Return to: Home | Politics | Human Rights

Closing Guantanamo

Published 29 January 2009

It is the most potent symbol of the abuses of the Bush era: Obama's swift decision to shut down Guantanamo Bay prison has been hailed as a new dawn for justice

Activists in orange jumpsuits outside the Supreme Court on 11 January 2007, in an Amnesty International protest over Guantanamo Bay

GuantanamoClosing

Before the place closes, I might have a couple more opportunities to get down to Guantanamo Bay. Nothing very much has changed. Some of the soldiers have become disillusioned, knowing that their orders place them on the wrong side of history. They talk more, they try to make life a little easier on the prisoners. Their commanders have become more dogmatic, if that were possible, like terriers who refuse to give up a bone.

In a way, I am going to miss Guantanamo. It's an odd notion, but I've been there more than 20 times, more than six months in all. Sometimes, the true joy of tilting at windmills comes when there is an ogre in the White House. Now they are gone, George W Bush, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, the entire Axis of Evil.

Only a few days ago, on 20 January, Americans welcomed in the new year with the inauguration of Barack Obama. The new president immediately demonstrated that he means business, taking a break between dances at his ten inaugural balls to start issuing executive orders. The first 24 hours saw four decrees: the closure of Guantanamo Bay (within a year), a review of US detention policies (including the closure of CIA "black sites"), a review of US "transfer" policies (the euphemism for extraordinary rendition), and an evaluation of what position the administration should take in the case of Ali al-Marri, the only person held in extrajudicial detention on US soil for more than seven years in the "war on terror". Obama did more for the rule of law in one day than George W Bush did in eight years.

However, while this may herald a new dawn, we are very far from the end of the day. If there is one lesson that must be learned from Bush's catalogue of mistakes it is that we should not go hanging up the "Mission Accomplished" banner in too much of a hurry. Bush made his infamous announcement on the USS Abraham Lincoln on 1 May 2003, only 41 days after the invasion of Iraq. Almost six years later, it is sobering to note that more than 96 per cent of the US and coalition casualties came after Bush claimed that it was all over.

The battle for human rights is no more easily won. It is folly to think that Obama can sign four orders and fix an entire era of human rights abuses. A president, no matter how well-intentioned, can only achieve his goals if he has the necessary information and political support. In terms of information, Obama's limited sources have to be a concern. With each policy review that he has ordered, he has named the players who will issue the report: the attorney general, the secretary of defence, the secretary of state, the secretary of homeland security, the director of national intelligence and the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. For the most part, these are the very institutions that created the problem in the first place. Nowhere does this take into account those who have struggled for change. There are plenty of interest groups opposed to a close analysis of the recent past; others remain convinced that al-Qaeda presents a different paradigm to anything previously encountered, one where the rule of law must give way.

Closing Guantanamo Bay will be a challenge, not least in terms of determining what will be done with the 240 prisoners detained there. The first group is the easiest – the 140 or so prisoners who can just be repatriated. Ninety-seven are from Yemen, and they would be home already if only the Bush administration had talked to President Saleh.

The second group are refugees who need resettlement: there are around 60, most of whom were picked up in Pakistan for bounties. Here, Obama needs help from his allies to offer them sanctuary, and it is sad that the British Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, announced a few days ago that Britain felt it had done enough already. A country that played so integral a part in supporting the mess created by Bush might feel a greater obligation to clean it up.

Last, there is the group of prisoners who will be tried, perhaps 40 of them. President Obama has ordered that the Guantanamo military commissions be suspended. Now looms the struggle over the formulation of a process to replace them. Even liberals in the US are talking about a security court, a notion that would sound Orwellian were it not for the fact that Britain already has such a body - SIAC, the Special Immigration Appeals Commission, with all its secrecy and its special advocates, all beyond the public eye.

