Gitmo Detainees Enjoy Historic Protections Bush Says

When Bush said that he planned on filling up the coffers after his presidency ended by hitting the public speaking circuit, I had no idea he meant this doing stand up.  But, as it turns out, that’s exactly what he appears to be practicing for.

The latest gutbuster from the President would be his claim that Guantanimo Bay detainees just happen to “enjoy more procedural protections than any other captured enemy combatants in the history of warfare.”

The humor should be lost on no one.  Guantanimo Bay; the Naval Base that is used for prisoner detention specifically because of its unique and murky circumstances of jurisdiction.  Because it is technically still Cuban property (we rent that little bit of real estate as opposed to owning it), in the past the Administration has used that as a means of carrying on without having to worry about court intervention in detention practices.

But in 2004, the courts ruled against that particular bit of legal skulduggery.  Still, that hasn’t held at bay the Administration’s other attempts at subverting detainee rights, and pushing the limits of decency on detainee treatment.

Like his approach to torture, though, Bush is of the mind that if he speaks it, it must be irrefutably true.  With torture, Bush believes that if he gets enough lawyers to rig the wording in his favor, Bush can do as he pleases and still avoid it being called torture.  Only by believing this can he make such claims about Guantanimo treatment, and have no qualms in believing them.

What’s more, the very wording of the statement has the air of being scrubbed and approved by legal ninjas.  Note the precision with which the statement was made.  He simply says “more procedural protections” without expounding upon the quality of such protections, or if they protect at all.  Also, this in reference to “enemy combatants” a term already mired in the confusing legal haze of classification that has plagued detainees in the GWOT ™.

I mean really, am I the only guy who finds it somewhat funny that an Administration that has fought every step of the way to strip these detainees of as many legal rights possible has come out touting how well protected they are?  Maybe.

In any case, the President should probably give up on the pipe dream of becoming a comedian, and stick to his day job…  On second thought, after further consideration it would be extremely nice of him to give up his day job before more people fall under his “protection”.

5 Responses to “Gitmo Detainees Enjoy Historic Protections Bush Says”

  1. Brain farted hard on this. I had one more point to make, and ended up losing it just as I got there. Either I need to stop late night blogging, or I’m losing my mind decades earlier than I should.

  2. mike o says:

    what to say about the claim that GTMO guys “enjoy more procedural protections than any other captured enemy combatants in the history of warfare.” the fact is that the inmates there have far fewer rights than the iguanas that slither past their cells. well, some in the administration really believe that prisoners have far too many rights, namely addington and cheney [they appear to be the only ones left driving this lunacy forward]. i think in their minds the above statement is actually true– they view the GTMO inmates as some sort of pirates of the high seas of terror. traditionally, pirates were not afforded any rights– they were simply drawn and quartered. the fact that some inmates receive toilet paper for good behavior probably gets their blood boiling. habeas?– forget about it. while pentagon numbers show that only 8 percent of GTMO inmates are linked to al Qaeda, Cheney and co still see these afghan peanut farmers as the “worst of the worst”. in reality of course, administration’s statement is laughable. i guess it shows just how out of step cheney is with the reality based community outside the whitehouse.

  3. Arch Chancelor Cheney is NOT out of step with reality, or the reality based community! He is the leader of the reality based community because he is the one making all the reality… duh!

    Okay, being serious now. And this is something that I have really wondered lately. Why do it? Why torture? Why engage in all of this obstruction of basic human rights? We know it doesn’t work. We know that the less honest and open and decent we are, the worse our standing is in the eyes of those whose hearts and minds we are trying to win (and if you think that just encompasses Iraqis whooo boy are you off the mark). Torture, suspension of Habeas, all of it simply does no good, so why do these guys keep pushing for it?

    I mean, are they really doing this because they’re “tough guys”? Do we really have a foreign policy based on that….

    oh

  4. xranger says:

    In past wars, in which we were engaged with a nation state, prisoners were kept in compounds with no access to any form of legal counsel. At the end of the conflict, all prisoners were returned home. Now, of course, we are not engaged in a war with a nation state, but with combatants drawn together by religious fervor.

    I have always agreed with the existence of Club Gitmo, primarily due to the fact that by bringing these captured combatants to the US would mean they would enter into our court system. While I do not know the speed of our tribunal system, it clearly appears that it is moving too slow.

    Then we get the big question, what the hell do we do with them now? If a combatant is found guilty, do we incarcerate them in the US? If they were cpatured in Iraq, do we turn them over to the Iraqi government?

  5. mick says:

    Torture is NEVER about getting information. A novice interrogator (properly trained) knows it doesn’t work. Everybody in the business knows it doesn’t work, Jack Bauer notwithstanding, for all the obvious reasons.

    Torture is ALWAYS about repression and intimidation. That’s its only real function, and in that dept it does work. All too well. If we’re not getting information – and we aren’t – it’s fair to ask why we keep it up. If the jailers themselves say that fewer than 10% of the prisoners are guilty of anything whatever, yet we continue to keep them locked up and prevent their access to the justice system w/out showing any evidence of any reason whatever that they should be in prison, then it’s fair to ask why we keep them there.

    After that, the only question left to ask is: “So who is the Bush Admin trying to intimidate? The Iraqis? Or us?”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Connect with Facebook