![]() |
![]()
Covering the Front and Back Pages of the Newspaper
February 25, 2009
WAR: Has Obama's Election Made "Abuses" At GTMO Worse?
Now, there are two ways to read a report like this one: Abuse of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay has worsened sharply since President Barack Obama took office as prison guards "get their kicks in" before the camp is closed, according to a lawyer who represents detainees. +++ "According to my clients, there has been a ramping up in abuse since President Obama was inaugurated," said Ghappour, a British-American lawyer with Reprieve, a legal charity that represents 31 detainees at Guantanamo. The irresponsible, partisan-hack way to read it would be to follow how the left has reacted to such stories under Bush: assume that everything bad in an initial report is conclusively proven true simply by the fact that someone makes the allegation, always, always believe the worst of American soldiers and the best of our enemies, and start pointing partisan fingers. It's Obama's fault! The responsible way would be to take this sort of thing for what it is: the self-interested propaganda of jihadists and their mouthpieces. Which doesn't make it necessarily all untrue, but rather deserving of deep skepticism and requirements for actual proof. Even Reuters seems to recognize, now that Obama is in office, that there could be two sides to such stories, and that even cases defined as "abuse" may not be all they are cracked up to be: Following a January 22 order from Obama, the U.S. Defense Department conducted a two-week review of conditions at Guantanamo ahead of the planned closure of the prison on Cuba. Ooooo, gestures of disrespect! That's even worse than cheap unscented soap and underinflated basketballs! (Preemptive use of pepper spray at least constitutes the use of sometimes-unnecessary physical force, but the decision when to use such force is a gray area that is inherent in the management of any prison; sometimes the guards will go too far, but sometimes they don't go far enough and bad things happen to innocent people). America's military and intelligence professionals have endured an awful lot of slanders the past eight years for the offense of having a Republican Commander-in-Chief. That's not to say they have never been in the wrong; war is a large, messy enterprise, and sometimes people with guns and authority do very bad things. But the absence of perspective and disinterest in accuracy has been appalling. Now that Barack Obama is the President, maybe we can all have a little more skepticism about taking the word of our sworn enemies at face value. Comments
Let the war crime trials of Obama and "Don't mess with" Joe Biden start immediately! Obviously the US is wrong and Obama should go before the UN and turn himself in for his crimes. Liberals-do you have the guts to comment on this report? OR will you change the topic? Posted by: Lee at February 26, 2009 7:18 AM"The responsible way would be to take this sort of thing for what it is: the self-interested propaganda of jihadists and their mouthpieces. Which doesn't make it necessarily all untrue, but rather deserving of deep skepticism and requirements for actual proof. Even Reuters seems to recognize, now that Obama is in office, that there could be two sides to such stories, and that even cases defined as "abuse" may not be all they are cracked up to be..." Agreed. Posted by: MVH at February 26, 2009 9:07 AMHey Crank, lets get a post on Obama "I can't take your guns away even if I wanted to" now seeking to reintroduce the assault gun ban. Can't wait to hear the lefty drones weigh in on that. This clown learned nothing from Clinton-its amazing. Hope and Change we can believe in. Posted by: dch at February 26, 2009 10:14 AMLaughing at the description of the attorney - "British-American." Uh huh. Posted by: Glen Bergendahl at February 26, 2009 4:38 PM![]() |