Obama has also ordered the closure of CIA prisons. This is an interesting comment on his predecessor's candour, since Bush assured us in September 2006 that there were no more prisoners in CIA detention. Indeed, there is no definition of what a CIA prison is: none has ever been designated as such. The overwhelming majority (more than 99 per cent) of the, roughly, 20,000 prisoners still held in US custody, beyond the rule of law, have never been in a "CIA prison". Guantanamo is not a CIA prison. Bagram air base is not a CIA prison, yet the US military continues to hold 680 prisoners without any due process.

What we do know is that, while in US custody, prisoners disappear. Reprieve, together with other human rights organisations, drafted a report called Off the Recordwhich featured 39 people who have vanished in US custody. Only two have surfaced; 37 remain ghosts. The story of Ibn Sheikh al-Libi is an example of how the osmotic pressure of politics can result in prisoners being shuffled quietly off to a terrible fate. Al-Libi was seized in November 2001 and soon rendered by the CIA to Egypt, where torture elicited the "fact" that al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein were in league over weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Bush cited this as a reason to invade Iraq; the then secretary of state Colin Powell repeated it in the UN. When 14 "high-value detainees" appeared in Guantanamo Bay in September 2006, Ibn al-Libi was not among them; what he might say to a lawyer was just too embarrassing for the administration. So he was rendered to disappear in Libya, where Reprieve has now tracked him down. His story must be told - both to expose the consequences of torture and how Libya is being used to spare Bush's blushes.

Notwithstanding such important individual stories, the directive to close CIA prisons is only of passing relevance. There is also the question of the proxy prisons. The outsourcing of torture and imprisonment was one of the greatest horrors of the Bush years, and there are proxy prisons that have never been part of the public debate, including a particularly unpleasant one in Uzbekistan. Other countries – most notably Jordan and Egypt – continue to serve secret American interests.

It would also be unwise to assume that Obama's policy review is going to eliminate the practice of rendition. This was not a Bush brainchild; as far back as Ronald Reagan, suspects had been "snatched" - the preferred term - from abroad. There was enthusiasm for rendition during the Clinton era. Richard Clarke, counter-terrorism tsar to both Democrats and Republicans, relates an infamous story in his book Against All Enemies:

The first time I had proposed a snatch, in 1993, the White House counsel, Lloyd Cutler, demanded a meeting with the president to explain how it violated international law. Clinton seemed to be siding with Cutler until Al Gore belatedly joined the meeting, having just flown overnight from South Africa. Clinton recapped the argument on both sides for Gore: Lloyd says this. Dick says that. Gore laughed and said, "That's a no-brainer. Of course it's a violation of international law, that's why it's a covert action. The guy is a terrorist. Go grab his ass."

The euphemisms - "rendition to justice" is a favourite one, when someone is "snatched" and brought to face trial in the US - cannot disguise the fact that there is no legal distinction that sets it apart from kidnapping.

President Obama has ordered an end to torture, requiring that all interrogations abide by the Army Field Manual. Yet the ink was barely dry on his directive before talk of adding more coercive techniques to the manual began to surface even from within the Obama administration itself, possibly as a sop to right-wing critics. Obama also said nothing about accountability. With a wink and a nod, before his inauguration, there were signs that he had already come under pressure from both sides of the aisle not to look too carefully at the criminal practices of the Bush administration. Nobody in Congress seems to have the stomach for a bloody inquest, and I believe the Senate leadership have indicated that inquiries are not on their list of priorities. Obama's reticence is understandable enough. He is embarking on a daunting mission, and he must seek allies where he can find them. Digging up the skeletons of the past might have suited the Democrats in the run-up to the election, but if they want Republican co-operation now, the prospect is less appealing.

The setting up of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission, to ensure that the truth comes to light, both for the peace of mind of the victims and so that history can record the mistakes, would be one option open to the new president, and there is no legitimate argument against it. But such a commission will not easily be born. A systematic structure of secrecy - couched in national security terms - may be the most dangerous and long-lasting legacy of Bush and Tony Blair. I have a US security clearance, and while I obviously cannot reveal classified material, I can state without hesitation that the overwhelming majority of it would not remain hidden in a sane world.

