11 ms·
Guantánamo’s Darkest Secret
- OneWordSoln 8y agoMan, The New Yorker just churns my processor, making the fans crank up. What is it doing, mining Bitcoin? (I'm in FF 60.4, browsing with tracking protection.)
- llaqb 8y ago*Guantanamo
- wyldfire 8y agoAre you saying that the second 'a' shouldn't have an acute accent? It's present in the original article's title, and the wikipedia article. Though AFAICT the convention is that the detention center/base name doesn't have accented letters.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- Palptine 8y agoIsn't it's darkest secret the fact that we can't shut it down because the inmates don't want to face civilian trial in NYC and they have nowhere else to go?
- ummwhat 8y agoWhere did you hear they don't want to face civilian trial and even if true where did you hear they could refuse to have a trial and also where did you hear they would be tried in new york?
- senorjazz 8y agoI believe it is the US Gov who doesn't want them to go to trial due to lack of evidence / evidence from torture is not usable for all that has gone on to come out in a more public forum
- phyzome 8y agoThis looks relevant: « In June, 2004, the Supreme Court ruled that Guantánamo detainees could challenge the grounds for their detention. It became fashionable for high-profile corporate-law firms to represent Guantánamo clients, pro bono, but many detainees rejected representation, because they thought it was a ploy to lend legitimacy to an unjust detention. »
- tptacek 8y agoIt is my understanding that almost the exact opposite of this is true.
- jonathanstrange 8y agoSorry if that sounds cynic, but maybe not all of them have full confidence in the US justice system?
- mtnGoat 8y agowell unfortunately the US justice system is the one they are going to have to deal with. you don't really get a preference in such things.
- dosy 8y agoIt's so satisfying a read. That's the great paradox of free speech I think. Somehow by reading this, I am more inclined to endorse the excesses of American exceptionalism than wholeheartedly criticism them. Even if it's all hogwash, the mere sight of this lavish helping of self-directed criticism more than enamors me to their cause, whatever it may be. Free speech may just be a more effective social control mechanism than democracy.
- ma2rten 8y agoI am more inclined to endorse the excesses of American exceptionalism The US is not only not exceptional in this regard, it's not even the freest country in terms of press: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Press_Freedom_Index#Rankings_and_scores_by_country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Press_Freedom_Index#Rankings_a...
- dosy 8y agoI never said "appetite for self-criticism" equaled free and even handed. In fact, I think it is opposite.
- haskellandchill 8y agoHow can you take that seriously? It has UK above US.
- alehul 8y agoThe above comment is being downvoted, but the UK actually arrests people for offensive speech. 625 arrests in 2010, for instance. [0] I'd note the caveat that "aggressive" speech is included, but it also is simply meant to cover offensive speech. Maybe someone from the UK can chime in on whether section 127 is used for actual crime-inciting speech, or whether it's handled under a separate law. Edit: And this is being silently downvoted, too... [0] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/arrests-for-offensive-facebook-and-twitter-posts-soar-in-london-a7064246.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/arrests-for-offensive-...
- OrgNet 8y agoObama has learned to like Guantanamo, it must be a nice place... https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/08/01/why-obama-has-failed-to-close-guantanamo https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/08/01/why-obama-has-...
- tus87 8y ago> “I was, like, What else have they lied about?” he said. Is this the New Yorker or Infowars? Hard to tell.
- amanaplanacanal 8y agoGood god. This story is fucking terrifying.
- Synaesthesia 8y agoCrazy descriptions of torture but also a very touching human story with the guard.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- derpherpsson 8y agoSomehow, you being surprised by this, actually makes me a bit uneasy. How can you not know that stuff like this is happening?
- Monotonic 8y agoThe same way anybody can not know anything. There are a million things in this world to pay attention to, people are bound to miss stuff.
- fisherjeff 8y agoExcellent piece. It's positively shocking to see in such minute detail just how quickly, easily, and completely the entire executive branch was able to normalize such obviously illegal and inhumane acts.
- svinsider 8y agoWhat is the appropriate response to the illegal and inhumane acts that precipitated the executive branch’s own misdeeds?
- timbit42 8y agoTo act legally. Two wrongs don't make a right.
- sneak 8y agoThere is no crime for which torture is an acceptable punishment.
- fisherjeff 8y agoSo then where is the line? The executive branch is charged with prosecuting all criminal behavior. What’s the minimum act you would consider illegal and/or inhumane enough to justify an illegal response?
- ObscureScience 8y agoAs far as I know the "inmates" haven't even had a trial, so why would the executive branch have a right to enact punishment?
- vlovich123 8y agoWhere to start? How about reality: 1. Victims of crimes do not get to enact in-kind retribution against the perpetrators. Welcome to Western criminal justice since before the US split off from England. 2. Not everyone in Guantanamo had anything to do with 9/11 or Al Qaeda (some even are innocent because the US Military & Intelligence services sometimes do make mistakes). Does having a crime committed against the US in the past now entitle them to do whatever to whomever for all time? If so, does this rule get to be applied outside the US or is the US special? 3. Legally reprisal is only allowed for the purpose of getting the adversary to obey the laws of armed conflict. It cannot be taken for revenge, spite or punishment. Or basic morality we teach children? 2 wrongs don't make a right. Or more eloquently put by MLK: "An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind."
- gringoDan 8y agoIncredible piece. I have lots of thoughts about US foreign policy and the government's hypocrisy, but on a lighter note, this passage jumped out at me: > "Wood suffered a splitting headache from caffeine withdrawal. “Out here, I’m probably only drinking seven or eight coffees per day,” he told me. (During the layover in Casablanca, he had drunk a Red Bull and twenty-two shots of espresso.) That's an insane amount of caffeine!
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- RickJWagner 8y ago"His mother dated a string of alcoholics and addicts, and took the children to an evangelical church on Sundays..." Makes little sense to me. I've gone to Evangelical churches for decades and can't imagine this behavior. Do we have addicts and alcoholics? Yes, of course. Do the single women flock towards them, one after the other? Not once in my observation. Evangelicals generally frown upon drinking (and drugs, of course.) There are some who imbibe or use on a regular basis, but these are generally few and far in between. (Not judging, just saying-- who would want to sit in a pew and condemn their own life choices? It's much easier and better on your psyche to go find a church that isn't so uptight about these things. The Catholics, for example, regularly hold parties where alcohol is served. Much easier!) It just seems to me that the New Yorker is trying to paint a picture. I wish they'd stick to straight-up story telling without the gratuitous swipes.
- stebann 8y agoUSA giving love as always! I hope US citizens can discriminate between their politicians so all these genocides and concentration camps systems don't perpetuate anymore. Just look at central/south-america and the damage your politicians and militaries have done. Maybe USA is the most hated country in the world, and you can make something to stop that.
- foobar_ 8y agoI think it is perfectly alright to torture Islamic fundamentalists. If Islamic fundamentalists believe in killing infidel men and raping infidel women, why should we grant them fairness ?