The horizon is not so far as we can see, but as far as we can imagine

Closing Guantanamo

1) Close it.
2) Send most of the prisoners to US ultramax prisons.
e) No longer together, break their solidarity and thus resistance.
4) No longer at “Guantanamo” and with “Guantanamo” closed, break the media narrative.

Anyone who thinks Obama cares about force feeding prisoners is delusional. Bad press, on the other hand…

Previous

Listen to my interview with Jay Ackroyd

Next

On Bangladesh’s Textile Disasters

54 Comments

  1. Carol Newquist

    Guantanamo has gone viral, so one physical location called the same is no longer necessary. Instead of bringing the people to Guantanamo, they’ve brought Guantanamo to the people. The U.S. is now Guantanamo. Everywhere, all the time. Boston proved it. It’s no coincidence this comes on the heels of that showcase. Just listen to this G-Man tell it like it is. The Federal Court System is much more effective and efficient at convicting and getting information than Guantanamo aspired to be.

    http://castroller.com/podcasts/RealTimeWith/3535447

    Scroll over to the 10:55 mark (not from Ireland).

  2. LorenzoStDuBois

    I guess this is why I’m glad Ian uses his powers for good and not for ill.

    And no sentence about Gitmo should omit the word “Bagram.”

  3. pathman

    Um, many of the prisoners have been cleared of any wrongdoing. So we should continue to imprison innocent people?

  4. 4) No longer at “Guantanamo” and with “Guantanamo” closed, break the media narrative.

    Um, many of the prisoners have been cleared of any wrongdoing. So we should continue to imprison innocent people?

    This, among the questions hopefully raised if the narrative is broken.

  5. LorenzoStDuBois

    Both people beginning with “P,”

    Ian is saying what he would advise the administration to do in order to tamp down this brushfire of rebellion against the US Empire. For example, point 4 about breaking the Gitmo narrative would be harmful to those fighting US human rights violations, because the symbolism of this Bastille would be gone.

    If we’re lucky, none of these points will come to pass. As always, expect them to do the dumbest thing, and the most evil thing.

  6. Gerald Perkins

    Am I missing something, Ian? Isn’t a conviction required before sending someone off to a US prison? Wishful thinking on your part, perhaps and a taste for what the “War on Terror” has done to your brain.

  7. nihil obstet

    I read this post as the probable White House strategy to defuse bad press while not in fact delivering any justice or enforcing any rights for the imprisoned.

  8. Ian Welsh

    Nihil got it right. Obama does not care about injustice, he cares about bad press. I am pointing out that this is probably how Guantanmo will be shut down, not how I think it should be.

    The Yemenis might be released.

  9. Carol Newquist

    What bad press? Am I missing something? The press is in his corner. It has been since day one. Nothing he can do will ever be considered bad, except by the not-so-entertaining right wing pundits, and who takes them seriously anyway?

    Considering that, why is this even an issue at this point in time? Why now? Why not in 2009 when it should have been addressed as one of his campaign pledges? What about all the secret detention sites scattered around the globe? Will they get shut down? Oh, that’s right, they’re secret, so they don’t exist, so they will continue to operate because you don’t shut down things that don’t exist, silly.

    The sad fact is, that aside from political bloggers like yourself and those who read and post here and other political blogs, no one gives a rat’s ass. They don’t. If you say they do, you’re full of shit. Even if you can get a few to pay attention, that attention is fleeting, and then they’re off to the next game or the next purchase or their favorite teevee show.

  10. Everythings Jake

    They’ll probably just rename Guantanamo – they could do it every time that the Company formerly know as Blackwater changes its name. I wonder if that symbol Prince used is available?

    Now, if we could just apply Steps 1-4 to our failed three branches of government, then we might be on to something. Ahh heck, speaking of bad press, let’s not leave out the corrupted fourth estate.