Looking to the future, it is enormously exciting to have a US president who is so powerfully in favour of human rights. But it is unclear whether he could sustain his approach in the face of (for example) a further terror attack on US soil. Unfortunately we should not discount the possibility of such an attack. Al- Qaeda must realise that a decent president is a danger to their cause, just as Bush's policies provided the most effective recruiting sergeant to their banner that they could imagine.

Clive Stafford Smith is the director of Reprieve, the UK legal action charity that uses the law to enforce the human rights of prisoners, from death row to Guantanamo Bay. For more information, see www.reprieve.org.uk, or contact Reprieve, PO Box 52742, London EC4P 4WS. Tel: 020 7353 4640

Road to closure

2002, January First group of 20 prisoners arrive at Guantanamo, deemed not entitled to habeas corpus.
President Bush rules that their standing as "enemy combatants" disqualifies them from PoW status
February Detainees go on hunger strike to protest the ban on turbans
2004, March UK prisoners dubbed the "Tipton Three" are released without charge
June Supreme Court rules that prisoners can use federal courts to challenge their imprisonment
July In response, the Pentagon creates special military commissions to determine detainees "enemy combatant" status
2005, May Riots erupt around the world after allegations of abuse of the Koran at Guantanamo
2006, June US Supreme Court rules that military commissions used to try prisoners are illegal and that the Geneva Conventions apply to detainees
2008, June Supreme Court rules that prisoners are entitled to habeas corpus
July Reports that US military based an interrogation class on study of Chinese torture techniques
July Guantanamo war crimes trial begins against Osama Bin Laden's former driver
2009, January Barack Obama announces Guantanamo to close within a year and suspends all ongoing military tribunals

Kate Ferguson

Inside guantanamo/Bisher Al-Rawi

was arrested in November 2002 during a business trip to the Gambia, along with a colleague. He was first taken to Bagram air base, then on to Guantanamo.

We were flown to Guantanamo shackled, cuffed, blindfolded. We had protectors on our ears. It was extremely uncomfortable. If you wanted to use the toilet, someone had to pull your trousers down for you. It was extremely degrading.
When we got there we were put in solitary confinement. To be thrown into a dimly lit cell, just a small box, life is really very alien. You feel hopeless, like this is your grave. We stayed in solitary confinement for a month, then went out into the general population [of the camp]. You were still in individual cells but you could see people. Really, the day was full of nothingness. It revolved around when they brought us food and the nothingness in between. The leisure time was a big thing - to be let outside - but even when you were there you were just by yourself in a fenced area, 10ft by 15ft. There really was no information about what was going on - there was just interrogation.
Something happened which made me realise it was a game to people. Before my lawyer had visited, he sent me a letter explaining I was not to take part in the tribunal process, because it was illegal. Before I received the letter, they came to us. We were told a couple of weeks before that we'd have a tribunal. We had to prepare our own defence - but without access to pen and paper.
Then the day after my tribunal I received my lawyer's letter saying not to take part. The letter had been postmarked two months before. That's when I knew they were not trying to do the right thing, and then I lost faith.

Inside Guantanamo/Moazzam Begg

Moazzam Begg was detained by Pakistani police and CIA officers in January 2002 while he was living in Islamabad.

I was never arrested, I was kidnapped at gunpoint. Nobody ever questioned me until I was handed over into custody. It happened because the US offered bounties of thousands of pounds for each person. There was no justice system, absolutely none. They didn't even pretend there was. You were simply in custody and that's it.
I was held for three years - 11 months in Bagram and two years, one month in Guantanamo. Most of my time was in solitary confinement - it was monotonous and dreary, with nothing to look forward to. There was no window in my cell, and it was impossible to take more than three steps in any direction. They had recreation three times a day in a caged area that was about three times the size of my cell. By the end, they had increased each time to an hour.
We welcome news of the closure - it's seven years too late, but it's better late than never. But we're still concerned about the ghost prisons, where conditions are even worse than in Guantanamo. Obama has said that he's going to shut Guantanamo but he's also said that he's going to increase the numbers of troops in Afghanistan. So there are likely to be more people imprisoned there. I'm particularly concerned because I was held in Bagram myself for almost a year, and I saw some people killed there.

