12 ms·
The sudden silencing of Guantanamo's artists
- forchune3 4y ago
- kiwih 4y ago> Until the end of 2017, Guantanamo detainees were allowed to take their art with them when they were released, or give it to their lawyers to take out. > The artists could bring their work to meetings with their lawyers, who would submit it along with their meeting notes to a "privilege team", which assesses everything leaving Guantanamo for classified material or national security issues. ... > Then in late 2017, under the Trump administration, it became clear that art was no longer being allowed out. Like lots of things in the world of Guantanamo, there was no official notification to the lawyers, no memo. Artwork was all of a sudden simply bounced back from the privilege team to the detainees. ... > Keeping his art in Guantanamo would be "the same as keeping me here", Qasim said. > "The art I made is me," he said. "If they keep my art here, my soul will stay here." Sometimes it really does seem that "the cruelty is the point".
- s5300 4y ago> Sometimes it really does seem that "the cruelty is the point". Yes, this is very much as American as apple pie, as they would say.
- jwilber 4y agoCruelty is worldwide. See: Rwanda, Yemen, former Yugoslavia, Mexican cartels, ISIS, etc. for a small sample of non-US cruelty in the twenty-first century.
- colejohnson66 4y agoThose countries aren’t first world, and they most certainly don’t claim to be the world superpower.
- School-Cotton 4y agoPlenty of cruelty has been perpetrated by rich, Western countries too, the Holocaust for example. What’s your point? Also, whether a country is a superpower has no obvious connection to whether it commits human rights violations.
- jfengel 4y agoThe US would not like to think of itself in that company. But it seems that quite a few Americans see ourselves as better only because of our identity as Americans and not because of any difference in behavior.
- School-Cotton 4y agoAmerican exceptionalism goes both ways. Yes, people who see the US as uniquely moral and good are wrong. So are people who see the US as uniquely bad. It’s somewhat better than most countries in the world, and somewhat worse than some others, especially Western and Northern Europe, i.e. the most developed part of the world. If it’s not fair to compare the US to Yemen, then it’s not fair to compare it to Norway either. It simply is what it is.
- nojonestownpls 4y agoYeah, there's two ways to look at this: * The US is doing better than you might expect from an influential, powerful country, that could be abusing its power much more (but that's how empires fall, and the US has learned from the lessons of history) * The US is doing worse than you might expect from a prosperous and stable country, one that doesn't need to be driven by desperation and genuine threats to survival
- jfengel 4y agoI wouldn't compare countries. But I can recognize what the OP said, that for many Americans the cruelty is the point, and I find that unpleasant all on its own. The comparison to the worst may not be apt, but I feel disgusted to be even inaptly associated with it.
- School-Cotton 4y agoBy saying “Americans” rather than “human beings in general” you are implicitly comparing countries.
- 4y ago
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- praptak 4y agoUnlike these countries US is supposedly a part of the democratic and free where rule of law and human rights are a thing. Also, apples and oranges. Cartel violence is a failure of the state but at least not a systemic cruelty by the state itself.
- guano___ 4y agoLots of countries bake apple pies too.
- erdos4d 4y ago> Sometimes it really does seem that "the cruelty is the point". This extends very far beyond Guantanamo. I really wonder where all these sick fucks come from. I don't remember much of a psycho vibe from classmates or work colleagues. Yet the US makes them in sufficient quantity that they seem to pop up wherever authority is. Prisons, police, military, they all seem to have endless human garbage that enjoys being cruel if they can. How has this country produced these "people" and why do they achieve positions of power instead of failure?
- JKCalhoun 4y agoI suspect they look for positions of power, sadly.
- swatcoder 4y agoWell, one answer would be that there’s no need for a “psycho vibe” on the road to heartless acts. It can look a lot more like complacency. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eichmann_in_Jerusalem#Banality_of_evil https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eichmann_in_Jerusalem#Banali...
- PuppyTailWags 4y agoIt's important to acknowledge that there's a tendency to consider certain sets of people subhuman and deserving of anything bad thing that happens to them. Consider how America treats its poor and its sick.
