Lori Santos, writing for Reuter’s, recently reported that Amnesty International USA isn’t certain about earlier claims that the United States is running a “gulag” at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, which included allegations that Donald Rumsfeld approved “severe” torture methodologies involving starvation and severe beatings. On its face, this is a significant reversal of so-called “findings” that cleverly played into the hands of distracters to U. S. policy respecting the Guantanamo Bay detainees.
According to Ms. Santos, “There have been a number of accusations of American mistreatment of the detainees and of the Koran, the Islamic holy book, at the base.” Allegations, once made, are investigated by those responsible for the conduct of operations at the detention facility, and when allegations are supported by factual evidence, the military takes appropriate action. Ms. Santos reports that according to the U. S. military, only ten such allegations have been found to warrant further investigation in over 28,000 separate interrogations. We might therefore conclude that (1) there is no reason for massive alarm bells, (2) there is no justification for claims that the U. S. is operating a “gulag,” and (3) there remains some question about what constitutes “mistreatment.”
There is no mistaking the fact that the facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba is a holding pen for al-Qaeda detainees. Let us emphasize yet again that these people are NOT prisoners of war under the definition of that term according to the Geneva Convention. How should they be treated? Do we assume that dangerous persons are somehow entitled to the same protections as would a crime suspect in the United States? Common sense would suggest a major difference between someone who is accused of beating his wife, and those who plan, execute, and later brag about the worst forms of human rights violations on this planet. These people are detainees because they have information that will materially aide the United States in its war on terror. We need to stop kidding ourselves about these ruthless cut throats being mercilessly abused; they are not – but it is certain that their detention prevents them from engaging in terrorist acts, and that should be regarded as a good thing.
And yet, Senator Joseph Biden on Sunday urged closure of the GITMO facility, claiming that it best serves the interests of the al-Qaeda network as a recruiting tool. While I personally suspect that Biden is grateful for any opportunity to oppose the administration, his statement does make one wonder about which of the two provide the best advantages to al-Qaeda, Senator Biden or Amnesty International. It should not take a brain-surgeon to figure out that every public statement made within the US against the administration’s war on terror is a check-mark in the plus column for al-Qaeda’s public relations campaign, and while we might expect as much from Amnesty International, it is hard to fathom Senator Biden’s motivation—other than partisan points for his side of the aisle.
Perhaps it is time for speaking plainly. Senator Biden has every right to call for an investigation of the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; that’s his job in the U. S. Senate. The question is why would he do that when an investigation has already been conducted? If he is looking for partisan advantages against the administration, I suppose that would be alright too — were it not for the fact that in doing so, he gives aid and comfort to al-Qaeda, Amnesty International, the American Civil Liberties Union, and the Center for Constitutional Rights. I can’t speak for Senator Biden’s motivations, of course, but I can surmise that if I had to align myself with one of two forces, that of good versus evil, I would choose the good side. Biden’s statements align him with the side of evil, and on its face, it would seem to be at least impolitic.
Copyright, 2005
XPost: BNN
|