Just in time
Now what did I encounter this morning? Your present Secretary of Defense has (had) a somewhat different line of thought about the Guantánamo project your government is still conducting. He even seems to have used words like "legal proceedings at Guantánamo would be viewed as illegitimate" abroad. You can read this on the New York Times website.
One may say that one should not believe everything that can be read in the papers, but this news item seems credible enough to me.
Appearently he addressed this Guantánamo case because your President uttered on June 14, 2006 during a press conference that he would "like to close Guantánamo", however that your government was holding some "dam dangerous" people (no doubt about it?) over there, thus first "that we better have a plan to deal with them in our courts. And the best way to handle -- in my judgment, handle these types of people is through our military courts.", explaining his further silence on the matter, while waiting for a decision made up on what grounds whatsoever by your Supreme Court, that by no accident is manned whenever a vacancy occurred by acquaintances of your Presidents mob. We call this nepotism over here, which is one of the many techniques of the corruption trade.
Furthermore (the NYTimes.com article continues), some "administration lawyers are deeply reluctant to move terrorism suspects to American soil because it could increase their constitutional and statutory rights — and invite an explosion of civil litigation. Guantánamo was chosen because it was an American military facility but not on American soil." but this rhetoric is outlawed because it denies justice even more to the Guantánamo detainees that should be brought to justice, as your President stated shortly after 9/11.
"One widely discussed alternative would move the prisoners to military brigs in the United States, where they would remain in the custody of the Pentagon and would be subject to trial under military proceedings. There is widespread agreement, however, that moving any detainees or legal proceedings to American territory could bring significant complications. [...] The solution may eventually require a new act of Congress establishing legal standing for the detainees and new rules for their trial and incarceration if brought to the United States." the NY Times article explains...
While Gates addressed the notion of eliminating Guantánamo as an extra-judicial tool to handle newly definable assumed to be perpetrator people, he still has approved to building a "courthouse and detention complex at Guantánamo" at one-tenth of the cost" "after he argued that the large and expensive project would leave the impression of a long-lasting American detainee operation there and that the money could be more effectively spent elsewhere by the Pentagon." How nice of your Secretary of Defense!
"The outcome suggests that Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney and Mr. Gonzales remain committed to a detention plan that has become one of the most controversial elements of the administration’s counterterrorism program."
Do you remember: shortly after 9/11 some relentless bombarding and invasion of a specific nation started, without a shred of legal evidence (provided) about identities of presumed perpetrators of that abhorrent event. So justice seems to have been bend, or twisted out of special interests, it seems to me.
Do you remember as well, before 9/11 there was this incident where one tiny piece of American soil (spy plane) landed on a Chinese island, where pandemonium was created about by your government that could have been resulting in diplomacy by different means (Von Clausewitz) if only the Chinese were not gentle enough to handle this politely. Was that leadership leading you anywhere? You should have been warned by then...
One may say that one should not believe everything that can be read in the papers, but this news item seems credible enough to me.
Appearently he addressed this Guantánamo case because your President uttered on June 14, 2006 during a press conference that he would "like to close Guantánamo", however that your government was holding some "dam dangerous" people (no doubt about it?) over there, thus first "that we better have a plan to deal with them in our courts. And the best way to handle -- in my judgment, handle these types of people is through our military courts.", explaining his further silence on the matter, while waiting for a decision made up on what grounds whatsoever by your Supreme Court, that by no accident is manned whenever a vacancy occurred by acquaintances of your Presidents mob. We call this nepotism over here, which is one of the many techniques of the corruption trade.
Furthermore (the NYTimes.com article continues), some "administration lawyers are deeply reluctant to move terrorism suspects to American soil because it could increase their constitutional and statutory rights — and invite an explosion of civil litigation. Guantánamo was chosen because it was an American military facility but not on American soil." but this rhetoric is outlawed because it denies justice even more to the Guantánamo detainees that should be brought to justice, as your President stated shortly after 9/11.
"One widely discussed alternative would move the prisoners to military brigs in the United States, where they would remain in the custody of the Pentagon and would be subject to trial under military proceedings. There is widespread agreement, however, that moving any detainees or legal proceedings to American territory could bring significant complications. [...] The solution may eventually require a new act of Congress establishing legal standing for the detainees and new rules for their trial and incarceration if brought to the United States." the NY Times article explains...
While Gates addressed the notion of eliminating Guantánamo as an extra-judicial tool to handle newly definable assumed to be perpetrator people, he still has approved to building a "courthouse and detention complex at Guantánamo" at one-tenth of the cost" "after he argued that the large and expensive project would leave the impression of a long-lasting American detainee operation there and that the money could be more effectively spent elsewhere by the Pentagon." How nice of your Secretary of Defense!
"The outcome suggests that Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney and Mr. Gonzales remain committed to a detention plan that has become one of the most controversial elements of the administration’s counterterrorism program."
Do you remember: shortly after 9/11 some relentless bombarding and invasion of a specific nation started, without a shred of legal evidence (provided) about identities of presumed perpetrators of that abhorrent event. So justice seems to have been bend, or twisted out of special interests, it seems to me.
Do you remember as well, before 9/11 there was this incident where one tiny piece of American soil (spy plane) landed on a Chinese island, where pandemonium was created about by your government that could have been resulting in diplomacy by different means (Von Clausewitz) if only the Chinese were not gentle enough to handle this politely. Was that leadership leading you anywhere? You should have been warned by then...
posted by mxl at 5:50 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home