<p>Personally I am very, very happy this is getting published. I’m hoping it will humanize the fates behind the barbed wire. Sadly, I also anticipate a lot of stubbornly hateful and/or scared voices insisting it must be some coded form of terrorist instructions (you know, since “terrorists” are incomprehensible monsters far removed from a human heart and human motivations… And of course, everyone at Gitmo is a proven terrorist).</p>
<p>I saw this in the paper a few days ago, and while I thought it was very interesting, I assume the military will have done some extensive editing.</p>
<p>At the same time, the White House started to drop hints about closing Gitmo. I wonder if it is connected.</p>
<p>The best part of the article is the statement about how the military is still concerned that they are passing coded messages to al-Qaeda. That’s some code, if it can survive translation from Arabic to English by some lawyer! And what hot information are they supposedly trying to communicate? That the food is lousy?</p>
<p>I don’t think there is such a thing as “terrorist”. Acts of terrorism exist (needless to say, are always despicable), but when you conflate acts with the people perpetrating them, you are oversimplifying something that is never without context, never all inside some intrinsic, simple-minded motivation impossible to understand. Labeling the perpetrators as terrorists and believing that somehow it’s all about reaching the “mind of a terrorist” depoliticizes the very political issues surrounding terrorism. </p>
<p>Also, it brings us even further away from the original context in which the word was used - state terrorism (towards its own population). Individual bias like this is always a way of oversimplifying issues as a way of not having to deal with them, I think.</p>
<p>It must be very easy and nice, this reductionist mentality of yours. I suppose anybody engaging in any acts condemned by society are acting from some sort of lack of soul? Internal malfunction? They were born to commit terrorist acts?</p>
<p>Stop being acting like an elitist just because I don’t subscribe to your hippy new aged moral relativism bull****</p>
<p>Bringing up their souls is a red herring. I said I’m ok with them being detained for criminal acts. I don’t really care if it was nature or nurture or what that drove them. They’re ultimately still adults that are responsible for what they did.</p>
<p>Do you also believe that it is society’s fault that Cho slaughtered the VT students? If we’d coddled him a little more, and whispered sweet lies in his ears about how great his abysmal and deranged writings were, would he have found some magical inner peace, and joined you and the rest of the political fringe extolling the merits of suicide bombers and calling for the impeachment of the man trying to protect you from them?</p>
<p>Nobody is arguing for people responsible of crimes NOT being detained and tried. Their actions still have to be understood within a political context, they STILL are entitled to basic human rights, and what’s even worse with Gitmo is that it’s become pretty clear that completely innocent civilians are being detained on false or shaky grounds, denied legal justice, forced to live like animals, and abused.</p>
<p>You’re putting words in my mouth if you believe I think terrorism can be solved by “cuddling”. I do think it is bred and fostered by political conditions, and I believe that trying to oversimplify it into freedom fighter versus terrorist is childish, absurd and counter-productive.</p>
<p>I hope the poetry collection will allow people in the West to understand that the people we are abusing (and again, two wrongs does not make one right - if we do not believe in utter disrespect towards human life, maybe we shouldn’t be turning around and doing the exact same thing to detainees) are humans.</p>
<p>Also, nice try trying to throw in a bunch of different political questions into the mix (suicide bombings and impeachment) as a way of connecting my opinion with a whole bag of others you believe are essentially the same.</p>
<p>Its not worth arguing with you. Anybody who would euphemize acts of terror as “acts condemned by society” is hopelessly jaded, and or a terrorist sympathizer.</p>
<p>I have great respect for certain people in the East. Catch the film “Muslims against Jihad” to find out what i like about Eastern culture, and what I don’t.</p>
<p>No, anybody that likes to take a clear stand on the malleability of what “terrorism” is, is a sociologist. Your oversimplification and labeling are not contributing anything to this thread.</p>
<p>What do you think of organized groups who plot/commit violent acts against the United States? Do you find them threatening? How would you deal with them if you were President?</p>
<p>Vyse, you are right that people who commit acts of terror (call them whatever you want) are adults and should be held accountable for their actions. </p>
<p>That being said, terrorists don’t become terrorists because they are have some innate internal malfunction…political, economic, and social conditions drive them to it. The most efficient way to prevent terrorist attacks is to figure out what these conditions are and change them. This doesn’t entail ‘coddling’ anyone. </p>
<p>Frrph, I don’t think that calling someone that commits acts of terror a terrorist robs the issue of any context. The word terrorist is an arbitrary designation and means the the same thing as ‘one who commits acts of terror.’ Using the word ‘terrorist’ in conversation does not usually alter the conversation in which it is used to any meaningful degree.</p>
<p>I will agree that the economic failure of the Middle eastern region has catalyzed the entire area into an abyss of Islamic fundamentalism, which in turn has made murderers out of men. While I wish it weren’t the case, socioeconomic problems aren’t an excuse for acts of terror.</p>
<p>How about the many, many prisoners at Gitmo who are no threat to the United States and have apparently done nothing that the US considers a crime worthy of continuing confinement?</p>
<p>We would have released even more prisoners by now, but we’re having trouble finding countries to take them. Of the 330 or so prisoners still at Gitmo, the US is bringing charges against only about 2 dozen.</p>
<p>None of the prisoners has ever been charged with a capital crime.</p>
<p>Isn’t it interesting how different the reality is from the popular belief? If these people were terrorists, they wouldn’t be getting released like this. There would be life sentences, even death penalties, ala Eric Rudolph and Timothy McVeigh. They wouldn’t be simply out walking the streets of their home countries.</p>
<p>A lot of them are still terrorists, but they are terrorists protected by habeas corpus, and the American defense system. Mind you I like both of them, I’m just pointing out that your logic is pretty sketchy</p>
<p>O.J. Simpson is walking the streets too. Doesn’t mean he’s not a murderer.</p>