3 ms·

Literally second sentence in article: By that point, Qasim had been in Guantanamo nearly half his life, aged 23 to 43. Like almost all the men sent there, he h

Literally second sentence in article: 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. Not even charged, not to mention convicted. Certainly no reason to believe he’s a terrorist that ruined someone’s lives. His was certainly ruined though. How much more should we ruin random lives for what I can only see as some sort of “revenge”? For what it’s worth, artwork from Guantanamo is only valuable because of its terrible history as a torture site and imprisonment of innocent people - not because it’s known for holding guilty killer terrorists.

serf 4y ago
>For what it’s worth, artwork from Guantanamo is only valuable because of its terrible history as a torture site and imprisonment of innocent people - not because it’s known for holding guilty killer terrorists. I have no doubt that Guantanamo Bay was used extensively for abuses of power, but the reality is that we (the public) will never be privy to much of the reasoning behind the capture and continued imprisonment of these folks. that said, given the lack of due process towards their imprisonment and outcomes i'll likely never refer to them as guilty, but being left in the dark as towards the reasons why they're there prevents me from proclaiming their innocence, either. I imagine that moral ambiguity may be induced on purpose in order to foster support or inaction towards it, but that's where i'm at personally for good or bad.
- arcticbull 4y ago
  > I have no doubt that Guantanamo Bay was used extensively for abuses of power, but the reality is that we (the public) will never be privy to much of the reasoning behind the capture and continued imprisonment of these folks. That's completely irrelevant. Military tribunals can be set up to adjudicate these cases. The problem isn't that, the problem is that they're - thanks to the power of imagination - not eligible for due process.
- vgatherps 4y ago
  We can never know for sure, however there are a few reasons I pretty strongly bias towards these people being innocent (especially of anything where ‘reasonable’ outcome might be torture and 20 years of confinement). My reasons are: 1. There’s evidence that the evidence used was exceptionally flaky - wearing a very common watch was considered evidence to imprison somebody 2. The political climate at the time was fervently “anti terrorist”, and there was plenty of incentive to “imprison first and ask questions later” - get any wins/info that you can at any cost. 3. When the political climate turned against Guantanamo, the government couldn’t even come up with a charge to justify it (to be fair there could be concerns about revealing sources, etc. but I would think a charge itself wouldn’t do so) And in general, I’m a pretty firm believer in innocent until proven guilty. In this case we just took someone and held them and didn’t even make a proper accusation, and did so in a case where I see the government having strong incentives to do so regardless of guilt.

serf 4y ago

>For what it’s worth, artwork from Guantanamo is only valuable because of its terrible history as a torture site and imprisonment of innocent people - not because it’s known for holding guilty killer terrorists. I have no doubt that Guantanamo Bay was used extensively for abuses of power, but the reality is that we (the public) will never be privy to much of the reasoning behind the capture and continued imprisonment of these folks. that said, given the lack of due process towards their imprisonment and outcomes i'll likely never refer to them as guilty, but being left in the dark as towards the reasons why they're there prevents me from proclaiming their innocence, either. I imagine that moral ambiguity may be induced on purpose in order to foster support or inaction towards it, but that's where i'm at personally for good or bad.

arcticbull 4y ago
> I have no doubt that Guantanamo Bay was used extensively for abuses of power, but the reality is that we (the public) will never be privy to much of the reasoning behind the capture and continued imprisonment of these folks. That's completely irrelevant. Military tribunals can be set up to adjudicate these cases. The problem isn't that, the problem is that they're - thanks to the power of imagination - not eligible for due process.
vgatherps 4y ago
We can never know for sure, however there are a few reasons I pretty strongly bias towards these people being innocent (especially of anything where ‘reasonable’ outcome might be torture and 20 years of confinement). My reasons are: 1. There’s evidence that the evidence used was exceptionally flaky - wearing a very common watch was considered evidence to imprison somebody 2. The political climate at the time was fervently “anti terrorist”, and there was plenty of incentive to “imprison first and ask questions later” - get any wins/info that you can at any cost. 3. When the political climate turned against Guantanamo, the government couldn’t even come up with a charge to justify it (to be fair there could be concerns about revealing sources, etc. but I would think a charge itself wouldn’t do so) And in general, I’m a pretty firm believer in innocent until proven guilty. In this case we just took someone and held them and didn’t even make a proper accusation, and did so in a case where I see the government having strong incentives to do so regardless of guilt.