Comments on: Guantanamo Diary http://www.onpointradio.org/2008/08/guantanamo-diary On Point is a live, two-hour morning news-analysis program, produced by WBUR 90.9 and NPR. Sun, 22 Nov 2009 02:35:35 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Respect http://www.onpointradio.org/2008/08/guantanamo-diary/comment-page-1#comment-722 Respect Mon, 18 Aug 2008 05:31:36 +0000 http://www.onpointradio.org/?p=1272#comment-722 When you invite a guest you need to show respect. When you invite a guest you need to show respect.

]]> By: Mark Engle http://www.onpointradio.org/2008/08/guantanamo-diary/comment-page-1#comment-670 Mark Engle Fri, 15 Aug 2008 13:40:13 +0000 http://www.onpointradio.org/?p=1272#comment-670 Ms. Khan's book can be an important resource for the many who seek to balance some of the corrosive and spiritually deadening language of the war on terror. Please consult www.perplexityproject.blogspot.com for some ideas about how "My Guantanamo Diary" might be used to counteract some of the toxic propaganda that is the fare of the Gitmo experience. Ms. Khan’s book can be an important resource for the many who seek to balance some of the corrosive and spiritually deadening language of the war on terror. Please consult http://www.perplexityproject.blogspot.com for some ideas about how “My Guantanamo Diary” might be used to counteract some of the toxic propaganda that is the fare of the Gitmo experience.

]]> By: Suzie http://www.onpointradio.org/2008/08/guantanamo-diary/comment-page-1#comment-662 Suzie Fri, 15 Aug 2008 01:44:18 +0000 http://www.onpointradio.org/?p=1272#comment-662 I am saddened that so many Americans and listeners assume all Guantanamo detainees were guilty simply because America imprisoned them. We did it - so it MUST be right and they MUST be guilty. However, the facts show that a large majority were imprisoned, tortured, and then released with no charges being made. After years! Many military supporters claim the detainees had weapons. That is not true. Many detainees were picked up for other reasons. If they were carrying a weapon, why are they not prisoners of war? I am saddened that so many Americans and listeners assume all Guantanamo detainees were guilty simply because America imprisoned them. We did it – so it MUST be right and they MUST be guilty. However, the facts show that a large majority were imprisoned, tortured, and then released with no charges being made. After years!
Many military supporters claim the detainees had weapons. That is not true. Many detainees were picked up for other reasons. If they were carrying a weapon, why are they not prisoners of war?

]]> By: Jamey http://www.onpointradio.org/2008/08/guantanamo-diary/comment-page-1#comment-661 Jamey Fri, 15 Aug 2008 01:00:06 +0000 http://www.onpointradio.org/?p=1272#comment-661 I would've been curious to hear about any children (a large percentage of Guantanamo detainees were under 18 at time of arrest) she had interviewed. I would’ve been curious to hear about any children (a large percentage of Guantanamo detainees were under 18 at time of arrest) she had interviewed.

]]> By: Super64 http://www.onpointradio.org/2008/08/guantanamo-diary/comment-page-1#comment-660 Super64 Fri, 15 Aug 2008 00:40:11 +0000 http://www.onpointradio.org/?p=1272#comment-660 Guantanamo is a solution to a military problem, that that has been converted into a legal problem under pressure from the US Congress. The capture of battlefield combatants is a fundamental part of warfare. The United States is the only country on earth that has ever converted the status of captured combatants into a legal issue. The creation of Camp X-Ray, and the detention of combatants there, is testament to the humanity of the United States. How many detainees did the Soviet Union keep during their excursion into Afghanistan? Do you remember the controversy over their status and legal fights of Afghan detainees in the 1980's? No, of course not... That is because the Soviet Union did not detain any battlefield combatants... they executed every last one... Guantanamo is a solution to a military problem, that that has been converted into a legal problem under pressure from the US Congress. The capture of battlefield combatants is a fundamental part of warfare. The United States is the only country on earth that has ever converted the status of captured combatants into a legal issue.

The creation of Camp X-Ray, and the detention of combatants there, is testament to the humanity of the United States. How many detainees did the Soviet Union keep during their excursion into Afghanistan? Do you remember the controversy over their status and legal fights of Afghan detainees in the 1980’s? No, of course not… That is because the Soviet Union did not detain any battlefield combatants… they executed every last one…

]]> By: Joanna Drzewieniecki http://www.onpointradio.org/2008/08/guantanamo-diary/comment-page-1#comment-634 Joanna Drzewieniecki Thu, 14 Aug 2008 14:52:02 +0000 http://www.onpointradio.org/?p=1272#comment-634 For me, this is all "deja vu." During the period of political violence in Peru in the 1980s and 1990s, the Peruvian armed forces detained thousands of people on accusations of terrorism. Some were terrorist but there were also many who were turned in by local peasants and others who had grudges against them or expected favors from the military. Finally, Peru created an official commission to review all the cases of people who claimed to be innocent, the "Comision Ad Hoc de Indultos." It reviewed 3000 cases, and proved that 481 were innocent. These 481 people were released and "pardoned" by the government (in order to get the Peruvian government to agree to this commission, the Peruvian human rights community agreed to "pardons" instead of a formal declaration of innocence). Currently, there is a process underway to get reparations for these and other innocent victims of political violence. Now, I ask you: why can't the United States do as well as Peru? Incidentally, just like many of your callers, most Peruvians were suspicious of anyone who was detained and were sure they must be guilty even if there was no evidence. But those who fought for human rights prevailed. For me, this is all “deja vu.” During the period of political violence in Peru in the 1980s and 1990s, the Peruvian armed forces detained thousands of people on accusations of terrorism. Some were terrorist but there were also many who were turned in by local peasants and others who had grudges against them or expected favors from the military.
Finally, Peru created an official commission to review all the cases of people who claimed to be innocent, the “Comision Ad Hoc de Indultos.” It reviewed 3000 cases, and proved that 481 were innocent. These 481 people were released and “pardoned” by the government (in order to get the Peruvian government to agree to this commission, the Peruvian human rights community agreed to “pardons” instead of a formal declaration of innocence). Currently, there is a process underway to get reparations for these and other innocent victims of political violence.
Now, I ask you: why can’t the United States do as well as Peru?
Incidentally, just like many of your callers, most Peruvians were suspicious of anyone who was detained and were sure they must be guilty even if there was no evidence. But those who fought for human rights prevailed.

]]> By: Louise http://www.onpointradio.org/2008/08/guantanamo-diary/comment-page-1#comment-633 Louise Thu, 14 Aug 2008 14:49:47 +0000 http://www.onpointradio.org/?p=1272#comment-633 Some of the comments from listeners are just shocking. Shocking stupid. They sound like Rush Limbaugh devotees. If this isn't a wake up call for better education than I don't know what is. Some of the comments from listeners are just shocking. Shocking stupid. They sound like Rush Limbaugh devotees. If this isn’t a wake up call for better education than I don’t know what is.

]]> By: Gordon http://www.onpointradio.org/2008/08/guantanamo-diary/comment-page-1#comment-632 Gordon Thu, 14 Aug 2008 14:38:33 +0000 http://www.onpointradio.org/?p=1272#comment-632 I'd be curious to hear the guests' opinion as to the use of the word "detainee". Was it promulgated as part of a US strategy to disassociate the people they hold from the word "prisoner", which suggests some basic rights? Or is its use more traditional? I’d be curious to hear the guests’ opinion as to the use of the word “detainee”. Was it promulgated as part of a US strategy to disassociate the people they hold from the word “prisoner”, which suggests some basic rights? Or is its use more traditional?

]]>