GITMO's No Gulag.
A few days ago, Republicus had a chat with an acquaintace at the neighborhood way station who the very next day was flying down to Cuba, where he was employed as a civilian interrogator at the U.S. naval base at Guantamano Bay (a.k.a. GITMO).
That gentleman is at the front lines, if you will, of the subject of the lingering controversy regarding the treatment of imprisoned enemy combatants from Afghanistan in the holding facilities there, and Republicus took the opportunity to interrogate him and clear up some confusion.
Question #1: How do you interrogate them?
Answer: With a translator present.
Question: No racks or pulling teeth?
Answer: (laughing) No.
Question #2: Have you gotten any useful information from them, that is, instrumental names or a heads-up on plots?
Answer: No.
Question: Nothing?
Answer: Nothing of high-value.
Question #3: Is there any substance to the charges that the prisoners are abused?
Answer: No. The prisoners there are granted more priveleges than you would find extended to any convict in an American prison.
Question: So Rush Limbaugh's mocking of the charges of atrocities by calling the facility "Club Gitmo" is justified?
Answer: (laughing) Yeah. In some ways, it's like a resort environment.
Question: If not a mosque?
Answer: (laughter) Right.
Question #4: Is the "resort environment" a Potemkin Village of sorts that was quickly set up in response to earlier conditions that warranted the recent outrage?
Answer: No. That was Abu Ghraib.
Question #5: What's the deal with the prisoners? Are they definitively "enemy combatants" or innocents who were at the wrong place at the wrong time?
Answer: They're hardcore.
Question: Terrorists?
Answer: They're like the Terminator.
Question: By that you mean...
Answer: They're intense. They target something and go after it.
Question: So they're dangerous. If released, they'll carry on with Jihad?
Answer: That's all they care about. That's all they know.
Question #6: What's going to happen to them?
Answer: (shrugging) They'll be released.
Question: What? Sent back?
Answer: Yeah.
Question: But if they're terrorists...
Answer: They'll be dropped off at the front lines and eventually killed in battles.
Question: I don't understand. If you know this, that they're hardcore and will only return to fight us another day, why let them go in the first place?
Answer: Politics.
So there you have it. From the inside.
Meanwhile, back here in the homeland, the very next day--no kidding--the Senate held hearings on the issue and re-ignited the debates over prisoner-abuse there, a fulminating debate still in progress.
Then, just the other day, former President Bill Clinton must have felt that too much time had passed without him seeing his name in the papers and felt the characteristic compulsion to remind everyone of his presence and relevance and inserted himself into the debate thusly:
"[Guantanamo] either needs to be closed down or cleaned up," adding "It's time that there are no more stories coming out of there about people being abused."
Well, at least he was careful to acknowledge that they were just "stories" (not even reaching the level of actionable "accusations," or "allegations," for that matter), but to close down an important facility because of "stories" of abuse would be like shutting down the Bush Administration because of the superabundance of stories of of abuse of power, and that would be...
Oh. Republicus gets it.
Anyway, for what constitutes as "abuse" these days (with the sexual arousing of Jihadist terrorists by thong-flashing female interrogators considered "torture"), one could suppose it's only a matter of time before Catholic elementary schools with the stories coming out of there of yardstick wielding, disciplinarian nuns get shut down on charges of "child abuse."
That gentleman is at the front lines, if you will, of the subject of the lingering controversy regarding the treatment of imprisoned enemy combatants from Afghanistan in the holding facilities there, and Republicus took the opportunity to interrogate him and clear up some confusion.
Question #1: How do you interrogate them?
Answer: With a translator present.
Question: No racks or pulling teeth?
Answer: (laughing) No.
Question #2: Have you gotten any useful information from them, that is, instrumental names or a heads-up on plots?
Answer: No.
Question: Nothing?
Answer: Nothing of high-value.
Question #3: Is there any substance to the charges that the prisoners are abused?
Answer: No. The prisoners there are granted more priveleges than you would find extended to any convict in an American prison.
Question: So Rush Limbaugh's mocking of the charges of atrocities by calling the facility "Club Gitmo" is justified?
Answer: (laughing) Yeah. In some ways, it's like a resort environment.
Question: If not a mosque?
Answer: (laughter) Right.
Question #4: Is the "resort environment" a Potemkin Village of sorts that was quickly set up in response to earlier conditions that warranted the recent outrage?
Answer: No. That was Abu Ghraib.
Question #5: What's the deal with the prisoners? Are they definitively "enemy combatants" or innocents who were at the wrong place at the wrong time?
Answer: They're hardcore.
Question: Terrorists?
Answer: They're like the Terminator.
Question: By that you mean...
Answer: They're intense. They target something and go after it.
Question: So they're dangerous. If released, they'll carry on with Jihad?
Answer: That's all they care about. That's all they know.
Question #6: What's going to happen to them?
Answer: (shrugging) They'll be released.
Question: What? Sent back?
Answer: Yeah.
Question: But if they're terrorists...
Answer: They'll be dropped off at the front lines and eventually killed in battles.
Question: I don't understand. If you know this, that they're hardcore and will only return to fight us another day, why let them go in the first place?
Answer: Politics.
So there you have it. From the inside.
Meanwhile, back here in the homeland, the very next day--no kidding--the Senate held hearings on the issue and re-ignited the debates over prisoner-abuse there, a fulminating debate still in progress.
Then, just the other day, former President Bill Clinton must have felt that too much time had passed without him seeing his name in the papers and felt the characteristic compulsion to remind everyone of his presence and relevance and inserted himself into the debate thusly:
"[Guantanamo] either needs to be closed down or cleaned up," adding "It's time that there are no more stories coming out of there about people being abused."
Well, at least he was careful to acknowledge that they were just "stories" (not even reaching the level of actionable "accusations," or "allegations," for that matter), but to close down an important facility because of "stories" of abuse would be like shutting down the Bush Administration because of the superabundance of stories of of abuse of power, and that would be...
Oh. Republicus gets it.
Anyway, for what constitutes as "abuse" these days (with the sexual arousing of Jihadist terrorists by thong-flashing female interrogators considered "torture"), one could suppose it's only a matter of time before Catholic elementary schools with the stories coming out of there of yardstick wielding, disciplinarian nuns get shut down on charges of "child abuse."
posted by John | 11:36 PM
4 Comments:
well Republicas has made a grave error in giving away his nasty secret blog. I was not only there, but I was the man who introduced the two. Republicas is full of shit as the guy who was working at Gitmo came right out and said "we need to shut it down, it's not American". Republicas, as usual, is simply making crap up.
He was not there when the gentleman and I had the conversation.
*This* gentleman has unfortunately had his reasoning abilities compromised by liberalism and has spent many an argument shouting over Republicus, putting words in his mouth, misrepresenting, using non sequiters as a premise--if not a conclusion-- then gloating in triumph over "winning" an argument while Republicus is rendered gaping, blinking, and speechless at the shamelessness of method.
Case in point:
"I was not only there, but I was the man who introduced the two."
That's Clintonian.
He did introduce Republicus to the gentleman, but he is assuming that the introductory meeting is the later meeting that is reproduced in the post, wherein he was *not* present.
Did he commit an honest mistake?
Or is he "full of shit," and "as usual making crap up?"
Did he lie?
Your gracious host will assume the first.
Furthermore, what does his introducing of the gentleman have to do with what was said?
Nothing.
Republicus has reproduced the dialogue--that the angry liberal was NOT, in FACT, present for-- practically verbatim.
Furthermore, nowhere in the post did Republicus say what the man's own thoughts were in regards to whether GITMO should remain open or shut down.
Nowhere.
That the man was jaded comes out in the post.
Whether he thought it was "American" or "Un-American" is irrelevant to the conditions there (and Republicus honestly can't recall him saying that during the intruductory bull-session, though he--the gentleman-- may have).
What is relevant is what former-President Clinton said: "It's time that there are no more stories coming out of there about people being abused."
The post simply communicated what was told to Republicus by an insider regarding the treatment or maltreatment of prisoners there, i.e. was it an abusive "Gulag," or not?
It was not.
End of story (or "stories").
And yet, the liberal saw fit to libel Republicus a liar.
Will he apologize?
Hell no.
Well, good to see ya, P. Thanks for visiting.
Uh, I think...
What is relevant is what former-President Clinton said: "It's time that there are no more stories coming out of there about people being abused."
what exactly are you trying to say here? Clinton was saying that the camp needed to be cleaned up (ie., no more abuse) or shut down.
Clinton said: "[Guantanamo] either needs to be closed down or cleaned up."
What exactly is *he* saying?
He's saying that the status quo there warrants shutting down, but that can be avoided if it's "cleaned up."
In other words, he's suggesting that the status quo is--pending "clean up"-- a Gulag.
How does he know that?
"It's time that there are no more stories coming out of there about people being abused."
Yes. "Stories."
Hence this post setting the story straight.
IT'S NOT A GULAG.
If it was, sure, shut it down, but it should *not* be shut down because of "stories" that it is one, nor should it be "cleaned up" because of "stories" that it is.
How can it be "cleaned up" if it is already clean?
Typically, he's suggesting something without actually meaning anything.
As usual, Clinton is just spouting nonsense because he likes to hear himself talk and remind people that he's "relevant."
Post a Comment
<< Home