This death in Guantanamo was one of the presumably more dangerous individuals, who were never processed out of the place:
Officials are still awaiting a cause of death, but we do know that this is the ninth prisoner to die at Guantanamo. Six of those deaths were the result of suicide.If you keep people anywhere long enough, they will die. One way or another. Prison suicide, however, should be prevented, even amongst persons who are believed to be more dangerous than those we set free... and then drone-attack.
पोस्ट्स
७३ टिप्पण्या:
"I have said repeatedly that I intend to close Guantanamo, and I will follow through on that."
"That" being the "intending" or the "saying repeatedly" part?
Why should prison suicide be prevented? Do we have a special responsibility for the lives of people in prison? I mean, prison should be free of rape and provide enough food to live on and some work, but I see no particular reason that the government should assume responsibility for people in prison not killing themselves any more than the government should be responsible for me not killing myself while out of prison.
Trey
In the Oval Office, being on the other side of the desk makes a big difference in how the world looks.
That's something that Clinton was able to grasp.
(insert Clinton sex joke here.)
Probably the Obama tools, when they realized they couldn't close the prison because it contained really bad guys and not just Poor Oppressed Minorities, decided to half-ass it and told the guys at Gitmo to "ease up" on the prisoners.
So the prisoners were give more freedom---which allowed them to start offing themselves for Allah (or having Al Queda guys "assist" their suicides to make them seem like martyrs to their homies around the world).
Good job, Althouse, for putting an incompetent black guy in charge and causing this. All because you love abortion and not seeming racist.
Bears repeating here:
2006 progressives: Bush keeps terrorists in GITMO: BAD.
Bush kills foreigners with drones and missiles: BAD.
Obama demands and promises the release of terrorists in GITMO: GOOD.
2012 progressives: Obama keeps terrorists in GITMO: GOOD.
Obama kills foreigners with drones and missiles: GOOD.
Bush released terrorists from GITMO: BAD.
I'm not sure I agree.
I have figured for a while that people who, for example, go on hunger strike, should just be allowed to starve to death instead of being strapped down and fed forcibly through tubes.
Someone having mental problems should be treated, and abuse within the prison by other inmates should be prevented and punished, but political suicides are supposedly meant to show how righteous the cause is and playing along with that seems like a bad long term goal.
Prison suicide, however, should be prevented, even amongst persons who are believed to be more dangerous than those we set free... and then drone-attack.
One of the obvious ways to make suicide less likely would be considered cruel by the left.
We could ban all contact between prisoners, and strip their cells of anything that could be used to cause harm. strip them down and leave them naked in padded cells with the liights on, Tv cameras running 24x7.
would that be acceptable?
One of the odder phenomenon of my trips to the Phillipines was reading the police reports in Cebu and Manila.
I would read about the arrest of gangsters or terrorists one day. The next day, I'd read that those gangsters or terrorists had been released from jail and mysteriously assassinated by unidentified gunmen as they drove home.
The notion that people should be treated nicely in jail seems to strike most of my Filipino friends as manifestly absurd. Jail, in their view, should hurt like hell. If you aren't wiped out by a police hit squad, and you managed to make it to jail, prisoners are treated like dogs. The food is unfit to eat and you're on your own in terms of personal safety.
I'm not expressing approval... just noting the humorous difference in approach.
Do we have a special responsibility for the lives of people in prison?
Yes
I have figured for a while that people who, for example, go on hunger strike, should just be allowed to starve to death instead of being strapped down and fed forcibly through tubes.
Someone having mental problems should be treated, and abuse within the prison by other inmates should be prevented and punished...
That's your morality showing through. But prisons are a practical solution to a real situation, not just a philosophical construct. Yes, we should try to prevent prison rape, and our failure on that is awful. But I'm with you: if they choose death by suicide, so be it. We've got real evil people to deal with. Prison's ain't perfect, but they work.
Opps. "Prisons". Ew. Bad apostrophe, bad!
My Filipina girlfriend nicely summarizes the viewpoint I referred to above:
Why spend money making life nice for criminals?
"Everything Barack Obama says has an expiration date"
Rush Limbaugh
EMD said...
In the Oval Office, being on the other side of the desk makes a big difference in how the world looks.
That's something that Clinton was able to grasp.
Actually, I think it was something Monica grasped.
PS Shout, you get no argument from me.