Post this article to

26 comments from readers

CharlieX
29 January 2009 at 11:44

Excellent article.

We have reasons I think for cautious optimism. Things are going to improve finally.

However the threat of another attack is a real worry. I agree that Obama would find it much harder to end these sort of human rights abuses if this happened. On the other hand, I would hope and expect that Obama would not react in a similar fashion to Bush.

Let's remember that there was worldwide sympathy to the US immeidately after the world Trade centre attacks. It didn't last long, once Bush attacked Afghanistan and Invaded Iraq

and Afghanistan is of course, an area that Obama seems to be spectularly wrong on, tactically.

So the question is would Obama react in a way that would encourage more support for Al Queda?

I have a feeling that the insitutions behind him would make it difficult for him to do the right thing and not launch a military attack.

However, going back to the closing of US detention centres.. he deserves credit for this.

max caulfield
30 January 2009 at 05:26

It just betrays in some quarters either immature understanding or hypocritical self-interest.

What should be apparent instead is that St. Obama is throwing out inconsequential but nonetheless tasty morsels for our squeamish, image-obsessed world's consumption and all is---and credit to a pliable opinion manufactory--- forgiven. Ranks are once again closed and the U.S domination, a benign version no doubt against that of the previous neocon's, powers on ahead.

The fact of the matter is sacred that they are, civil liberties are only relevant within the existing politic-societal framework. For their pursuit it would require one to give legitimacy to this existing order and power structure despite protestations of injustice or wrongdoing. A matter of the procedure not the essence. In effect it is an institutionised game ongoing with this premise in mind.

And when another round is over and participants go home to their furnished comfort with some worked-up potent symbolisms, win or lose, the smell of cold sweat and urination remains still with their disjointed objects of interest. And this world of ours is such that there is no lack of such.

To ride this high horse, it seems one has to be a very good horseman or one is conveniently misplacing some of his moral steadiers in a boundless sea of jargons.

Carl Jones
30 January 2009 at 10:57

Max, getting hot.:) Even smoking.

I see Guantanamo as a decoy, its just another NWO stage for the MSM to play their mind games on.

I was posting about "extraordinary rendition" on the BBC Today message boards....I was doing this 18 months before the MSM got involved. I wrote posts about MI6 officers kidnapping Muslims off the Streets of Athens and the CIA doing the same in Milan...I was CENSORED.LOL

Is difficult to know how many NWO torture camps exist, but there are many. We know that any evidence held on the kidnapped prisoners in Camp X-Ray is very weak, so we can safely speculate that those held in the hidden torture camps will be none existent....the MSM remains silent, so what is the NWO doing to these renditioned Muslims??? I would suggest they are being "re-programmed" as future terrorists, much like the poor shooting, bullet wasting Mumbai patsy`s.

You will note the common thread, 7/7 patsy`s using High St. backpacks and the surviving Mumbai patsy with his very light looking backpack..."I can`t remember who gave the orders".LOL

Guantanamo is a decoy, its a focal point for the MSM and it gives those with an interest, something to mentally get hold of. Clive has alway come across a decent caring person and what I`ve said above is not an attempt to belittle those who have suffered in guantanamo, WE HEAR YOU, but what about those we never hear from and may never see again, unless the are teleported into some big city and triggered to go on the rampage...the Amerikanos warned the Indian government twice and only a month before...heck, thats great intelligence.LOL

Carl Jones
30 January 2009 at 14:26

Bob, you are beginning to sound dull and I dare say, some would call you a troll.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll

Do you not read the news, or do you just forget things?