- blooalien 4y ago> "Consider how America treats its poor and its sick." No matter how valuable we were perceived to be or treated as (by some folk at least) prior to our illness (and subsequent "poor-ness"), or how valuable we're capable of being if only we could get one tiny shred of help or luck dealing with our medical needs, we're treated like worthless garbage and kicked to the curb to suffer miserably the moment we're no longer able to continue as a functional part of the money-producing machine for the rich and powerful. That's the truth of life on a planet where money is literally God to most people.
- 4y ago
- DigiDigiorno 4y agoI'm against prisoners in non-wartime being held without allegations or trials... I mean, Khalid was held pre-9/11... That said, I do not care about the art, or even speech, of prisoners--of which who are properly convicted, beyond speech with their attorneys and allowed contacts (whom must be able to communicate on behalf of them). The bothersome part of this is Guantanamo's non-wartime use in-and-of itself.
- crooked-v 4y ago> who are properly convicted They haven't been. Legally speaking, the remaining detainees at Guantanamo are basically victims of indefinite government kidnapping, as the US government has specifically refused to actually put them on trial because there isn't enough admissible evidence to do so.
- DigiDigiorno 4y agoPerhaps I wasn't clear, I am saying that this is bothersome because he wasn't convicted. It's my first sentence. I just don't care about the art angle.
- colejohnson66 4y agoThis. If they were convicted, they’d be in a US prison, not a place that the US just indefinitely “rents” so it can be off US soil. Remember: military bases are US soil and subject to the Constitution. Except for when they’re not.
- Turing_Machine 4y agoYou don't put lawful combatants "on trial". In fact, it is illegal to do so under the Geneva Conventions. Unlawful combatants, by contrast, are not entitled to a trial, and can even be executed on the spot if it seems advisable. Being a lawful combatant requires, among other things, that the combatant wear a uniform or other insignia recognizable at a distance. No uniform -> no POW rights has been the rule for a very, very long time.
- 4y ago
- cbdc_watcher 4y ago
- Nick87633 4y agoWhen can we finally close this farce.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- user982 4y agoObama will get around to that promise any day now.
- rootusrootus 4y agoSeems he fell victim to that classic 'easy to make promises when you're running for office, difficult to follow through when you have access to state secrets you can't share with the public.'
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- switch007 4y agoThere are other plausible explanations. That old “if only you knew what I knew” excuse is a bit tired
- int_19h 4y agoMore likely, "difficult when there are important people complicit in all this, but whom you must retain as your allies to exercise political power". It's part of why the whole thing is rotten and can't be fixed from within the system by the system's own rules. Too many skeletons in too many closets.
- ceejayoz 4y agoI think it's fairly unlikely to be explained by "there's secret evidence". We've pulled "whoops, wrong guy" a few times; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Guantanamo_Bay_detainees https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Guantanamo_Bay_detaine... contains a number of "determined to be innocent" listings. The truth is probably closer to "there were a lot of people who sabotaged the attempt"; Republicans, Democrats in swing states, Pentagon officials. 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-...
- ncmncm 4y agoGuantanamo will exist until everyone involved in its creation and maintenance has been prosecuted for engaging in torture.
- wahnfrieden 4y agothe state isn't going to do that by following its own rules or acting in its own interest
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- YourFriend87 4y ago
- kradeelav 4y agoThere's no word in the english language for how tragic this is. As a sister comment mentioned, the cruelty is the point. It's a long shot, but is there any material way of helping these artists be able to take their art with them again? Making noise at specific people? Organizations that specifically target these broken freedoms? Artistic freedom in particular is a very near and dear subject to me, and would greatly appreciate pointers here if there's any existing work done here.
- 737min 4y ago
- googlryas 4y agoShouldn't they be charged and convicted of a crime if any of this were true? It might actually be preferable. If you look at the scant few people who were in Guantanamo and were actually convicted of a crime, you'll see that they've been living free lives for 10 years already.
