At least 100 detainees have been released from Guantanamo. Some of them have since reported examples of severe mistreatment that U.S. officials have promptly denied. So there appears to be some conflicting stories. Aside from treatment of prisoners, there is also some dispute about the whether or not all the prisoners are indeed terrorists. Steve Rodriquez, veteran intelligence officer who oversees the interrogation team, says “If I were to believe the stories they tell me at first, then 90 percent of them are innocent rug merchants.”

Well, of course the terrorists are going to deny the charges and of course the man in charge of the interrogation team is going to deny any possibility of making a mistake. Rodriguez also claims that the detainees have provided a stream of intelligence to interrogators during the past two years. That sounds like an excuse to me. Is he trying to make an excuse for the unjustified mistreatment of people that have not actually been proven guilty in any court?

As stated in the article, there is no way to prove the claims of either side. The U.S. government has closed the doors to any kind of investigation or monitoring. So are we supposed to just believe the government? The same government that said that they had proof that Iraq had WMD and posed an imminent threat?

I still don’t understand the closed door policy. Why can’t they be taken to court, proven guilty and then interrogated? If they are in fact guilty then wouldn’t the stream of intelligence be the same? As far as I can see, the only advantage this sort of closed door policy can provide to the government is to allow them to hide their brutality and injustice.

It doesn’t matter what Rodriguez says. Even if we are gaining intelligence to help us counter terrorism to some degree, no matter how rich or limited it may be, it still pales, in my mind, when compared to the loss of trust and respect for our government. I don’t care of it’s Osama bin Laden himself.. If a man is guilty then a fair trial should not only confirm his guilt but it would enforce our nation’s position as fair and just. Also, a fair trial would not limit our ability to punish a terrorist or gain information from a person proven guilty.

So, if the government isn’t hiding their own inhuman behavior, then why are they closing the doors? Why don’t they even bother trying to explain it?


I’m trying to understand this one. The detainees in Guantanamo Bay. Rumsfeld called them “the most dangerous, best-trained vicious killers on the face of the earth.”

Dick Cheney said these detainees are “devoted to killing millions of Americans.” I agree that people like that should be contained… (or executed actually, which is where I differ from AI). But I don’t understand the advantage of moving the entire process from the judicial branch to the executive branch.

Anyway, despite all this, several detainees have been released without charge. Apparently, Rumsfeld and Cheney were wrong about some of them. (whoops.)Well this is where I start asking questions. Think about the man who has the misfortune to be mistaken. Seems more likely to happen inside the tension of war and excluded from the cost of judicial process. How long was he detained? – Two years? – What were the conditions? – Brutal?
That just doesn’t seem right to me. I just can’t get myself to believe that any such message could ever affect the most dangerous, best-trained vicious killers on the face of the earth. I don’t know why Camp Delta exists. Maybe it’s a stress crack from the strains of a distorted government.


According to the International Committee of the Red Cross, some of them have been brutalized in these cages for two years without charge, trial or legal council.
Now the president, since he owns Camp Delta, is telling the Red Cross to fuck themselves. (I bet those exact words were heared in the halls of the west wing, comming from someone.) So anyway, I assume the value of whatever is being achieved is greater than the value of the lives of perhaps several innocent people. Maybe it’s a message to all the “terrorists” of the world and of course if the real message is addressed to the “enemies of the executive office”, then the executive owned military commission makes all the sense in the world.

Regardless of politics and motives, the obvious thing is that the US government is a human rights violator. Bush himself said these guys are killers “that don’t share the same value system we share”. I guess that means that they aren’t human enough to be eligible for things like human rights. I gotta believe he is serious about this because many of the human rights laws are based on legal status, such as POW, and the white house is refusing to establish legal status.

I really think that these detainees should get legal status, even if it means inventing a new status for terrorists. At least shake out the POWs and let the world know they can treat American POWs humanely. I mean isn’t that an important message to send out too?

If the detainee is really a terrorist, then I personally do not sympathize with him, but I am still concerned about the violations based on principal. I think humans are capable of containing and/or executing terrorists, we don’t need to become monsters to do the job.

As I got more cynical about the world, I always found it a comfort to note in the human rights reports, that the list of human rights violations in the US, was always limited to capital punishment for criminals, which under some circumstances, I support. It’s a drag to see my country in there now for the violation of so many conventions, including Geneva and the even our own U.S. Constitution.