"I would read about the arrest of gangsters or terrorists one day. The next day, I'd read that those gangsters or terrorists had been released from jail and mysteriously assassinated by unidentified gunmen as they drove home."
Oh, I remember that. All the people escaping prison in the Philippines. I figured that they were bribing their way out, which is probably true often enough. Then someone said, no, the bribe paid to accidentally let the rapist go was paid by the victims family so they could kill him.
The news papers were full of triumphs over purse snatchers. I'm pretty sure that the purse snatchers ended up having to stay in jail.
There were so many parts of being in the Philippines that were just *weird*.
Every prisoner in Gitmo should be given a length of rope.
edutcher said...
"Everything Barack Obama says has an expiration date"
Rush Limbaugh"
You write this over and over. Rush may have repeated it, but this is the creation of Jim Geraghty of National Review.
"AllenS said...
Every prisoner in Gitmo should be given a length of rope."
...and a stool.
Do we have a special responsibility for the lives of people in prison?
Yes.
The lives of the unborn, however, not so much.
"In the Oval Office, being on the other side of the desk makes a big difference in how the world looks."
Yep...being on the outside one tends to see the world as it is, while once on the inside, behind the desk, one tends to see the world through the prism of the prerogatives of power and dominance.
"Do we have a special responsibility for the lives of people in prison?"
... Er, yes.
Yep...being on the outside one tends to see the world as it is...
Bullshit.
It's just another perspective.
In fact, Cookie, it's hard to understand how you see anything with that massive chip on your shoulder blocking your view.
Freder Frederson said...
Do we have a special responsibility for the lives of people in prison?
Yes
No when it comes to illegal combatants. Interrogation followed by summary execution is the way to go.
RC, who gives a crap what the rest of the 'world' thinks? What, we get brownie points for being fools?
Just execute the scum.
Once again, (with a few welcome exceptions), the barbarians are out, barking approval for the suffering of human beings in prison.
And we're better than other countries around the world who aren't as ethically evolved as us...how?
I donno, Robert.
We could be like the Norwegians, I suppose, and save our approval for the death and suffering of the victims.
And we're better than other countries around the world who aren't as ethically evolved as us...how?
Sorry, but my first stab got a little mangled.
Cookie the Commie is "ethically evolved!"
Cookie, don't you ever get tired of licking your own balls? Even dogs give it a break every once in a while.
You really have no idea how awful you are, do you?
Seriously... how is it ethical to respond to the callous murder of 70 young people and dire injuries of hundreds by being nice to the guy who did it?
How does that make a person, or a culture, BETTER than others?
ST, have some hope! If you keep telling me, maybe one day I'll get it!
"The next day, I'd read that those gangsters or terrorists had been released from jail and mysteriously assassinated by unidentified gunmen as they drove home."
Though we seem okay with Obama marking terrorists for assassination, I presume we would not accept — maybe some of you people would! — releasing detainees with the intent to target them for destruction.
Because of the time span involved, there's no reason to suspect that Ali al-Shihri was released as a way to execute him without any legal process.
I presume the Saudi rehabilitation scheme was sincere and not a set up for release, surveillance, and killing at the point when it serves our interests.
But what if it were?
I see no particular reason that the government should assume responsibility for people in prison not killing themselves any more than the government should be responsible for me not killing myself while out of prison.
We have a friend who suggests that in the cell of every murderer, pedophile, child molester, criminal who is so heinous that he/she is incarcerated for life and criminals on death row....there should be a little shelf with a bottle of pills and a sign saying...
"Do the right thing."
Genius idea. Their choice.
Synova,
Who's talking about being "nice?" Simply being humane is sufficient.
And, for those who can't be convinced that "being humane" to murderers and other criminals is the least responsibility we owe to those we imprison, whatever they may have done--although, many many innocent persons are now and have been imprisoned here and around the world--look at is as insurance for yourselves. How can you be so sure you (or a loved one of yours) won't be arrested and put in jail, even sent to prison? Would you not wish for humane treatment for yourself or a loved one, if incarcerated?
Professor, that's Area-51 thinking. And Obama isn't that smart.
No, he just doesn't know what to do, and he thinks promises are just words.
Forget about what "the rest of the world thinks" they are our competitors, and, in quite a few circumstances, they are our enemies.
In a more civilized time, illegal combatants were entitled to a drumhead courtmartial, a cigarette and a blindfold.
"Though we seem okay with Obama marking terrorists for assassination...."