- stephen_g 4y agoThere are cases of completely innocent people ending up in Guantanamo purely by mistaken identity and being arbitrarily detained and tortured for years. Others are likely there only on account of faulty intelligence. As far as I recall, none (or only very few) of the detainees have actually been tried or convicted of anything...
- notch656a 4y agoThere's a sad story of a guy who got released from Guantanamo. No one wanted to take him back, including the country he grew up in. I think he got sent to Serbia or Kosovo or something and he's not allowed to work, basically do anything. Anyone who associates with him gets harassed. Basically lives off a small stipend in a cramped studio and the police prevent him from doing much more than walking down the block to buy something to eat. Hopefully someone here can point out the video because I've forgotten his name. Edit: found it, here's the story https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-61609417 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-61609417
- unknownaccount 4y agoIts not hard to see why. The novelty of being "made in Guantanamo" could turn these into sought-after collector items that wealthy buyers, primarily in the middle east, would easily pay tens or hundreds of thousands for, if that isnt already the case. It doesnt seem fair to the victims of terrorism that the perpetrators/conspirators gets to make hundreds of thousands of $ while in custody and then live a lavish life once released.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- Karunamon 4y agoReminder that the remaining detainees in Guantánamo have never been convicted of a crime; the government explicitly refuses to put them on trial. This makes them political prisoners at best.
- vector_spaces 4y ago> A few weeks ago, Khalid Qasim got some news he'd been waiting 20 years for. He had been cleared for release from the prison at Guantanamo Bay. > By that point, Qasim had been in Guantanamo nearly half his life, aged 23 to 43. Like almost all the men sent there, he has never been charged with a crime. Most people at Guantanamo haven't been charged with anything, and about a quarter of the rest have been cleared of any wrongdoing. It's a travesty that the place continues to exist and has ever existed. Your "primarily in the middle east" comment is also really confusing to me -- first, citation needed? Second, even if true, so what? Why should it be worse that wealthy buyers of these pieces would be "primarily in the middle east" than anywhere else?
- wpplp 4y ago
- iJohnDoe 4y agoMaybe unpopular opinion - the people held at Guantanamo are responsible for killing humans via cowardly terrorists attacks, either indirectly or directly. The “art” they make while being held is simply their coping mechanism. If they truly want to be released, then worrying about what happens to their art should be the least of their worries. Their art should be a trivial concern in the grand scheme of things when compared to their potential freedom. They weren’t concerned about the innocent lives of men, women, and children they killed or plotted to kill. Why should anyone be concerned about their art?
- aallaqh 4y ago
- VictorPath 4y ago> the people held at Guantanamo are responsible for killing humans via cowardly terrorists attacks, either indirectly or directly. The people held at Guantanamo Bay are not considered POWs by the US, nor have they been given a trial. They're held in violation of even US law. The US has let some go saying they picked up the wrong person. Who determined they are responsible for what you say they are responsible for? Even the US doesn't agree as they say they picked up some in error and let them go. On top of this - for over half a century the country of Cuba has demanded the US withdraw its military base from Cuban territory. As US presidents piously intoned about Russian troops in Donetsk, that a sovereign nation wants US troops out of its territory is considered so unimportant it is practically unknown.
- nafizh 4y agoSome people here are asking why should someone care about people who killed innocent men, women, and children. It's a question worth answering. Since 2002, nearly 779 Muslim men and boys have been held at Guantanamo, nearly all of them without any charge or trial. Of those, 532 were released by the Bush administration itself, and 197 later by Obama [0]. Today the number of detainees is 39. Almost all of them had nothing to do with the 9/11 attack. 0. https://www.aclu.org/issues/national-security/detention/guantanamo-numbers https://www.aclu.org/issues/national-security/detention/guan...
- brettermeier 4y agoUnfortunately there are racist, inhumane a*holes everywhere...
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- iJohnDoe 4y agoYou’re assuming everyone at Guantanamo has something to do with 9/11. There have been many planned attacks against the the US, UK, and other countries since 9/11. Like, the planned attacks against airplanes full of people in the UK. Lives were saved due to information obtained from detainees.
- hosteur 4y agoI am sure you have sources to back up this claim.
