I’ve said all I care to say about the disgraceful state of affairs at Guantanamo (both the conditions there and the circumstances that brought people there) here and here.
But the simple and sad fact of the matter is that until the abuses cease, attention must be paid to what continues to happen. In all of our names. (A dilemma that, in my estimation, has two primary components: one, people are not aware of what is happening; two, people that do for the most part don’t particularly care.)
How does a sentient American citizen respond to an appalling revelation like this?
Fayiz was captured by the Northern Alliance in 2001 and probably sold to the American forces in Afghanistan. At first he believed that he would be released because of his circumstances — he was doing charity work in an impoverished nation to fulfill his religious duties. Nonetheless, Fayiz has been held for nearly eight years at various locations and suffered harsh interrogations. One such session left him with broken ribs and extensive bruises.
Read the rest of the story (written by Air Force judge advocate general Barry Wingard) here.
There are three primary issues that need to be understood, and acknowledged.
One: all but the most oblivious or willfully ignorant hardliners (i.e., chickenhawk republicans) concur that torture by Americans, under any circumstances is morally wrong and strategically ineffective.
Two: torture by Americans of untried and ostensibly innocent human beings is morally reprehensible and criminal.
Three: Obama, who campaigned to investigate (and end) these abuses has not only failed to do so, and showed no signs of doing so, but is presently upping the ante of the ludicrous policies he inherited.
Change we can believe in? Give me a personal break.
One way you can look at this is that Obama is just selling out and going back on his promise. Another way you could look at this – could – if you have an open mind and can consider it – is that maybe you should give the guy you trusted as “ready” some more credit and – GASP – in doing so give the last administration some credit that this problem is a lot harder to deal with than the positions the Obama for President campaign came up with before he was given the intelliegence and legal briefings surrounding this. I’m not defending “torture” or any specific case. I think gitmo is harmful to us and I agree we need to find a way to regain our moral credibility. But it just ain’t that easy in the world we are dealing with. The left seems maniacally opposed to opening their eyes to the threat we face and the consequences that come along with that threat. Sure, if there IS no threat and if the world was an easy place, I’m sure you’re favorite president would just close it all down and try them in the U.S. tomorrow. After even the evil Darth W. Bush wanted to close gitmo. But every time one of our leaders tries to do it they stop. Is that for political reasons or perhaps because – again – maybe consider – there are some legitimate national security reasons for doing it? Last I checked, the new administration has also not scrapped the supposedly 100% politically motivated color-coded DHS threat level system either.
Shieldsy: Thanks for commenting. I think it’s safe to suggest that what is happening here is neither of the extremes you posit; i.e., I don’t believe Obama is selling out or that he has suddenly realized that all of the prisoners are dangerous and he now has knowledge he was unaware of on the campaign trail. If anything, I would opine that the augmented intel he has received has revealed exactly how many innocent people we have incarcerated and not how many menace-to-society miscreants we have under wraps. Naturally, there are without question some (many?) men who were captured and who meant the USA ill. It is also utterly without question that there are some (many?) men who were scooped up under spurious–at best–circumstances and should never have been sent to Guantanamo. I think the bottom line is that by not trying any of these individuals in a court of law, we make a mockery of the entire process, and invalidate the ostensibly good work that might have been done apprehending the “bad guys”. That is what Bush & Co.’s hamfisted, secretive, ass-backwards kangaroo court-style M.O. has achieved. To specifically address your question, it’s unfortunately a political third rail, and the Dems are (amazingly, appallingly) still mortified at the idea of being called “soft” on terror. This is all about political expediency and power over principles. Absolute worst case scenario: putting any/all of these men in custody will ensure that they can’t/won’t “escape” and wreak havoc (a scenario our fine folks at Fox News would have its viewers trembling and GOP pols salivating at the prospect of); and one by one, each person can be tried: the ones who are obviously innocent (and there are more than a few of them; any cursory examination of the facts will reveal this) should be set free and compensated. The only reason this hasn’t happened yet is sheer embarrassment on our part. We ruined lives, and got nothing for it. The last thing any politician wants to do is publically acknowledge that.