction so as to remove them from Geneva Convention protections. Instead, your quote only says they've been allegedly provided POW privileges as a matter of policy.
Policy does not equal protection under and adherence to laws of war.
If the US acknowledged them as POWs with the associated rights (e.g. correspondence, able to refuse questioning) that would be one thing. But they're not even granted that.
(Not to mention that war was never declared, so hostilities have already formally ended - or rather, never formally started)
And of course someone will pay for this some day. Someone totally innocent, who just happens to be in a wrong place at a wrong time. Just like most of these prisoners.
You don't have to be anti-military or even anti-war-on-terror to be against abuses of the system. (I don't know if any reasonable person is ever anti-peace, but I would definitely choose war over oppression; I still think Guantanamo is a bad idea for both moral and effectiveness grounds.)
Of all of the sad things I read in that article, the phrase, "the allegations against him must be taken as accurate if they are claimed to be so by the government."
At its peak Guantanamo Bay has 750 detainees and prisoners. Now it's 150.
I kind of have a hard time taking anything said about the conditions inside from the detainees at face value. They have every reason to exaggerate and lie - and no reason to tell the truth...
Because comparing it to the types of prisons in the 3rd world that do have truly horrible living conditions and real absolute torture, is just dishonest. In most of those places you don't even get paper to write on, nor have a personal lawyer, nor get special religious treatment, nor have media walk-throughs, nor doctors on call 24/7, nor TVs, and so on and on.
Perhaps that's true, but I have no way of knowing what the conditions are like. I'd have more confidence that my country is operating such facilities in a manner that meets at least basic standards if they didn't seem to be taking overt steps to avoid our own legal system's oversight. Congress has been generally sympathetic, and passed laws giving law-enforcement agencies and the military substantial deference, so it's not as if they risk oversight by some hostile foreign power, or the UN or something. And yet still the military is operating some kind of weird extra-territorial prison, which it's trying to keep our country's own courts from overseeing. What are they hiding, and why?
On a basic level, we operate a prison in an area that the U.S. fully controls in perpetuity, a permanent U.S. facility that no other country exercises any control over, either now, for about 100 years into the past, or at any point in the foreseeable future. It is in effect a U.S. territory, in the sense that it is under the permanent control of the U.S., and has been for many decades. But we're claiming that it is nevertheless "in a foreign country" due a technicality, and therefore not subject to U.S. courts' jurisdiction, or indeed the jurisdiction of any other country's courts (not even those of the country that we claim has sovereignty over it). That sure seems shady, and like something is being hidden. If the USSR or any other country had claimed such an arrangement, "but look, it's not in the USSR, technically, just a perpetual lease to the USSR", we would have ridiculed it as a quasi-legalistic farce.
It doesn't necessarily prove that the people operating Guantanamo are engaged in illegal activity, but the fact that they have gone out of their way to base their activities in some kind of legal no-man's land that isn't subject to any country's domestic jurisdiction doesn't give one great confidence that they are complying with American legal and ethical norms.
The US should be aiming higher than some developing nation hellhole for its prisons. "We're not as bad as that poor nation, with the dictatorship, and all the corruption" isn't a ringing endorsement of the freedoms that the US wants the rest of the world to have.
Here is a good example: The New Yorker reports that 53 sets of remains were recovered from unmarked graves at a Florida youth incarceration facility called The Florida School for Boys. Now go find a third world hellhole that can top that. http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2014/01/prose...
Look at the numbers for US prisons. Compare them against your favorite place with notorious prisons. Except for China's, which is still significantly smaller than the US prison system, you will find the US numbers so vastly mindbogglingly larger that you might hesitate to take the bet that the US brutalizes and unjustly imprisons fewer people.
Because comparing it to the types of prisons in the 3rd world that do have truly horrible living conditions and real absolute torture, is just dishonest.
On what are you calibrating your gauge of dishonesty?
Do you only watch Fox News? Do you not understand that many of these people were just picked up in Afghanistan or Pakistan without any clear knowledge that they were engaged in any paramilitary or "terrorist" activity, and then held for a decade or until their deaths in jail, with no trial?
> They have every reason to exaggerate and lie - and no reason to tell the truth...
And how does this not apply to those holding them capture?
Also, what is "real absolute torture"? I might as well say Al-Quaeda isn't really at war with the US, because "real absolute war" means tanks rolling into a country.
What's wrong with what this commenter said? So we downvote opinions we don't like? What happened to the free exchange of ideas? HN comments section apparently is becoming a echo chamber and quickly losing all relevance.
Yes, defending Guantanamo in any way is disgusting and that is obvious to intelligent people in most parts of the world. Some views are so abhorrent per se that down voting may occur even if the comment is internally consistent, doesn't personally insult anyone, etc.
> millions of people are being tortured at Guantanamo
My argument against this consisted of:
1. Factual figures on detainee numbers, which proves Guantanamo had an incredibly small head-count from the start, and has also been downsized significantly since then.
2. Factual representation of conditions at Guantanamo that show nothing to support claims of wholescale torture (aside from a few detainees being isolated).
3. A logical assertion that detainees have no reason to tell the truth and every reason to exaggerate and lie.
And I did not even bother with the fact that some of these detainees are so radical and violent that their own countries (that are opposed to the USA) DON'T WANT THEM BACK.
Your counter-argument is what's abhorrent... That you would call your closed-minded group-think emotional response an intellectual one.
Your entire position is "I support the discussion of ideas and point-of-views ... as long as they agree with me".
It's amazing that every detainee in Guantanamo is innocent of any crime. Statistically, you'd expect some to be terrorists/enemy combatants/Taliban, but they all seem to be innocent tourists and farmers.
I have never heard anyone (other that you) claim that every detainee in Guantanamo is innocent of any crime.
What I HAVE heard people claim is that SOME of those detained there are innocent of any crime. And the government's official position on the matter agrees with this claim: they admit that some of the detainees have committed no crime. For other detainees, the government position is "a crime has been committed but we don't feel like saying so in court".