- ramesh31 4y agoThere’s a special place in hell reserved for torturers.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- plankers 4y ago
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- steve76 4y ago[dead]
- stackbutterflow 4y agoSome comments in this thread are appalling. Even if every single person held hostage at Guantanamo was directly involved in a terrorist attack they should not be tortured and detained forever without a proper trial. Revenge achieves nothing but more suffering. What has been done can never be changed but we can ensure that no more innocent will be hurt by setting the bar high enough so that even people proven guilty are not treated like sub humans. How we treat the worst people in our society sets the bar for the innocents inadvertently caught in the cogs of the judicial system. It is better that 10 guilty persons escape than 1 innocent suffers https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone%27s_ratio https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone%27s_ratio
- deepdriver 4y ago>It is better than 10 guilty persons escape than 1 innocent suffers What if the escaped guilty persons cause more than one innocent to suffer? Seems like an obvious flaw in this aphorism. Maybe works for petty thievery, not so much crimes of great bodily harm.
- nojonestownpls 4y ago> What if the escaped guilty persons cause more than one innocent to suffer? Seems like an obvious flaw in this aphorism. It's a principle of justice that was arrived at through a lot of thought and experience. It of course takes into account that the guilty people that slip away due to this principle will cause harm of their own. But a justice system without this principle, one that does not place a high bar for what makes one guilty, one that isn't very careful about labeling innocents guilty, will cause far more suffering. It makes systematic abuses of power more likely, and affects far more innocents ultimately. This only becomes more and more true as the power and reach of the state gets higher and higher compared to that of an individual who might be a potential criminal.
- deepdriver 4y agoOn the other hand, systems where the bar for guilt is too high err too much towards not punishing criminals. Eventually such systems are rejected by their subjects and collapse, either totally or into anarcho-tyranny. This is especially true of states with great power over the middle classes, but little power or willingness to exercise it over the worst criminal element. There's a balance to be found in the middle between standards of guilt that are too high or too low. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_T._Francis#Thought_and_legacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_T._Francis#Thought_and_... >Francis's term "anarcho-tyranny" refers to armed dictatorship without rule of law, or a Hegelian synthesis when the state tyrannically or oppressively regulates citizens' lives yet is unable or unwilling to enforce fundamental protective law.
- c3534l 4y agoIf everyone is so sure this is where we're housing dangerous terrorists, why not charge them with a crime and allow them legal defense? If the evidence is so air-tight, so obvious we should deprive them of basic human rights, why not put them in prison instead of "detaining" them forever?
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- notch656a 4y agoI think it's a two-fold problem. One is they may not be so guilty as they claim. The other is they may be so guilty as they claim, but the methods and torture they were put through are not things the government wants discovered by the public during trial.
- goldenkey 4y agoI wouldn't call it a problem for anyone else but the government officials who should instead be in prison. Perhaps the problem is that these officials aren't in prison..? Seems more like the true problem.
- notch656a 4y agoSadly putting them (the officials) in prison is probably not practical unless there is a revolution in the US. The best we can probably hope for is to give these officials a way to "save face" and shut the thing down while making it look like a victory for them.
- goldenkey 4y agoThe Punisher sounds like a realistic way to rectify these situations. Why do all the shooters go after schools and grocery stores instead of the people responsible for destroying our nation's moral integrity?
- arvindamirtaa 4y agoI'll just leave this here: "Don't throw out the rulebook in a fit of passion. You'll regret it. We did" - Dan Fried https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_DMhb1FWHso https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_DMhb1FWHso
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- boomboomsubban 4y agoTo keep it fair, can we burn Bush's paintings of him in the shower? Why should he be allowed to publish his paintings and not these detainees?
- aaaddaaaaa1112 4y ago
- jeisc 4y agoHabeas Corpus and Due Process are the first step to human rights >> https://www.virginialawreview.org/articles/habeas-corpus-due-process-and-suspension-clause-study-foundations-american/ https://www.virginialawreview.org/articles/habeas-corpus-due...
- RickJWagner 4y ago