  11. Do not close Guantanamo. Sooner or later someone has got to recognize that America is not the “shining city on the hill.” Guantanamo is one of the most vivid symbols of this truth. Print the name “Guantanamo” on a flag and wave it.

  12. Carol Newquist

    I think they should keep it open, but now under the auspices of Disney. It can be made into an interactive attraction for their patrons. People can pay top dollar to pull the lever that shocks the testicles (and clitorides for the now welcome females) of the inmates and push a button that force feeds the detainees of all genders. As an added bonus, to top it all off of course, you get to order a code red before disembarking the ride. Don’t laugh, I think this idea has traction. Anything and everything is exploitable in this bold and brave new world. And, just to show us how humane it all is, the detainees will be given the right of gay marriage if that is their wish.

  13. Send most of the prisoners to US ultramax prisons.

    No. Most of them are innocent. We should pay them a whopping amount of money as some attempt toward compensation and let them live wherever they choose in whatever fashion they choose.

    As for closing it, it already exists elsewhere in the U.S.: Florence, Colorado, for one. The supermaxes, SAMS, and CMUs in this country are clean, efficient, brutal places. Obama just wants to move the prisoners to Guantanamo North.

  14. Celsius 233

    Carol Newquist
    May 2, 2013
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Oh, god’s be good; you’re still a twisted fuck; but that’s a very amusing comment.
    It actually has some merit, IMO.

  15. P.S. Oh, and we should issue them a public apology.

  16. Carol Newquist

    Lisa, who is the “we” in that equation? Surely it’s not you. You didn’t condone it. You didn’t direct your extorted tax payments to that activity. Since you have been outspokenly critical of it, it wasn’t done in your name, mfi be damned. So, you shouldn’t have to pay reparations for the wrongdoing, and you shouldn’t have to apologize.

    I’m sorry, but the “we” thing has got to stop. There is no “we,” merely the presumption of it. In actuality, “we” doesn’t exist. Now, let’s talk about who should pay those reparations and who should apologize. Any ideas? I have some. Pat Lang is included in that compiled list. There are many more of the same ilk.

  17. Carol Newquist, well, yeah, obviously our overlords should pay for it. Just like they should pay for all their other crimes. But until there’s a revolution, that ain’t gonna happen.

    And I’m willing to take my share of the blame for being a U.S. citizen and playing a part, however small, in allowing these abuses to go on in my name. So yes, I think I should pay some. If I were really brave, I’d be sitting in jail for non-payment of taxes.

  18. Carol Newquist

    And I’m willing to take my share of the blame for being a U.S. citizen and playing a part, however small, in allowing these abuses to go on in my name. So yes, I think I should pay some.

    If that’s the attitude, then it will just keep on happening in perpetuity until the sun goes supernova or we blow the planet up, or runaway climate change does us in, or a plague extincts us, or an asteroid hits, and so on and so on.

    You are paying, Lisa, and you’re going to pay a whole lot more for the sins of the other that you are now saying are your sins since they were done in your name. Your perspective is all wrong, and you’re not alone, most people’s perspectives on this issue are conditioned by the system. You are forced to pay tribute to them to perform all manner of degradations and atrocities presumably in your name and you are are made to pay again for any and all repercussions. And here’s the kicker; you, and like I said you’re not alone, are willing to play that part. To change any of this, that conditioned response has to change first, and yet I see no sign whatsoever that’s even a possibility.

  19. Carol/MB, uh, I get it. I think you’re preaching to the choir here.

    And I say again: I if were really brave, I’d be sitting in jail for non-payment of taxes. I admit I’m not that brave. Are you?

  20. Carol Newquist

    I admit I’m not that brave. Are you?

