| To the Editor: No end in sight to suffering of those held in Guantanamo |
| Written by Karen Wolf |
| Wednesday, 20 March 2013 09:27 |
|
Over 100 men are on the fifth week of a hunger strike at Guantanamo. More than half of the 166 men imprisoned there have been "Cleared for Release" by U.S. authorities. Not charged with any crime of terrorism or violence, they linger in the prison because of the Obama administration's and Congress' callous disregard for their basic legal and human rights. They are peacefully protesting worsening prison conditions, religious provocation, and the crushing reality that after 11 years in indefinite detention, there is no end in sight to their suffering. The mainstream media needs to bring this to light so the American public can put on the pressure to close Guantanamo now. Karen Wolf Bowling Green |
Front Page Stories
| BG redistricting lines blurred 05/22/2013 | MARIE THOMAS BAIRD Sentinel Education Editor 
A map shows the proposed boundaries for the 2013-2014 school year. |
North Baltimore residents protest removal of 125 trees 05/22/2013 | JORDAN CRAVENS Sentinel Staff Writer  NORTH BALTIMORE - A group of village residents are concerned their utility bills will [ ... ] | Other Front Page Articles | ||
Comments
These men would rather die then to continue to live like animals. Nice article Karen.
But it is completely contrary to fact. The reason Gitmo--a blotch on the reputation of the U.S. and its "values" as far as the rest of the world is concerned--remains open is ignorant and hysterical NIMBY-ism, nothing more. There are no "monsters" at Gitmo that are any more dangerous than the countless murdering monsters from our own citizenry we house in American high-security prisons. The reason congressional Republicans opposed the move was to try to paint the president (as they insist on doing with any Democrat) as weak on defense. Cheney used the word "naïve," if I am not mistaken.
I merely blame Republicans for doing what Republicans did. The act of Congress was not the president's doing, so it can't be his "failing." Saying he could just release these enemy combatants is being coy and devious, because that would go against US security interests and you know that darned well. I wonder if you are capable of thinking outside a very right-wing box.
And, no he cannot. Doing so would be defying an act of congress, and last I checked that would be unconstitutiona l.
The fact remains there are some in Gitmo that the military does not want released, and congress has directly blocked any avenues for transferring them to the mainland.
The military does not have the final say on these prisoners, the President does. And he can release them any time he wants to.
RIGHT ON
This is what the left does all the time
(Christopher Williams )
Some of you people are unbelievable. It is well-known (or should be) that the actions of the president are constrained by Congress. So: when Congress takes actions that prevent a president from doing something, you decry his failure to do it as a failure of leadership. But, of course, if he actually were to go ahead and do it, you'd be attacking him for trashing the constitution. If the roles were reversed and a Republican were in office, you'd be cheering him on, even if there was not one iota difference in policy. It's a truly sick game.
1. resentment of America for its cozy relationship with Saudi and other rulers whom they see as corrupt and apostate, for using Saudi soil for military operations, and support for Israel, combined with a healthy dose of ignorance about what all that means and also the good that the US does in the world (this is what people you would label as "liberals" say about the causes)
or 2. It's because they are darned Muslims, and until we stamp out that fraudulent and hateful so-called religion from the face of the earth, there will be no justice for Christian America.
My guess is your own vote is for #2.
We bring these animals here you will have every protestor outside the prison forever. Not to mention being a magnet for terrorist.
"conservative" and "fox" should be blaming you, not the president. You show no capacity for independent thinking or logic.
You have been told by some person you admire that they are filth, so they are filth--regardless of the particular circumstances by which any of them came into custody or the particularities of any cases, which you show no evidence of knowing?
Why? Because your source (Hannity? Rush? who?) is always right? Because they are Muslims? Because they were enemy combatants in war? Why do you think this way?
Something tells me I guessed correctly above.
Do you know any real-life Muslim Americans, "conservative," or is it a matter of principle for you not to? Where is the rational basis to fear Muslim rule here in America?
And, are you aware of what Thomas Jefferson wrote about religious tolerance--where he included Muslims in his vision for America?
Tell me: why is it "conservative" to think badly of Muslims? (For that matter, why is it "conservative" to ridicule historians, scholars, etc. who attempt to refute this nonsense with facts?)
Saying that human beings are human beings and either have a right to a trial or should be housed in the same sort of maximum security prison that we reserve for our most violent criminals is hardly being a "bleeding heart, namby-pamby."
The fact is, facilities at Gitmo have degraded to such an extent that it is due for a massive investment in physical upgrades, mostly to accommodate the needs of the American troops guarding and maintaining the facility. Indefinite detention also creates an aging prison population with increasing medical needs. Better to close it and move these people to the mainland.
RSS feed for comments to this post.