View Single Post
Old 06-21-2005, 03:31 PM   #26 (permalink)
roachboy
 
roachboy's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
ranger: it'd be easiest if you just read the newspaper.
i still find the argument that the ny times--or any other american newspaper--is "out to get" cowboy george to be laughable.
following that logic, you would also argue that the rest of the world is too.

Quote:
The Guantanamo Debate Comes Home


By Jefferson Morley
washingtonpost.com Staff writer
Monday, June 20, 2005; 7:36 PM


The U.S.-run detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, needs "to be closed down or cleaned up," former president Bill Clinton told the Financial Times. It may be surprising that the former American president is quoted in a British newspaper. But then again the international online media has long been ahead of U.S. news outlets in airing debate about the detention facility.

The first full Senate hearings on Guantanamo, held last week, brought home to Capitol Hill an issue that has percolated in the foreign press for two years.

The "edifice of silence and acquiescence [around Guantanamo] is beginning to crack," said Gulf News, based in the United Arab Emirates. Sen. Joseph Biden's recent call for the closing of the facility known as Camp X-Ray was described as "a sign that the damage the lawless place does to the image of America was finally being recognised by politicians in the corridors of power."

"Debate on Guantanamo Heats Up Ahead of Senate Hearings," declared Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, based in Prague. RFE/RL noted high in its story that only four of the 500 Guantanamo prisoners have been formally charged with a crime.

"Even the solid support of majority Republicans in Congress, who have consistently viewed Guantanamo as necessary in the post-Sept 11 battle against terrorism, is eroding," said Dawn, the leading English language newspaper in Pakistan.

Still, there are distinct differences between the American and international debate.

In the U.S. media, the debate about Guantanamo often focuses on the propriety of the language used to describe the treatment of prisoners. The White House, conservative columnists and his Senate colleagues criticized Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) for saying U.S. interrogation techniques were reminiscent of Nazi Germany. The Post's Anne Applebaum, a Guantanamo critic, rebuked Amnesty International for likening the prison camp to the Soviet gulag.

In the foreign media, the debate is more likely to focus on the propriety of the treatment itself.

The Sydney Morning Herald picked up on Time magazine's report about the man now believed to be the so-called 20th hijacker in the September 11 attacks. Mohammad al-Kahtani was "forcibly injected with fluids, not allowed to go to the toilet until he gave information, threatened with military dogs and kept awake by Christina Aguilera pop songs.

"The revelations have left some congressmen aghast," the SMH said. "A Republican senator, Chuck Hagel, suggested there was 'a vacuum of leadership' at the Pentagon."

The Mail & Guardian in South Africa highlighted the testimony of a U.S. military lawyer who told a Senate hearing that the military tribunals at Guantanamo were a "tremendous failure." Navy Lt. Cmdr. Charles Swift said that his client, Salim Ahmed Hamdan, Osama bin Laden's driver, had been left mentally disturbed after being held in solitary confinement for seven months.

"Swift said that Hamdan was offered the opportunity to see a defence lawyer only if he pleaded guilty to the charges made against him," the M&G reported.

The foreign press also devotes more coverage to the Guantanamo prisoners themselves.

Last month, the Daily Times in Pakistan reported that three men released from Guantanamo had told a team of Pakistani intelligence officers that their interrogators had desecrated the Koran. "They would stand on the Quran and throw it away, saying the book teaches you terrorism," the men said, according to documents cited by the Lahore-based news site.

Prisoners also reported that "women interrogators were particularly indecent with prisoners." Such allegations match those first reported by The Washington Post back in February that female interrogators "used sexually suggestive tactics" such as touching Muslim detainees provocatively and, using dye, pretended to smear menstrual blood on the men. "They would press their sensitive parts against prisoners' bodies and when a woman interrogator threw menstrual blood on the face of a prisoner, we resorted to a hunger strike," the former detainees said in the Daily Times article.

In Bahrain, the Gulf Daily News reports that members of parliament are pressing the government for more information about six Bahraini men held at Guantanamo.

The Yemen Times reports that an Amnesty International lawyer told families of prisoners about "legal measures they said were designed to pressure the U.S. administration to give detainees fair trials and release those who prove to be innocent of the charges of terrorism."

A columnist for the news site adds that the response of Bush administration officials to criticism about Guantanamo suggests those officials think they have a "God given hold on infallibility and their rights are only governed by the evil interests they serve rather than the desire to enhance and uphold the rights and welfare of people all over the world."

In his interview with the FT, Clinton struck a pragmatic note about the abuses, citing two huge problems that have nothing to do with morality.

Practical problem number one. "If we get the reputation for abusing people," Clinton said, "it puts our own soldiers much more at risk" when they are serving overseas.

The second problem is, "if you rough up somebody bad enough they'll eventually tell you whatever you want to hear to get you to stop doing it."

If only for practical reasons, Washington has now joined the global debate about Guantanamo.
must be tough for supporters of bushwar, being the only correct people on earth.

anyway, i suspect at this point the thread really is veering away from its original point--up to now, i could see the drift as logical because, in the end, your position on this question hinges on prior position(s) on the war itself.

now it is about the absurd contention that the ny times is somehow a left newspaper.
granted, it is not as blinkered and intellectually bankrupt as the washington times--but then again, few papers are. without the reverend moon's backing it, i doubt seriously that paper would still exist.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite
roachboy is offline  
 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360