Thanks to The Star for running the series detailing the abuse of detainees at American prisons since the sad events of 9/11 (June 15-17, A-1). I commend the McClatchy Co. for developing a comprehensive story on this subject.
However, the sad fact is that much of this information has been in the public domain for many years now. Unfortunately this information did not register with the general public before the 2004 election, when our country essentially gave its stamp of approval to these practices by re-electing the man most responsible for these abuses. American history will forever be blighted with this record of torture and the American public’s tacit complicity.
The recent Supreme Court ruling granting habeas corpus rights to these detainees is thankfully placing a roadblock in the way of the Bush administration’s attempts to hide this legacy of torture. Americans should understand that the real reason Bush fears that these detainees are given their day in court is that they will finally be allowed to detail their mistreatment in a court of law, a disgraceful spectacle that will not be easily ignored.
Wendy Lund
Overland Park
jack, most problems are solvable given enough money and time. But the financial burden this would place on local, county and state public safety resources would be unbearable – unless the Feds came through with funding for all three lower levels of government. This would be on top of what it would cost to modify the prison, hospital facilities, and add family housing. In addition, it would burden nearby counties because the metro counties work together – on the Kansas side, this means that what happens in Leavenworth County also affects Wyandotte and Johnson.
Posted by: Kate | June 26, 2008 at 10:43 PM
kate: And this is not solvable because?
BTW: I am now waiting for rogue, nomo, and theior ilk to attack you because McClatchy reported it. Although I ain't gonna hold my breath. Seems they are only in disdain of any source when it challenges their pre-conceived decsions.
Posted by: jack | June 26, 2008 at 09:56 PM
Jack, interesting article about moving prisoners to Ft. Leavenworth. From a public safety standpoint, it would be a nightmare. Among the problems mentioned: “Fort Leavenworth has no 24-hour hospital or an emergency room. So after-hours medical emergencies would require moving detainees off-post and through the city of Leavenworth — an unacceptable security risk."
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/42142.html
Posted by: Kate | June 26, 2008 at 09:10 PM
eng: We are also not talking about "battlefield conditions". We are talking about, at best, a controlled prisoner of war camp (I have trouble with alot of these guys being "prisoners of war" most are just criminals). They are NOT on the battlefield at Guantanamo.
Also, it appears, for the most part, you agree with me about the article. I found nowhere in it that the writers talked about all of the prisoners. Seemed to me the number of specific cases they addressed was fairly small. And that is my problem with the early posters. They appear to have an opinion based on what they have been told (or want to believe) rather than actually troublibng themselves to READ the articles.
Posted by: jack | June 26, 2008 at 08:42 PM
eng: Apples and oranges. But, if we follow what McCain has said (I realize his positions are highly changable) and move any prisoners we have real evidence against to Leavenworth, all that takes care of itself. The government actually has to have some proof (developped via a means other than torture) that the detainee is a bad guy AND if they assualt a guard they can be charged for it.
I'm a big believer in the Constitution. I also find it reprehensible that our President views it as an "antique piece of paper" to be gotten out aorund.
Posted by: jack | June 26, 2008 at 08:35 PM
jack
I read the previous article alleging abuse and did not find any conclusive evidence. The article linked in the letter did not present much other than detainee's claims. However, based on past experience, it is possible for me to believe that people may be handled roughly under battlefield conditions. As long as we are getting legal, should charges of assault be brought against those detainees who threatened military personnel and threw various things at them? Should charges of battery be brought against those who actually inflicted violence on military personnel?
Posted by: Engineer | June 26, 2008 at 07:29 PM
Did any of yoou actually read the article? You don't sound like it.
Posted by: jack | June 26, 2008 at 05:57 PM
Simple solution: Stop taking prisoners.
Posted by: mike d | June 26, 2008 at 11:14 AM
I see Wendy and McClatchy the absolute "truth" of every detainee must be held above the "lies" of the American and allied forces. If this expose was so wonderful, and "accurate" how come it got zero, I repeat zero, traction with any other credible (and I stress the word credible) news ageney?
You people in the blame Ameria fraternity must lead very sorry lives, are you sure you wound not be happier leaving these shores? As mush as you whine and complain about how horrible we are, and it is, here, I would think you would jump at the chance.
Oh, I know bovine scatology like this latest drivel buys you credibility in the coctail parties given by Ward Churchill, I forgot about that.
Listen if you really want to help, why don't you go to Afhghanistan and become human shields for the Taliban?
Posted by: Rogue | June 26, 2008 at 08:08 AM
Should Habeas Corpus apply to all citizens of the world or not -- that seems to be the question. I have just heard (unproven) that 50 detainees of GITMO were released & caught for a second time. It only takes one.
Posted by: katman | June 26, 2008 at 12:53 AM