Guantanamo is a very small part of the NWO "extraordinary redition program".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition

Of course, much of this report is based on Europe and CIA transfers in/through Europe. We don`t know much about what has happened in the rest of the world, but its fair to assume its extensive.

antileft
30 January 2009 at 16:11

Erm, Carl, you failed to answer Bob's question. Nothing in either of those links mentions the Indian government.

Here it is again- do defend you beliefs by answering questions, or admit that it's all a big fantasy:

"'the Amerikanos warned the Indian government twice

and only a month before...'

Where did you read this? Who wrote it and how did they know?"

You know, Carl, Ive noticed your posts have become more cocky and even more bizarre. Perhaps youre finally losing it? I have another question for you:

Isnt there a better place to avoid the NWO carnage than Britain? Why havent you moved there? Surely, with your, ahem, insight, you can find a safer place to get away from it all? Theyd find it very hard indeed to kill you in, for example, the amazon rainforest? Why dont you go there? You could take your family.

Carl Jones
30 January 2009 at 23:27

Simpletons

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/02/mumbai-terror-at...

max caulfield
31 January 2009 at 05:11

Carl, certainly unintended offence to Mr. Stafford Smith.

Fact is well-intentioned decency litters the proverbial road to hell and many are having to make hard choices or make compromises or look other way or not look too overly deeply. Yesterday's neoconservatives are now simply being replaced with another set of winner-at-all-costs.

The problem is we are for better or worse placed on the victor's side, inhabitating victor's narrative, and as such shielding our sensibilities with all the right-sounding vocabularies. To protest even honestly at perceived injustice (we are at certain risk of tripping ourselves up with wordplays) we are giving consent to be participants in the overall gameplan (though not necessarily all preconceived in perfection, more ad hoc in nature). We serve to reinforce the legitimacy, and perpetuality, of the whatever system we care to label. Meantime points are there to be scored, bruised ego soothed, and victimhood far and wide are continously made online for stoking the fire of our righteous zeal.

And for those unfortuitous enough to be on the receiving end of victor's dispensation, one has to get over pity and to recognise all of us are simply makers of our own demise.

max caulfield
31 January 2009 at 05:27

Bob, whatever we are, where we come from, it is big boy's game they---the not morsels they---are playing. They should be adult enough to know the consequences, elated even to receive martyrdom. They could not care less about your concern for their due process.

The point however is not us in the West being weak and squeamish, it is the first broadside from the new guards of the Middle Kingdom to command our heart and mind devotion. Big carrot.

antileft
31 January 2009 at 07:06

Carl- thank you so much for answering Bob's question- but can you answer mine too? Here it is again!

"Isnt there a better place to avoid the NWO carnage than Britain? Why havent you moved there? Surely, with your, ahem, insight, you can find a safer place to get away from it all? Theyd find it very hard indeed to kill you in, for example, the amazon rainforest? Why dont you go there? You could take your family."

max caulfield
31 January 2009 at 07:34

Bob I take on board the universal concern for all and any's rights to fairness, rule of law, etc.treatment even though that is problematic.

What I like though to observe is for all the whitewash job in the right media about the newly crowned emperor, he is just another product of his system and is doubtlessly entrusted to bat for his house, not let the side down and all that. It is U.S of A power, with all the Hollywood-style glamour giftwrapped, rammed down (or up depends on where you stand) the rest of the world's gills and worse, they are masquerading it as some sort of second coming, doing you a big favour. You seem to be on side already and that speaks to the man's success in this cynical age. And when St. Obama in his win-friend-and-influence-people mode urges you to march on, to war or else, you might hear a resoundingly gratifying "at your service". What may you say then to his equally rights-bound victims?

antileft
31 January 2009 at 10:26

You know, Max, if english isnt your first language and if youre not very good at it, for god's sake dont be ambitious with your choice of words. Keep it simple so that it actually makes sense.

antileft
31 January 2009 at 13:23

Bob, I think the problem is that some people are so very far to the left that they instinctively hate every american president regardless of the facts. Obama, therefor, gives them a bit of a dilemma: How can we dislike this guy even though we like almost everything that he says? Oh such a dilemma! I think the consensus now is that they dislike him because he doesnt actually mean any of those good things that he says- hes just faking it. Of course, there's no reason to think so.... Other than the fact that hes the american president. Well, I didnt say these people were intelligent.

