| « Cindy impressed with Cuban medicine | What Bush actually said-Asymmetric view » |
Sheehan decides to only fight for terrorist prisoners.
01/10/07
Babalu (if I keep using their stuff, I might have to share half the adsense I make) reported that Cindy Sheehan will not visit Cuban prisoners. I guess they have to stay focused on America's transgressions. It's their right as Americans to attack their country. I'd attack America if I thought it was doing something bad. It's also our right, however to point out that:
1. The people in Guantanamo are almost surely all terrorists-unless one can think of any possible motivation to keep innocent Muslim men, at great expense, behind bars, waterboarding them even though they couldn't possibly have any useful information (just for kicks, I guess). Really. Think about it.
2. The people in Guantanamo certainly want to kill Cindy Sheehan. After they kill us, what would they use her for?
3. The people at Guantanamo probably have it easier than the majority of Cubans-at least in caloric intake and variety of reading material.
4. Many of the people in the Cuban jails, especially the husbands of the Ladies in White, are there because they disagree with government policies and not because they blow up little kids like the ones at Guantanamo (I know our bombs have killed kids, but again, why would we want to do such a thing on purpose? to bug Berkeley professors?).
5. Granma, the official Cuban newspaper (the only kind) sees Sheehan's visit as a propaganda opportunity as she's featured on their web site. Maybe she could have made clear that her visit wasn't an endorsement of Castro's policies. By not condemning Cuban prisons, maybe the Cubans would feel better about doing it some more. Maybe she could have actually helped somebody. Oh well. She has to stay focused.
Just pointing this stuff out. I can choose to ignore them as well, but these are the easiest posts to write.
Thank you, America's mother for helping my son who would cut off your head if he were here in this room.
The pacifist delegation headed by Cindy Sheehan will not meet with the "Ladies In White", the group of wives of jailed dissidents, nor will they visit Cuban prisons during their current visit to Cuba to demand the closing of the U.S. Guantanamo Naval Base.
"We are here as American citizens, feeling responsible for what our government does", said Medea Benjamin of Global Exchange and CODEPINK: Ladies For Peace, who is accompanying Sheehan in her visit to the island.
We are not here to see the problems which exist inside of Cuba, but to protest the abuses being committed in Guantanamo, although we defend the respect for human rights throughout the world, added Benjamin, who said she wasn't aware of the open letter sent by the Ladies in White to Sheehan.
In the open letter which was divulged in Havana on Monday, the Ladies In White, a movement which began in 2003 after the imprisonment of 75 dissidents, asked for a meeting with Cindy Sheehan and urged her to visit any Cuban prison.
Sheehan arrived on Saturday as the head of a large delegation of pacifists critical of Washington's politics, which will march to the area around the Guantanamo base to demand the closing of the prison there as well as for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq.
The march is scheduled for Thursday, on the 5th anniversary of the prison at Guantanamo, a U.S. base in Eastern Cuba.
Sheehan is accompanied, among others, by Asif Iqbal, who was held at the Guantanamo Base prison for two and a half years, and relatives of Omar Deghayes, currently at the prison.
Four hundred people remain detained in the Guantanamo Base prison awaiting trial, according to official figures.
), 08:04:07 pm, 608 words PermalinkCategories: American Politics, Cuba, Trolling the Left, Iraq :: 5 comments »
5 comments
I love the "almost"... it seems like a little detail but it denies your whole point. What happened to "innocent until proven guilty"? Due process? Speedy trial? Remember the Bill of rights?
There's motivation. To keep a political agenda.
The great expense doesn't matter, it's your money anyway.
They don't want useful information, they want information that supports their political agenda.
And, yes, waterboarding is mostly for kicks.
If you think your government won't harm people for political or economical reasons, go and check the story of Pfizer taking over Fort Trumbull in New London, Conn., the ruling of the supreme court against Susette Kelo and the arrest of Lauren Canario. If they are able to do this to their own "citizens", why would they be more respectful about the rights of foreigners??
Chris
P.S. Notice I am not saying "close Guantanamo" or anything close to that. I just believe in due process. I understand the need to interrogate prisoners, but 5 years? C'mon already... If these people are as guilty as claimed... Just simply prove it, and shut the naysayers up already...
1. Witnesses?
2. Evidence?
Very huge problems.
If you say that A is a criminal is because you have evidence of it or you're just assuming. The problem with evidence is that no jury would accept a home made video of a visit to Disneyland or a confession from a prisoner taken under torture. If the government has to go that far to support the fight against terrorism, I have to assume that there's no real evidence of it. Guantanamo is evidence by backwards logic. The government has them locked up and isolated because they're terrorists, therefore they are terrorists. And you can't prove otherwise because there's no evidence to refute. You may think that that's ok because they're not american citizens. Well, Jose Padilla and Yaser Hamdi are. But, again, that's ok because they're both undesirable members of society. And you can keep creating excuse over excuse to justify Guantanamo.
Now think about this. You're an american citizen, you're a "desirable" member of society, all of a sudden you show up in the "no-flight" government list. You can't see why were you included, you can't see the evidence they used (if any), you can't request to be removed, you can't appeal to a higher court. I know it doesn't look like Guantanamo. But if you think about it, it's the same principle. You're not being charged, you have no way to defend yourself, however your freedom has been limited, your rights violated.
The USA government is tearing the bill of rights appart, not only for "enemy combatants". It's doing it for you too.
Comment feed for this post