    I don’t view it as a matter of brave or not brave. Going to jail is a win for them, regardless of any “bravery” that may, or may not, be involved. My obligation is to family first, and I do them no good in jail. That being said, there are other ways of non-cooperation with this system up to, but not including, stabbing yourself in the heart or setting yourself on fire in the middle of the public square. How about minimizing your income to the point where you pay no, or a very minimal amount of FIT? How about advocating for a mass taxpayer revolt/boycott? They can’t jail us all, although I’m sure they want us to believe they can, and Boston is part of that perception management. But equally important is not playing the role you’ve been allotted, meaning you don’t say “we” when referring to their grievous crimes, and you don’t apologize on their behalf. You distance yourself from “them” as much as possible in word and deed. They must stand alone, naked, in front of all the world. Cleaning up their mess and apologizing for them is like enabling an alcoholic. Don’t enable. Not to mention, if you continue to use the word “we” and don’t distance yourself from the transgressors, then you play into the hands of the official narrative as it relates to terrorism. According to that narrative, the so-called “terrorists” consider ALL U.S. citizens as one, and therefore feel justified in blowing up anyone on the street because everyone is an enemy combatant. Saying “we” only plays into that. It’s not “we.” It’s them, and we can never let “them” forget it. Ever. You are not “them.” I am not “them.” There is no “we” when it comes to the crimes they have committed against all humanity, past, present and future.

  21. In actuality, “we” doesn’t exist.

    Shades of Maggie Thatcher.

    You distance yourself from “them” as much as possible in word and deed. They must stand alone, naked, in front of all the world.

    C’mon – because “Other-ing” has worked out so well for us thus far.

    I get the sentiment, but it is a virtue to aspire to responsibility. Contrary to your prescription, it’s the only way that things get done.

  22. Carol Newquist

    I get the sentiment, but it is a virtue to aspire to responsibility. Contrary to your prescription, it’s the only way that things get done.

    Fine, off with your fucking head then. Right now, step up to the guillotine and place your head zealously on the block for decapitation for everything you have done, are doing and will do against humanity. You are guilty as charged. You have charged yourself. In your own words you are them and they are you. You are one. You will gladly and bravely serve as their surrogate in taking the punishment that will ultimately be doled out. Oh wait, now you’re not so brave. But you’re brave enough to say shit like “it is a virtue to aspire to responsibility” and equate that with taking responsibility for the grievous transgressions of others under the rubric of the pollyannish “we”. This is typical “Liberal” claptrap. It’s disingenuous. It’s phoney. It’s bullshit. And worst of all, it’s completely ineffective and delusional. No, it’s not the way you get things done. Yes, it is the way things are done, and it’s part and parcel as to why humanity is in this mess. Psychopaths rely on you to do this bidding because you do it so well.

    Have you heard of the suspects who confess to crimes they have not committed? That’s what Petro wants us to do because it’s a virtue to aspire to responsibility. Unbelievable! Really, it is. Like I said earlier, it’s not even a possibility. It’s why this will all end so badly.

  23. Carol Newquist

    Hey Petro, Curtis LeMay sends you hugs and kisses from the grave. You’ve just provided him with the absolution he never requested nor sought. But hey, he won’t look a gift horse in the mouth. That a boy!! Keep fightin the good fight!

  24. kirkmurphy

    Petro, I am so pleased to have seen your work and values over the last several years: I admire both. Hang in there, honest and decent soul.

  25. Compound F

    If I didn’t know you from your writings, I might think the worst here.

    My advice would be don’t give well-intentioned advice to those committing state-sponsored terror. Instead, just bludgeon them, metaphorically if need be, until they are flattened and dessicated on the pavement. I don’t think state sponsors of terror need your help to ease their political difficulties. Why advise them to hide their problem in a Super Max? I find the very suggestion disturbing.

  26. Tim Graham

    Close all these political prisons we have around the world and send all the prisoners home.

  27. wendydavis

    Heh. Guess what? Obomba’s 2014 budget has money for ‘moderninzing’ the nuclear arsenal (including submarines) *and* for a new Supermax in IL.

    Sorry I dunno how to create a hyperlink with html:

    http://my.firedoglake.com/wendydavis/2013/04/29/austerity-for-thee-and-me-a-new-supermax-prison-and-more-nukes-for-empire/

    Interesting concept on not taking any shared responsibility the murders and torture of black and people around the world; I have two friends who agree with you. I believe that sometime during the last year, when accused of ‘not stopping it’, I asked the same question: ‘What would pouring gasoline over my head and self-immolating actually accomplish?’

    Dunno; it deserves some thought, especially after a lifetime of activism so many of us engaged in, but are unfit for at this point in our lives.

  28. Ian Welsh

    I’m not giving him advice, I’m telling you what he wants to do. The last sentence should have made that clear.

  29. Lex

    One of the prisoners has been being force fed since 2005. That’s just mind boggling.

    I agree with you, Ian, but he can’t do that because he’d have to confront Congress, which is fairly certain that terrorism is contagious … even if the terrorists you’ve locked up aren’t actually terrorists.

    Our indefinite detention and terror paranoia state has imprisoned itself far more effectively than it has the residents of Guantanamo, given that they still have the self-respect and moral courage to hunger strike against their oppressors. We Americans from the working poor too busy to think about deep concepts while struggling day-to-day all the way up to the President are trapped in that rank confines of our own construct. I’d like to call it a shame, but it isn’t. It’s well deserved.

  30. Celsius 233

    @ Lex May 3, 2013

    Our indefinite detention and terror paranoia state has imprisoned itself far more effectively than it has the residents of Guantanamo, given that they still have the self-respect and moral courage to hunger strike against their oppressors. We Americans from the working poor too busy to think about deep concepts while struggling day-to-day all the way up to the President are trapped in that rank confines of our own construct. I’d like to call it a shame, but it isn’t. It’s well deserved.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Hear, hear!

  31. Phoenician in a time of Romans

    Am I missing something, Ian? Isn’t a conviction required before sending someone off to a US prison?

    Well, that’s easily sorted – charge them in Mississippi and get a conviction no matter what the actual evidence.

    http://digbysblog.blogspot.co.nz/2013/05/justice-american-style.html

    The USSR was able to point at its fine constitution as a demonstration of it being a progressive country – but the reality was that it never actually gave those rights in practice. The US used to point at its justice system as a demonstration that it was a country ruled by law…

  32. Formerly T-Bear

    @ wendydavis

    A few postings ago markfromireland answered your question about hyperlinks. This is where he went through the process (if you click on the link). Indebted to markfromireland for teaching old bear new trixez.

  33. wendydavis

    @ Formerly T-Bear

    I appreciate your help, but this Olde Crone failed when I tried it on my current diary; it’s hot-linking a permalink. I’ll keep trying.

    Dunno why this version of wordpress doesn’t have a Reply function; mine does, and comments can even be nested.

    And yes, @ Ian, you’d already said ‘Nihil got it right’.

    Given that the federal government bought the unused IL prison that Obomba’s line item in the new budget would retrofit as a Supermax (1200 beds, iirc) back in the day, as per his original ‘intentions’ to close Gitmo and transfer the prisoners there, is this just another feint he can point to while pretending to be rolled by Congress on the issue again?

    It’s not hard to imagine which class of people he/they imagine will really be filling the ‘Administrative Control units’ (torture chambers), is it?

  34. @ Gerald Perkins May 1, 2013

    Isn’t a conviction required before sending someone off to a US prison?

    and

    @ Ian Welsh May 3, 2013

    I’m telling you what he wants to do

    Something Obama and his administration do not want is to put any of these prisoners on trial. The problem is that group cannot legally be tried because the USG treated them as POWs and POWs are not legally subject to trial for their actions except under certain clearly defined and exceptional circumstances. I see no suggestion from USG that any of these prisoners committed war crimes. The evidence against them therefore, such as it is, has been contaminated by treating them as POWs. The doctrine of the “fruit of the poisonous tree”, applies and I find it difficult to imagine any circumstance in which a properly constituted court be it civilian or military could admit statements and evidence garnered from the prisoners at the time of their capture as evidence. (And that is before we get into how the evidence was obtained – for example under unlawful duress). From what I’ve seen the JAG is painfully aware of these difficulties.