Carl Jones
31 January 2009 at 15:30

Amerika is bankrupt. Obama`s position is HOPEless...hope is tomorrow and tomorrow never comes.

antileft
31 January 2009 at 16:07

Carl, again you failed to answer my question. Is that because the answer is that you dont actually believe these nutty things you keep saying that much? If not, answer the question:

Carl Jones
31 January 2009 at 16:37

The above poster abused my wife in a comment on this site, so I don`t respond to his questions.

max caulfield
01 February 2009 at 03:25

antileft wordplay along that artificial left-right spectrum can be futile. Some of the things that should matter to you just do not fall conveniently along such.

You however sound on terms with your side of the divide, certainly there are no reasons why you should be otherwise. Things of course could not now look rosier with this exalted personality at the helms and you are no doubt justified to be feeling vindicated in front of the world. Even although it is the victor's side, the victor's justice can be such benign, and user-friendly, and should apply to all regardlessly. In this light, the positive hope and expectations nursed by some for mankind's future do have merit.

While it is true others, perhaps by choice to be on the outside looking in, do have something irrational against the U.S presidency or related, let's not dismiss this obvious fact that of all the products of this winner's culture, at any cost, St. Obama really comes across as almost too good, and in such transparent 24/7 age too.

Perhaps, young sir, you may perhaps one day grow tired of your caffe latte and start developing serious rejection symdrome.

antileft
01 February 2009 at 04:16

"St. Obama really comes across as almost too good, and in such transparent 24/7 age too."

So.... That's the reason you dislike him? That he's "too good to be true"?!!! So I suppose that if he was a little worse, you'd support him then? Oh what an idiotic way of thinking!!!! Im so tired of hearing from these moronic idiots with tiny little useless brains who think their opinion is somehow valid even though they arent intelligent enough to understand even the most basic logic. Why do you bother to post here? You should be using yahoo chat or something- give up on politics, youre not bright enough.

max caulfield
01 February 2009 at 04:58

Disliking or otherwise on a personal level I can assure you would have no place when dealing with this master of our universe and its palace guards. It warps judgement.

The point I am stating is merely this: it is the victor's narrative, regardless of being called neocons or change soft power president. At the very least they are not going to do the rest of the world unconditional favour. That should be obvious.

What seems to be interesting though, far from being my mooted support for a "little worse" personality, is your and your kind's likely response, as a camp follower of this system, if the two ongoing wars were initiated, under similar 9/11 circumstances, and with accompanying right-sounding script, by this so almost too good leader.

No easy answer here. Certainly one can choose to make up as goes along. All seems to come down to the right vocabulary.

antileft
01 February 2009 at 05:23

Sorry max, not only are you a moron- but you are a moron who's english is terrible. I really dont know what it is youre trying to say here.

"Disliking or otherwise on a personal level I can assure you would have no place when dealing with this master of our universe and its palace guards. It warps judgement."

You can assure me that someone (you?) would have no place when... Dealing with a master of the universe? Is that Obama? Who are his palace guards? What do you mean "deal with him"? How can you "deal with" a president? What "warps judgement"?

"it is the victor's narrative, regardless of being called neocons or change soft power president."

"change soft power president" doesnt make sense. You need to add more words. Perhaps "regardless of the fact that the president has changed" or "regardless of the fact that this president believes in soft power"... What on earth are you saying? No idea.

"What seems to be interesting... is your and your kind's likely response, as a camp follower of this system, if the two ongoing wars were initiated, under similar 9/11 circumstances, and with accompanying right-sounding script, by this so almost too good leader."

This really doesnt make any sense at all. What on earth does it even mean?!

"All seems to come down to the right vocabulary."

