Curiouser and Curiouser!

Curiouser and Curiouser! on guantanamo-bay http://matt.blogs.it/ RSS feed for topic guantanamo-bay Copyright 2006 Matt Mower Squib/0.1 self@mattmower.com self@mattmower.com en-gb What next? Elvis? Fri, 22 Aug 2003 08:37:57 +0100 <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <A href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/click/rss/0.91/public/-/1/hi/world/americas/3172617.stm">Guantanamo may free children</A>. The commander of the US Guantanamo military base says moves are being made to free children being held there. [<A href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/click/rss/0.91/public/-/1/hi/world/default.stm">BBC News | World | UK Edition</A>]</BLOCKQUOTE> Errr.... there are children, being held at Guantanamo?  http://matt.blogs.it/entries/00001576.html Don't learn from this example Fri, 10 Oct 2003 09:35:49 +0100 <div style="margin-left: 40px;"><a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/click/rss/0.91/public/-/1/hi/world/americas/3179858.stm">Guantanamo detentions blasted</a>. The US detention of al-Qaeda suspects comes under fierce attack from the Red Cross and a group of distinguished Americans. [<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/click/rss/0.91/public/-/1/hi/world/default.stm">BBC News | World | UK Edition</a>] </div> Quite apart from the fact that I agree with the thrust of the red cross' argument and that I reject the notion that camp officials can be certain that all the mental health problems of their captives were present before they arrived, this article presents an angle I hadn't considered before and is, I believe, important: The argument filed to the Supreme Court by Mr Guter and others said: "The lives of American military forces may well be endangered by the United States' failure to grant foreign prisoners in its custody the same rights that the United States insists be accorded to American prisoners held by foreigners." That view was backed by ex-prisoners-of-war, some of whom told the Supreme Court they owed their lives to the fact that their captors abided by the Geneva Conventions. I'm not suggesting that Al-Qaeda would necessarily abide by the terms of the geneva convention in respect of captured British or American soldiers, I just believe that the best teacher is example and the example of Guantanamo is not one I would wish anyone to learn from. http://matt.blogs.it/entries/00001666.html The System Works Fri, 07 May 2004 08:24:11 +0100 <blockquote> White House aides said Bush had chastised Rumsfeld for failing to tell him about pictures of prisoner mistreatment. [Source: <a href="http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2004/05/06/bush_tries_to_calm_arabs/">Salon</a>] </blockquote> It's clear the torture system works and is in full swing (cf. <a href="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=cia+contract+interrogators&btnG=Google+Search">CIA contract interrogators</a>).  Is this the cost of invading other countries?  That we have to have torture to get the intelligence we need to save our asses? Also I think that what has Bush so steamed is that Rumsfeld didn't tell him about the leak of the photos.  I didn't believe his mock "outrage" at all; This is a man who makes fun of people he has executed (see <a href="http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/time/1999/12/13/bush.html">#1</a>, <a href="http://www.danm.us/writing/prison5.html">#2</a>, <a href="http://monkeyfist.com/articles/701">#3</a>) what does he care about Iraqi prisoners? http://matt.blogs.it/entries/00002194.html A long ramble about law & terrorism Wed, 23 Jun 2004 09:17:53 +0100 My thoughts this morning were triggered by a piece about the <a href="http://www.lewrockwell.com/roberts/roberts53.html">dissolution of attorney-client privilege in the US</a>.<blockquote>Faced with the threat of being declared uncooperative, KPMG announced that it would pay its employees legal fees only if they waived the attorney-client privilege and "cooperated" with the investigation. Invariably, "cooperation" requires self-incrimination and negotiation of a guilty plea. By making it impossible for a defendant to defend, the government never has to have a real case.</blockquote>I think I've said before that I don't trust my government. It's not that I think the government is actively hostile towards me, but that I think it has no regard for my life, liberty, or prosperity whilst persuing its own agenda. The state, as an entity, is becoming more important than the individuals it's supposed to serve. I think that the way my government has acquiesced to America's actions in Guantanamo Bay clearly demonstrates that.<blockquote>There may be trouble ahead But while there's moonlight and music and love and romance Let's face the music and dance</blockquote>So what is my fear? My fear is to wake up one day in a fascist country. Fascism places the state foremost. The country does not serve the citizen; the citizen serves the country. Fascism does not recognize the idea of the independence of the common man. Now I am not suggesting that the US or UK is a fascist country now or that it's just around the corner. What I am suggesting is that the legal system is a good barometer for detecting this sort of change and I see stormy weather ahead.In the last 12 months I've read a lot about how the American legal system is, and has been, deteriorating. About the ways that "Department of Justice" (sic) with the complicity of the rest of the government has made the USA into a prosecutors paradise. A prime example is the use of the RICO legislation.  Passed in the 1970 the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act was intended to destroy the Mafia. And for about a decade it was used for that purpose. However by the 1990's prosecutors were using RICO against individuals, businesses, political protest groups, and terrorist organizations. Because so-called Mafiosos were considered to be murderous and ruthless, RICO was created to be equally ruthless. Those accused under RICO could find their assets seized and be unable to pay for their defence. Used this way RICO is the prosecutorial equivalent of the Hydrogen bomb.<blockquote>There may be teardrops to shed So while there's moonlight and music and love and romance Let's face the music and dance</blockquote>What concerns me is how, in both the US and the UK, the "War on Terror" is being used to hand more power, with less accountability, to the state. "The law is too soft" is the constant refrain from government ministers seeking new, and ever more draconian, powers. Powers which, sooner or later, get pointed at the rest of us. Meanwhile the state continues to act in a way that seems almost calculated to extend the threat of terrorism forever. But anyone who suggests that terrorism is the new communism (i.e. the most direct way of funnelling money to people in the arms industry) must, of course, be parnaoid.I think there needs to ba full debate about what it means to be a citizen in our society. A debate which spells out the freedoms and protections we enjoy and attempts to understand how those can be balanced with the responsibilites we bear. That includes responsibility for the actions of the state. I believe that a sane outcome would be a re-establishment of fairness in law and a severe curtailment of the power of the state to meddle in the affairs of others.  Maybe if we poked less sticks in their hives, we would annoy less hornets. http://matt.blogs.it/entries/00002353.html How much longer? Thu, 23 Jun 2005 18:58:19 +0100 Wow, I wrote <a href="http://matt.blogs.it/2003/06/23.html#a965">this </a> two years ago:<blockquote><blockquote><A href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/click/rss/0.91/public/-/1/hi/world/americas/3011096.stm">Cuba prisoner puts BBC on spot</A>. US authorities abruptly end a media tour of the Guantanamo centre after an inmate tries to start a conversation. [<A href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/click/rss/0.91/public/-/1/hi/world/default.stm">BBC News | World | UK Edition</A>]</BLOCKQUOTE> I think the citizens of the United States of America should be ashamed at the behaviour of their government. These people should either be given a trial or sent home.</blockquote>I still think this. I appreciate that half of Americans (and probably most of the ones I know) think this way. I'm talking to the other half who still give Bush a decent approval rating. http://matt.blogs.it/entries/00002684.html