As if.
"Though we seem okay with Obama marking terrorists for assassination, I presume we would not accept — maybe some of you people would! — releasing detainees with the intent to target them for destruction."
With the intent? No.
Speaking only for myself, I thought that the practice in the PI was appalling. The judicial system is supposed to be a replacement for disorder, revenge, and vigilantism.
And I'm inflexible enough to figure that if we're going to kill someone we should be honest about it. (Just like I think we should be honest about how we treat sex offenders. We're not. We actually get darn close to a third-world country when it comes to extra-judicial punishment... let them go and then make them pay. Be honest.) If someone is deserving of being killed, we should be honest and we should do it.
(Just realized I'm channeling whats-his-face Stark.)
Putting a chip in a guy and banning him from combat areas might be a different matter. Because then he wouldn't be released for the *intent* of killing him with a drone, but he'd be easy to find if he rejoined the conflict.
I have a question...
How is keeping Gitmo open indefinitely different from keeping the embargo on Cuba going... indefinitely?
If one could be justified why not the other?
I presume the Saudi rehabilitation scheme was sincere and not a set up for release, surveillance, and killing at the point when it serves our interests.
But what if it were?
That would be so Mossad.
It's naive to assume such a detainee could be rehabilitated, but if he were I don't see the purpose served by killing him -- there are plenty of active targets out there worth the cost of a Hellfire missile.
No problem, frankly, with the "surveillance" portion of such a scheme, and if the detainee returns to "the life", then both he and the operatives to which he leads us are legitimate targets.
Normally, I would say suicide is a person's right, especially if that's a highly honored act in their culture and religion, but these are prisoners charged with heinous crimes. They don;t get the right to choose anything including suicide.
For once I'm with Fredder and Cook, make those bastards suffer in jail forever. Don't let them take the honorable way out. Rob them of even that final right. Force them to watch videos of the good life outside, maybe a little porn thrown in. The lefties are right: Make them suffer forever. When you want to be really cruel, just ask a lefty what the moral thing to do is. They have a long history of expertise.
I think the assassination strategic thinking goes more like: "Oops! Let's get that bastard now, he's making Obama look like a fool."
Boom, out go the lights.
Next.
He died of fear, fear of being released to head aQ in Yemen.
...being on the outside one tends to see the world as it is, while once on the inside, behind the desk, one tends to see the world through the prism of the prerogatives of power and dominance.
Let me fix that for you...
being on the outside one tends to be a clueless anklebiter speculating in full ignorance, while once on the inside, behind the desk, fully responsible for lives and outcomes, one's attention is wonderfully focused.
Thanks, Furious.
I presume the Saudi rehabilitation scheme was sincere and not a set up for release, surveillance, and killing at the point when it serves our interests. But what if it were?
It's tougher to guess the conservative/libertarian/centrist reaction to such a program. It will vary among individuals; there will be some disagreement and debate.
However, it is easy to figure out what group-think lefties would think:
It Bush had authorized it, just more proof that he is evil incarnate.
If it is Obama authorizing it, no problemo; more proof that Obama is awesome.
If it is a Pres. Romney authorizing it, lefties will scream "RAAAACIST!". Chis Matthews and the DNC spokesperson will nod their heads in solemn agreement that Romney is just too white to be bombing brown people.
No, prison suicide should be encouraged, especially if the suicide is a muslim extremist.
I've gotta tip my cap to Obama for coming up with this innovative approach to campaigning: Re-elect me and I'll keep the promises I made the first time around.
He obviously thinks he's Lucy and we're Charlie Brown. The depressing thing is, he may be right about a majority of us.
"Hey, if a man says he'll fix it, he'll fix it. There's no need to go reminding him every six months or so."
Obama could close them in a minute.
Just get all the inmates in one big bus and have his UAV drones kill them with Hellfire rockets.
He is not called President Dronekiller for nothing.
"For once I'm with Fredder and Cook, make those bastards suffer in jail forever."
Well, you're certainly not with me, and I doubt you're with Freder, either, though that's for him so say.
But you knew that.
Thanks for your efforts, Furious_AH, but no thanks...my statement was correct the first time.
I tend to think that part of this "barbarism," Robert, stems from the frustrating fact that, for a great many inmates, "life in prison without parole" means anything but. So the natural human desire for revenge - or, to see the guilty punished - get sidetracked into debates about how serial killers or rapists get three hots and a cot courtesy of the taxpayer.