Or, indeed, the right grammar. Perhaps you need to study english a little more? I dont know if youre a native speaker or not- if youre not, then fair enough- but quit trying to use words youre not comfortable with. If you are a native speaker- it's time to go back to school.

All I got from that post was that you would, indeed, support a leader who is a little worse. Which, even ignoring your terrible inability to articulate proper sentences, is totally moronic. Give up politics- it's too intellectually challenging for you.

sailendra
01 February 2009 at 05:32

Nothing could have been better than oama's timly declaration to close Guantanamo Bay. The civilised world (the USA included) is no more in a mood to tolerate concentration camps, the Gulag Archipelago prototypes. It speaks of Obama's commitment to human rights.

Sailendra Dwivedi,

Columnist,The Sambad

Bhubaneswar,Orissa,India

max caulfield
01 February 2009 at 05:48

antileft, hard batter with a PhD in Eng. Literature. Straight to the point and not much nonsense. Last Good Boy Scout for your cause.

antileft
01 February 2009 at 07:11

"antileft, hard batter with a PhD in Eng. Literature. Straight to the point and not much nonsense. Last Good Boy Scout for your cause."

Again, doesnt make sense at all. Are you saying that you have a PhD in English? Or that I have one? No idea. What cause are you talking about? No idea. Back to school with you.

antileft
01 February 2009 at 08:31

Bob, I have no problem at all with bad english or spelling/grammatical errors. That's fine by me. I often tell people off when they criticise such things. But if you look at, for example, this following post, you can see that none of it makes any sense at all. So what is the point in typing it? He may aswell not bother:

"Disliking or otherwise on a personal level I can assure you would have no place when dealing with this master of our universe and its palace guards. It warps judgement.

No easy answer here. Certainly one can choose to make up as goes along. All seems to come down to the right vocabulary."

max caulfield
03 February 2009 at 06:53

Bob good old honest Bob just letting off steam certainly meant not to stepping on toes. But most of all I am seeking knowledge, off the beaten path sort included; and in return, my modest offering perhaps to feel belonging.

My aim is not here to contest positive hope and that area probably called workable within the constraints of our world. Therefore per your previous posting our world is indeed changing for something better. And positive, inspired, though individual actions might even actually improve things incrementally.

Within the confines of the wordy cyberspace we are of course dealing with words; we read them, interpret them, write them. In the absense of other comparable stimuli, meanings are thus amplified, magnified, or distorted. It is not unheard of that events, the remembered parts and implications of which, however significant, are shorthanded by short crisp monosyllabic words.

At the risk of again distastefully demonstrating with that dead horse newly elected into the world's top job, and passing over the obvious of sure and certain disappointed expectations, I pose these questions:

1/ If the two ongoing wars, initiated no doubt under the last President, have produced much more clear cut victories, perhaps in terms of high approval rating democratic frameworks;

2/ If these wars were authorised when the new man is in office, and given that magicked high approval rating, but produced only mediocre or worse results not unlike the present state of things;

I would be predicting, at least for the mainstream opinions outlets, quite a different result.

The point I am getting at is a winner mentality at the heart of things. It seems redundant for me to articulate that we all desire victory whatever language we coat it with. That would just perhaps requires a compensatory trick some has associated with morality.

Now the question is this all planned for, designed by some higher order?

max caulfield
03 February 2009 at 09:16

I believe I am digressing here and imposing on the generousity of the host. Still my only curiousity at the moment is of the relationship of this work of unknown phyiscal nature to me.

I have stated my position to the "workable" and as to what I would like to happen, I might not appear to want to be stupid but perhaps it is me that is too burned and boiled myself.

john j
03 February 2009 at 17:24

AFRICAN LEADERS ARE ALWAYS ACUSSED OF HUMAN RIGHT VIOLENTION

Post your comment

Please note: you will need to login or register before you can comment on the website

About the writer

Clive Stafford Smith is legal director of the charity Reprieve and has spent more than 20 years representing prisoners on Death Row in the United States. More recently he has represented many of the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay.