A Russian mother is begging the US military to allow her son to remain at the Camp X-Ray detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
"I am terribly scared of a Russian prison or Russian court for my son," Amina Khasanova was quoted as saying by Gazeta newspaper on Friday.
"At Guantanamo they treat him humanely, the conditions are fine."
She’s right – compared to Russian prisons, Gitmo is a pleasure palace. A prison term in Russia is a virtual death sentence thanks to rampand antibiotic-resistant tuberculosis outbreaks and abysmal living conditions.
Of course, one can expect human rights groups to spend far more time critcizing the US for Camp X-Ray than trying to clean up the horrors of the Russian prison system. Criticizing the US gets them more funding, while actually helping people doesn’t bring in the donations.
Conservatives love playing this card, attempting to marginalize inherent problems in society and abuses in the system by informing us that “other places are even worse!” By that measure, I guess a slaveholder who puts a roof over his servants’ heads and feeds them breakfast, lunch and dinner should be able to hold his head up high, as long as he’s not stooping to the “real meanies” who malnourish their slaves and house them in sod huts.
Thank you for that wonderful display of illogic.
My argument is that the conditions and Guantanomo Bay do not justify their reputation, while the condition in Russian prisons are well-documented and abysmal. It is quite clear that the effort by human rights groups in attacking Gitmo are better spend attacking a place where there is a real problem with basic human rights.
Then again, I hate to interrupt one of your non-sequitors with something as unimaginative as the truth.
Jay, don’t you think that a country that treasures freedom could do better than running a prision camp where people are held without trial?
Russia’s political situation may preclude actual action being taken to remedy their prisons. We, on the other hand, have no excuse.
Trial for POW’s? Interesting.
Oh, they’re POW’s now? So the Geneva Conventions apply? And they should be returned now that the war is over? Of course a classification as POW’s is precisely the position the administration opposes, don’t you remember?
You can’t have it both ways. Either they’re POW’s protected under the Geneva Conventions (which we’d be in violation of), or they’re foreign civillians, in which case we’re holding them illegally without trial.
You’ll have to do better, Monkey.
Hey. ex Monkey here 🙂
Oh, they’re POW’s now?
I wasn’t using legally precise terms.
So the Geneva Conventions apply?
To those who fight in the uniform? Yes.
And they should be returned now that the war is over?
The war on terror is far from over, and these people don’t have an allegiance to a sovereign state, but an an interntational terror organization with whom we are still at war.
You can’t have it both ways. Either they’re POW’s protected under the Geneva Conventions (which we’d be in violation of), or they’re foreign civillians, in which case we’re holding them illegally without trial.
Sorry. But combatants out of uniform, who are essentially merceneries are not covered.
The war on terror is far from over, and these people don’t have an allegiance to a sovereign state, but an an interntational terror organization with whom we are still at war.
Ok, so they’re not POW’s. So why are we holding them without trial? This is the question you don’t seem to address.
If they’re criminals, fine. Let’s treat them like criminals. That includes a right to trial, remember?
Last I heard, combatants found on the battlefield without uniforms = spies. Spies can get shot on the spot, as you know.
By the way, we already sent a few of them home.
Last I heard, combatants found on the battlefield without uniforms = spies.
Battlefield? Uniforms? The terms you use suggest we were at war. Which I’ll grant, but then, who were we at war with if not these people? And if we’re at war with them, doesn’t that make them offical combatants for their side?
We were at war with Al Queda and the Taliban. Who, then, were the soldiers for these groups if not the members of Al Queda and the Taliban that we’re holding?
If these guys aren’t POW’s, then we weren’t at war. If we weren’t at war then we’re holding foreign nationals illegally, without trial.
There’s no grey area here because they “weren’t in uniform”. These were the guys we knew we were fighting. There was no subterfuge. They weren’t spies.
Which I’ll grant, but then, who were we at war with if not these people?
Right.
And if we’re at war with them, doesn’t that make them offical combatants for their side?
Right. I already stated that they are combatants. However, they are combatants out of uniform, hence Geneva convention doesn’t apply to them.
If these guys aren’t POW’s, then we weren’t at war.
Faulty logic, based on an improper definition of what a POW is. Look it up.
These were the guys we knew we were fighting. There was no subterfuge. They weren’t spies.
No subterfuge? Guys on the battlefield without uniforms? You are kidding me, right? The only way we knew that these were the guys we were fighting was because we caught them shooting at us.
The whole thing about uniforms is that if you have one on, you can’t just drop your weapon and become a civilian when you find yourself in a predicament, and then pick up your weapon and shoot our guys in the back when its safe for you to do so.
That’s the whole point of wearing uniforms, silly wabbit. You don’t follow that one little rule, and bah… You are not covered by Geneva convention. Read it some time.
Your logic just isn’t consistent. Either we were fighting civillians, which means they have the rights of civillians, or else we were fighting soldiers with the rights of soldiers. By your logic we were fighting an entire country of spies. Ludicrous!
Let me ask you this – if Canada invaded, and civilians took up arms to defend their homes ala The Second Amendment, would Canada have the right to execute us wholesale because we didn’t have uniforms?
Spies are soldiers out of uniform. Civilian fighters never had uniforms. There’s a difference – to everybody except for you and the government, apparently.
Your logic just isn’t consistent. Either we were fighting civillians,
Stop playing games – we already agreed that we are holding combatants at Gitmo.
or else we were fighting soldiers with the rights of soldiers
You mentioned Geneva. Geneva doesn’t apply to non uniformed combatants.
would Canada have the right to execute us wholesale because we didn’t have uniforms?
We wouldn’t be covered by Geneva.
There’s a difference – to everybody except for you and the government…
…and Geneva convention, which you brought up, not I. Seems like it is your logic that is not consistent – not mine.
Uniforms? They all wear funny hats don’t they?
Doesn’t that count?