I support a humane treatment, although the incorrigably evil should be isolated and prevented from ever being released. I don't, however, support the death penalty. I used to, but my years of reading criminal cases have brought up too many examples of innocent men and women put do death for crimes they didn't commit.
cubanbob - "RC, who gives a crap what the rest of the 'world' thinks? What, we get brownie points for being fools?
Just execute the scum."
-------------
Fine thinking if the US was the Sole Hyperpower that could operate globally with total impunity and do as we pleased and the rest of the world would just salute and say: "Yessir - what Bases to You Heroes Need? What info do you require us lowly non-Americans to provide so you can find and execute people? What policies shall we grovel to you on, Lone Hyperpower?"
Pity for you, Cubanbob, you are in a rightwing fantasy that does not comport with reality.
911 was chickenfeed compared to casualties other nations have suffered in Real Wars. We have little "moral authority" as claimed "Greatest Victims Ever..due to a few thousand deranged Islamoids that did one small (as wars go) attack....to scream 911!! Worship The American Heroes!! - and expect all other nations to salute our foreign policies and fall in line.
We have to be warier of Neocons that seek to manipulate us to act against America's long term vital interests to shed blood and treasure serving the Neocon agenda instead.
I have no problem killing Islamoids on sight instead of capturing them. No problem interrogating them if we elect to capture them.
But we have to be cognizant of the opinions of other nations.
And aware that the new "Talmudic-style endless due process" (especially for those with the money or support Fronts that provide top lawyers) American legal system - is dysfunctional and like our heathcare system - is under great international derision.
"I tend to think that part of this 'barbarism,' Robert, stems from the frustrating fact that, for a great many inmates, 'life in prison without parole' means anything but. So the natural human desire for revenge - or, to see the guilty punished - get sidetracked into debates about how serial killers or rapists get three hots and a cot courtesy of the taxpayer."
Certainly, but any true justice system is not intended to serve merely as means of exacting revenge, but--ideally--as a means of enacting justice, which is not the same thing at all.
Those here (or elsewhere) who propose that no punishments are too harsh for "criminal scum" do not want a justice system, but an institutionalized lynch mob. They forget that whatever instrumentalities we devise to make life miserable for the other guy will inevitably one day be applied to us.
Or, as Thomas Paine more eloquently said, "He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself."
This is a fundamental principle to any civilized person or nation.
Certainly, but any true justice system is not intended to serve merely as means of exacting revenge, but--ideally--as a means of enacting justice, which is not the same thing at all.
You are right. There are countless cases where justice is served and parole releases a convicted killer or rapist to society where they promptly murder or rape a second time.
It's natural for people to want to exact revenge when justice didn't work.
So WHY should we spend more time and money on keeping prisoners from killing themselves than people who are not in prison?
Trey
"This death in Guantanamo was one of the presumably more dangerous individuals, who were never processed out of the place...."
The death was one of the individuals who was never charged or prosecuted, or given any due process whatsoever. He was held indefinitely until he died.
How is that acceptable? Shouldn't they have had to find him guilty of something?
When you destroy the defining principles of America in order to fight terrorism, you are letting the terrorists win.
The crickets we hear from most, though not all, Democrats when Obama keeps Guantanamo open and quadruples drone assassinations demonstrate the sheer hateful hypocrisy of the Democratic Party from top to bottom.
I can see no defense to this and note that little is offered.
"Hey, if a man says he'll fix it, he'll fix it. There's no need to go reminding him every six months or so."
It would be awesome if Obama would say that when asked about it.
To repeat my earlier quote from Thomas: "He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself."
Even aside from recognizing that people who commit crimes are still human beings and many, if not even most, may be rehabilitated, we should treat prisoners humanely and with the highest level of scrupulous fairness in order to insure insofar as is possible that if we or our loved ones are ever arrested or incarcerated that we will be treated humanely.
Or, for those who like to assert we're a Christian nation, it's The Golden Rule, dummies!
As for Obama, he is, unquestionably, a murderer and war criminal.
Not going to extreme lengths to prevent prisoner suicides isn't the same as advocating treating prisoners inhumanely, Cook.
But what counts in some minds as inhumane is just ridiculous. Why should we, for example, go out of our way to make sure prisoners at Gitmo have Korans? WTF? I can sort of see halal food, because it's not like one or two people are getting special diets, so why not? But even refusing to supply religiously determined diets hardly gets to the realm of inhumane.