    mfi

  35. Lex

    They haven’t really been treated as POWs, and iirc, the USG is dead set against labeling them as such and always has been. I believe that the technicality in not giving them POW status is that they didn’t wear uniforms. Other than prohibitions on torturing them, etc. POW would be a pretty good legal way to hold them forever since POWs can be held until the end of hostilities. Since it’s clear that the war on terrorism will never end (as it’s never really been declared and the definition of it and its combatants is so mushy), the US could hold terrorism POWs for life without charges, trials, or any other unpleasant technicalities.

    Obama’s biggest problem is that Bush was so public about the detention program. We kind of surmise that there are a lot more prisoners like those at Guantanamo scattered around the globe but the details are hard to pin down without someone leaking or deep, investigative journalism. Actions like hunger strikes are pointless if nobody knows you exist, are imprisoned, and refusing to eat. But since Bush wanted to parade those prisoners for the TV cameras, they present a publicity problem.

  36. @ Lex
    May 4, 2013

    haven’t really been treated as POWs,

    Try telling that to the JAG who see themselves as bound by the rulings of the US courts in:

    Salim Ahmed Hamdan v. Donald H. Rumsfeld, United States District Court for the District of Columbia, Civil Action No. 04-1519 (JR), pp. 13-14.

    They’re also well aware of Article 5 of Geneva Convention III the latter part of which reads:

    Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.

    see: Article 5: Geneva Convention III

    This has been upheld internationally see for example Abbasi & Anor., R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Foreign & Commonwealth Affairs & Secretary of State for the Home Department [2002] EWCA Civ 1598 (06 November 2002), the effect of which is that where the status of a detainee at the time of capture is unclear they are to be treated as POWs until such a time as a decision that they are not POWs has been made by a properly constituted and competent tribunal and not by either the executive or by some other (military) person.

    The US courts have not ruled on this point as yet. However until such a time as the USG abrogates the Convention the Convention and the provisions of API 75 is the law of the land as far as the JAG is concerned.

    All of the legal and extra-legal shilly shallying revolves around the fact that detainees are to be given POW status until it is determined they’re not entitled to it by a properly constituted tribunal. Once the USG persuades the American courts to rule that the detainees are not POWs the USG will be able to do what they want and all under cover of law. Given the general thrust of the judgements in

    1. Hamdi et al v. Rumsfeld, Supreme Court of the United States, No. 03-6696, Opinion of O’Connor, J., 28 June 2004, 542 U.S. _ (2004) ;
    2. Rasul et al v. Rumsfeld, Supreme Court of the United States, No. 03-334, Opinion of the Court, 28 June 2004, 542 U.S. _ (2004)
    3. Rumsfeld v. Padilla, Supreme Court of the United States, No. 03-1027, Opinion of the Court, 28 June 2004,

    I think it likely that the USG will get what it wants but it hasn’t got it yet.

    mfi

  37. Ian Welsh

    POWs have certain rights, civilian criminals have certain rights. So far the detainees have not been systematically given either set of rights.

    And if they’re civilians, every case should be thrown out due to lack of speedy trial and contaminated evidence.

    It’s just a clusterfuck. The USG may “get what it wants” but at this point the legality is questionable and the fact that they have been treated unjustly is unquestionable.

    But the US constitution’s trial protections are, essentially, a dead letter at this point. You do not have the right to see the evidence against you, do not have the right to a speedy trial, do not have the right to face your accuser, do not have a right to counsel of your choice, and so on.

    Obama is fundamentally like Bush, he believes that he personally has the right to decide who lives and dies, who is locked up and set free.

