Critics liken Guantanamo Bay to Soviet gulags, but reality does not match their hyperbole. The supporters of David Hicks, the detainee popularly known as the "Australian Taliban," asserted that Mr. Hicks was mistreated and wasting away. But at his March trial, where he pleaded guilty to providing material support to a terrorist organization, he and his defense team stipulated he was treated properly. Mr. Hicks even thanked service members, and as one Australian newspaper columnist noted, he appeared in court "looking fat, healthy and tanned, and cracking jokes."
And as Greenwald points out, "his defense team stipulated he was treated properly" because that was the only way the government would let him out of that hellhole:
After more than five years of lawless imprisonment, and only in response to the demands of one of our few remaining allied governments in the world, [the U.S. government agreed] to release him from his black hole, but only on the condition that he (a) remain[ed] silent about his captivity and (b) sign[ed] a document "stipulating" that he was not mistreated during his captivity.
...
Hicks' release [was] conditioned on his signing the "stipulation" even though it is plainly coerced and insincere ...
I'm not reminded so much of Soviet gulags, Col. Davis, as I am of Paul Wolfowitz. First the World Bank found him guilty of breaking the rules. They tried to get him out, he insisted he's done nothing wrong. Then he negotiated a statement wherein the Bank said that he had only made "mistakes", and those "in good faith." Everyone knows this isn't true, especially the board members who issued the statement, but it was the only way to get him gone. Yet Wolfowitz touts this coercion as vindication of his innocence.
No comments:
Post a Comment