GITMO's No Gulag.
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: 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.
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?
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?
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."