If we're talking about the interrogation of particular "high value" prisoners there might be something to discuss about that.
But even mean-spirited or gloating "let them off themselves" isn't about how someone is *treated*.
LoafingOaf said...
"This death in Guantanamo was one of the presumably more dangerous individuals, who were never processed out of the place...."
The death was one of the individuals who was never charged or prosecuted, or given any due process whatsoever. He was held indefinitely until he died.
A non uniformed enemy combatant.
In any other civilization at any other time in history, guilty or not, they would simply be hearded into a ditch and then shot.In war their is no assumption of innocence.
It's why war sucks
Speaking of people we should have a special responsibility for, Dennis Miller had a great quip the other day.
Paraphrasing, he said "The Democrats are offering cradle-to-grave government entitlements. But the hard part of that is to make it to the cradle."
Wonderfully put.
And I am (so called) pro-choice.
When you destroy the defining principlesof Americain order to fight terrorism, you are letting the terrorists win.
Yes indeed. Someone should tell FDR, that Hirohito and Hitler won the war.
"A non uniformed enemy combatant.
"In any other civilization at any other time in history, guilty or not, they would simply be hearded into a ditch and then shot.In war their is no assumption of innocence.
It's why war sucks."
It's also why the only justification for war is self-defense. Our wars in Irag and Afghanistan are nothing to do with self-defense, and they are thus crimes.
BTW, you don't know if the prisoner who died was ever an enemy combatant. He may have been, he may not have been. Most of those we threw into Gitmo were NOT ever combatants, as our own military admits, and as demonstrated by the eventual release of most of them.
"Though we seem okay with Obama marking terrorists for assassination, I presume we would not accept — maybe some of you people would! — releasing detainees with the intent to target them for destruction."
I was perfectly fine with Andreas Baader committing suicide in his prison cell by shooting himself in the back of the head so what do you think?
's also why the only justification for war is self-defense. Our wars in Irag and Afghanistan are nothing to do with self-defense, and they are thus crimes.
The road to Berlin and Tokyo started in French Algeria.
BTW, you don't know if the prisoner who died was ever an enemy combatant. He may have been, he may not have been. Most of those we threw into Gitmo were NOT ever combatants, as our own military admits, and as demonstrated by the eventual release of most of them.
Hence the statement, "war sucks."
There are no rules in war, bob. The object is to survive.
You should read more history. You'll appear less foolish.
We don't know anything about the person detained at Gitmo who died, except that he never had any due process whatsoever. The law professor blogger doesn't care. Just as the law professor blogger doesn't care if First Amendment rights are being violated in Madison, she'll just say it's a complicated issue she won't weigh in on. Just like the law professor blogger doesn't care about the voter suppression tactics being used by Republicans in swing states such as Ohio. The law professor blogger pretends these suppression tactics are all related to stopping voter fraud, but that's only because she's too lazy to look into what is actually going on in swing states. The voter suppression tactics in the swing state of Ohio are all about RACE, see here for example: Comment by Republican adviser to Ohio Gov. John Kasich sets off howls of racism
Had to laugh when Meade was stalking people at the park who were playing some music and he makes a video to let everyone know he smelled weed being smoked in the parking lot. Get a fucking life, Meade.
And btw, George W. Bush used to snort cocaine, Meade. He was a cocaine snorting motherfucker. FACT.
"Hence the statement, 'war sucks.'"
Then why have we started half a dozen in the last 10 years? Why don't you object to our having started all these wars if you, in fact, believe "war sucks?"
"There are no rules in war, bob. The object is to survive."
Shit, all we have to do is step away, call a halt to our wars. The people who live in the areas we're occupying can't just simply walk away, especially as our drones can follow anyone, anywhere, (as we will soon find out, to our belated--but too late--regret).
So, who is just trying to survive whom?
Loaf... Democrats howling about racism is sort of like Muslims howling about being offended.
You've got to check what they really said.
Apparently, anyone who *mentions* "urban" can be howled at about racism. Do Democrats get howled at for saying "urban"? No, they don't. They're special.
Do Democrats get howled at when they don't want to "contort" the voting process to accomodate Military voters voting from war zones? Funny thing that... they don't. But Republicans not wanting to "contort" the voting process for "urban" voters are howled at.
Double standards abound.
You're so proud of you!
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा