breastle screen for HLA Adventure Need help designing one 961

Andrew Swallow

Ah, but there's the "catch", isn't it?

They aren't permitted to have a "defence"...they aren't given access to laywers...they are not even permitted to know the charges under which they are detained (it seems impossible to mount a "defence" against charges and crimes you're not permitted to even know: "My client is not guilty" "Prove it" "What are you accusing him of?" "I'm not telling you...guess" "This evidence proves my client had nothing to do with the USS Cole attack" "Sorry, wrong guess...the defence has failed to prove the innocence of the defendent: GUILTY! Send the black wog f**ker to the end chamber for a cheap 'power trip' thrill...NEXT!")...

Also, bark about the Geneva Convention all you like...but America also signed the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" and there's no you-know-you're-dancing-around-the-real-issue-of-basic-humane-treatment "loophole" excuses there...

I know your media likes to not bothering telling you anything...but the US Supreme Court HAS ruled on Guantanamo and it WAS deemed "unconsbreastutional" (they eventually screwed up and put an American in there - but, hey, "he looked like a sand-african american to me!" - invoking the Supreme Court's right to rule on it)...

Also, prior to this ruling, some individual states were compiling their own cases AGAINST Guantanamo...as some American citizens thankfully do retain a conscience and the ability to feel SHAME...

Dance around with pedanticism and "definitions" all you like...you DO KNOW perfectly well that its legality is "dubious", at the very least...that the various measures (not calling them "Prisoners of War", putting it in Cuba so it avoids "state law", etc.) were "loophole" exploits...you KNOW this perfectly well...concentrating on the Geneva Convention, evades equal obligation to the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights", as well as other international treaties and agreements...keep people talking about "PoW status" and this distracts from the fact that it's a clear violation of other laws and obligations ("international law" doesn't really exist; Treaties are INCORPORATED into American law, thus, their jurisdiction is in no doubt as applicable)...

If it were "legitimate", then why the repeated refusal for "international observers" to inspect the camp to independently verify and guarantee the rest of the world that this is, indeed, the case?

If it were "legitimate", then why are confirmed reports of "abuses of the Koran" coming out of there?

If it were "legitimate", then how do we explain that some of the British prisoners at Guantanamo were released into British custody (paying back the "favour" to Blair, no doubt, who was being criticised for not insisting British nationals be returned to Britain...so, the releases took the "flak" off his "mate", Blair, a little)...that:

1. The prisoners complained of abuses that included dogs, prosbreastutes, humilation and abuse of their Islam beliefs and the Koran (such as forcing them to eat pork)...all the things that, yes, we exactly saw WERE done in the "Abu Grahib" torture scandal...why should we believe them? Simple, they reported these exact same abuses being enacted on them in Guantanamo PRIOR to the "Abu Grahib" photos hitting the headlines...the chances of "coincidence" - claiming abuses that, through blind luck alone, are exactly the same abuses that were categorically shown to have happened in Abu Grahib - are highly remote...that they had "psychic powers" to read the headlines from the future, is not a feasible defence either...

2. Upon return to Britain, they were taking into custody...and our law found NO EVIDENCE by which to continue their detention and then RELEASED them...

3. It's known that Britain DID advise America that upon releasing them to British custody, our law would likely find no grounds for continued detention and WOULD release them...yet, America still handed them over to Britain...KNOWING that, in all likelihood (nigh-on certainty, as we had no evidence ourselves of any wrong-doing that comes under our legal jurisdiction), they were handing them over to be immediately RELEASED...hence, if America really and truly believed these people "dangerous persons", as was claimed for YEARS of their detention, then they could and should have REFUSED to hand them over...these people ARE now free (their reports of abuse that entirely matched the KNOWN abuses that were LATER shown to have happened in Abu Grahib - there is no physical possibility that they could have known this in advance, unless, indeed, the same exact abuses we saw in those photos ARE also going on in Guantanamo (unsurprising, the general overseeing Guantanamo WAS then drafted over to "supervise" Abu Grahib...where, lo and behold, those abuses we saw happened on HIS "watch") - were reported as part of interviews with newspapers upon RELEASE of these "suspected persons"...that America KNEW were going to be released under British law but still handed them over...that were released by British law because NO EVIDENCE to justify even a second of continued detention could be found)...

If it were "legitimate", then how could the above series of things have ever happened?

If it were "legitimate", then why do everything to avoid ordinary "due process"? If their detention is sound and the case against them solid - as one would Hope it would be (otherwise, you're persecuting innocents...does this prospect not bother your "American values" in any way?) - then "due process" would CONFIRM that...if they are, indeed, "persons" (though, many are actually Taliban fighters...shooting at an American soldier in an actual "war" and combat situation - be you uniformed or not - was never before deemed "person"..strange how these terms change and get perverted to justify a case, isn't it?)...

If it were "legitimate", then why place it in Cuba, which "coincidentally" avoids any "state law" (which may have individual laws prohibiting any such thing in that state)?

If it were "legitimate", then why are the prisoners wearing those orange "sensory deprivation suits"? Why do photos of them being transported to Guantanmo on a plane, show further "sensory deprivation" with hoods? Why do these same photos show prisoners in unnatural "stress positions"? All of which legally consbreastute "methods of torture" by agreed international standards?

If it were "legitimate", then why are you having such a hard time proving it? Having to "dance around" the most obvious "legal loopholes and pedanticisms"...using non-terms like "illegal combatant"...appealing to the slightest trivial pedanticism that makes it dubiously "technically legal"?

If it were "legitimate", then why did the US Supreme Court rule it otherwise?

Even if all the above could be ignored or erased - which it can't - then, okay, let's say we give you this "technically legal in a roundabout way"...fine, it's legal...

But could you claim, in your heart of hearts, to proudly deemed it "American", as in "the American way", "the American Dream", the principles and values that America claims to represent? To smile and be happy that this "represents" the law, values and principles of your precious "American way of life"? Could you really hoenstly do that?

And, hand on your heart, could you argue it to be in the slightest bit MORAL?

As America was once PROUD to be more than simple a chunk of land with a set of laws, a bunch of people...she considered herself a "moral force"...she "had a dream"...she was the "role model of Liberty"...Madame Liberty welcomed immigrants to the "New World"...of promise...of freedom from the persecution in the "Old World"...shining her torch over the "consecrated" and "hallowed" ground - made so by the sacrifices of its people - that Lincoln spoke of in the Gettysberg Address...a land of the people and for the people...where everyone had "inalienable rights" to their Life, their Liberty and their Pursuit of Happiness...Tom Sawyer painting those white picket fences...

Where did that proud Lady go? "Bye-bye, miss American Pie"; That was the day her music died...

Beth :