Comments on: Guantanamo

By: Zizka

Zizka — Wed, 08 Oct 2003 18:12:14 +0000

You had a point?

By: Thorley Winston

Thorley Winston — Tue, 07 Oct 2003 22:41:22 +0000

Thorley — remember, you should always, always try for some value-added! People who just vent ultimately become objects of pity.

Oh, so that’s what you were trying for.

What you say does not apply to me, as I clearly explained. “Bush-Ashcroft” is what I said, generalizing the case. I didn’t go into the details of my reasons for fearing and despising Ashcroft, and you didn’t give me any reasons not to. Neener-neener.

Thank you for proving my point.

By: Zizka

Zizka — Tue, 07 Oct 2003 22:35:35 +0000

Thorley—remember, you should always, always try for some value-added! People who just vent ultimately become objects of pity. What you say does not apply to me, as I clearly explained. “Bush-Ashcroft” is what I said, generalizing the case. I didn’t go into the details of my reasons for fearing and despising Ashcroft, and you didn’t give me any reasons not to. Neener-neener.

By: Thorley Winston

Thorley Winston — Tue, 07 Oct 2003 17:32:55 +0000

Actually the “loony” designation is more appropriately applied to anyone who says that they either despise or fear Attorney General Ashcroft. That some have tried to blame him for things which he had no control over (such as the Guantanamo detentions) only affirms the depths of the ignorance of the Ashcroft haters.

By: Zizka

Zizka — Tue, 07 Oct 2003 06:06:49 +0000

Thomas—thank you for your wisdom. Note my phrase “Bush-Ashcroft”. Bush is in charge of the whole operation. Ashcroft is in charge of the domestic operation. By naming Ashcroft, I was widening the scope of my statement, while still including the Guantanamo detentions. But it was very nice of you to inform the simple folk at CT that Ashcroft is not in charge of Guantanamo. For a number of very good reasons, Ashcroft is despised and feared by anyone with a concern for civil liberties. Policy questions aside, the guy is loony.

By: Thomas

Thomas — Tue, 07 Oct 2003 02:46:08 +0000

zizka—I know Ashcroft is a fantastical figure on the left, but he really doesn’t have anything to do with these detentions. If you don’t like these, talk to Don Rumsfeld.

By: Zizka

Zizka — Mon, 06 Oct 2003 19:01:19 +0000

Contempt for any sort of due process seems to be a guiding principle for Bush-Ashcroft. Guantanamo is a special case, but internally the administration is bad too. I’m becoming a stuck record, but I don’t think that anyone fully realizes how bad this administration really is. Ashcroft is very in-your-face—he barely even bothers to mouth the pieties.

By: Albert Ross

Albert Ross — Mon, 06 Oct 2003 19:00:58 +0000

“That if Camp Delta is bad, detention in Afghanistan is worse, that detainees there may not get access to the Red Cross at all, that there have been deaths certified as “homicide” by US military doctors and that those deaths do not appear to be being vigorously investigated.” That is something that I wonder about: Is what is going on at Guantanamo misdirection designed to deflect attention away from the places where serious abuse is taking place?

By: Barry

Barry — Mon, 06 Oct 2003 18:21:44 +0000

I’m sure that US law regards Guantanamo as US territory, where convenient. I have heard nothing that says that the decision to pretend that US law doesn’t apply in Guantanamo has been used other than to justify the detentions.

By: Jon

Jon — Mon, 06 Oct 2003 17:56:43 +0000

Thanks for the important reminder that this utter disgrace is on-going, with the apparent intent that it be permanent. I have what may be a terribly naive question, but here goes. US courts have found that they do not have jurisdiction, since Guantanamo is not US territory. Isn’t the clear implication that Cuban courts do have jurisdiction? I’m not suggesting that they could be effective, of course. But has a US court dared to make such a declaration?