Hypocritical at all?

[zaza]

So I think you understand that it would be extremely difficult to build the usual case against these people other than it makes little sense for any one of them to be associating and found squatting with Al Queda or Taliban members out in the middle of god forsaken nowhere.

The trouble is that there isn't god-forsaken nowhere any more. People live everywhere. Even where you think they can't possibly live, you'll find people who live there. They are probably poor and don't speak English.

Suspend your disbelief and put yourself into the mind of a poor man scratching around in some remote tiny village in the mountains somewhere. A load of heavily-armed men yelling and screaming in a foreign language burst into his home, point weapons at him, round up his wife and kids. What is the guy to think? You expect him to sit meekly down? If he doesn't obey because he doesn't understand and he gets smacked down with the butt of an M16, he should accept his mistake and apologise? Suppose his brother reaches for his passport and gets shot? Or his kid comes running downstairs to see what the fuss is and gets shot?
Is it even remotely conceivable that he might get mad and lunge at one of the soldiers?


From the perspective of the soldiers, they have had a tip-off that a wanted terrorist is hiding in a village. They storm in to take him by surprise. Tensions are high. In one house, a bearded guy (and they all look the same as each other, particularly in fading light) reaches into his robes. Maybe for a detonator, or a grenade? So what if his family is there, these people are nutters who only exist to kill. Can't take a chance on compromising the mission, after all American lives depend on it. Bang bang.
There's a noise from the stairs. No time to think, turn and shoot. Disaster, it was a kid! But suppose he was a suicide bomber; we know these people do that. Now another of the men jumps me. Smack him with the gun, and let's take him away. It's not for us to judge him innocent or guilty, he'll get a fair trial. All we know is, he attacked and that's good enough.



If you believe that the above scenario is in any way realistic, then you must draw the conclusion that it is possible that innocent people are getting hauled off for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. It isn't the fault of the soldiers nor of the civilians, it is simply the usual result of an aggressive encounter between two groups of people who have neither the time, inclination nor ability to communicate.


What happens to them afterwards, though, once the situational tensions are no longer present, is a different story, and those involved are capable of dealing with it in a much more rational manner. unfortunately, those responsible for doing so are overwhelmed by the numbers coming in, underresourced and incapable of handling the situation adequately. They are in an unfamiliar environment where all the people they have to "process" hate them bitterly, probably do not understand them and it is a very frustrating and tense situation. Many will just get thrown in a cell and left until they can be dealt with. Sometimes that's the only way to deal with such large numbers of people; you can't always offer a personal service so you have to just work your way through one at a time. We don't want to treat human beings like this, but we don't have money or staff, and we can't just let them go because if one of them really is a terrorist and he kills some Americans then it's directly on my head. I don't like it, but he'll have to stay in a cell until I can get round to dealing with him. After all, it's the responsibility of the judge at teh trial to determine his innocence or guilt and decide whether or not he poses a threat.

So as a result of the behaviour of a series of different people, each of whom is trying his best in a situation over which he feels he has little control, we end up with Gitmo. Where does it need to be changed? I suspect we all have different takes on that too.