  38. @ Ian Welsh May 4, 2013

    I’d put it somewhat stronger than you have Ian by putting it the other way around — I’d say that the illegality always been clear and grows clearer by the day as does the fact that gross injustices have been committed and continue to be committed. There’s a legal maxim on this side of the Atlantic:

    Fiat justitia ruat caelum which translates as ‘Let justice be done though the heavens may fall’.

    That’s good advice and a good way of doing business and running a civilised State in which the rule of law applies. I agree with you that the US constitutional protections are essentially a dead letter at this point.

    I agree further that Obama is like Bush – indeed both you and I have argued that his administration is worse than that of Bush because it’s more efficient and effective.

    Between their acceptance of the abandonment of the rule of law by their government and their acceptance of the reintroduction of mercenaries onto the battlefield and into war by their government the current generations of American adults have a lot to answer for.

    mfi

  39. PS: One of the changes I’ve noticed in the American Officer Corps is that they are less and less concerned with legality. So long as there’s as a legal justification no matter how contrived and how specious it is they will obey their orders – any orders. Those Americans who fondly regard the American military’s sense of the constitutional and legal proprieties as being a bulwark against tyranny are deluding themselves. The US military can and will do on CONUS to US citizens what it does abroad.

    mfi

  40. Formerly T-Bear

    markfromireland

    It should be disconcerting that the US military is the last institution extant that requires some semblance of reality, all other governance exhibit various degrees of degeneration e.g. imperial presidency, judiciary by seance and legislature moribund in corruption and a population catatonic from propaganda, lobotomized by absence of education. There are no more Rubicons to mark boundaries and dies are easily cast.

  41. @ Formerly T-Bear May 4, 2013 Not really all that surprising soldiering is a very practical profession. And frankly the US military is not what it was. It’s suffering from a very bad MBA infestation the disease is spreading and the creature will probably not recover. This is good news for the rest of us but very bad news indeed for the residents of CONUS.

    There are no more Rubicons to mark boundaries and dies are easily cast.

    There you go being an optimist again. I’d say that America has only barely set out on its wanderings and that there are plenty of milestones to pass and Rubicons to be forded and crossed. In the words of one bastard whose administration massively aided, abetted, and promoted America’s decline even as he himself slid into dementia.

    You ain’t seen nothin’ yet.

    mfi

  42. Formerly T-Bear

    Clarification:

    IIRC the Rubicon and Arno rivers marked the boundary that command of Roman legion’s terminated. An automatic death penalty for both commander and legions for crossing violation. Therefore the Rubicon represented a protection for Rome against military overthrow (until it didn’t work). “No more Rubicon’s” may be easier as nothing remaining to hide behind. As for dies are easily cast may also be stated as decisions are easily made when there is no opposition.

    @ MFI you are correct the travails are only beginning, although I was not aware of MBA degeneration of the military. Once institutional memory disappears, no institution is ever the sane, but had not considered that as having silver linings.

  43. @ Formerly T-Bear May 4, 2013

    Yes re: Rubicon. Checks and balances work only for as long as everyone agrees they’re valid. What people living in the US are now at threat from is that the checks and balances no longer apply to vast swathes of institutional America. This coupled with the militarisation of American society means that there is now only one response ever engaged in by the USG and its institutions to what they perceive as a threat be it foreign or domestic and that is to always and immediately escalate to overwhelming force.1

    One, count ’em, one experienced tracker with one count ’em again, one bloodhound could have followed what has to have been a copious blood trail without resorting to the display of overwhelming force that did not in fact accomplish any part of the task involved in apprehending the younger of the brothers Tsarnaev.

    And the police and troopers involved in this exercise were cheered by the populace.

    mfi

    1 This attitude filters out into the population at large. I read a study recently (can’t find it at present) that Americans in general are far more confrontational with each other than they used to be. Seems about right to me.

  44. Celsius 233

    It’s apparent to me that America/Americans doesn’t/don’t understand the importance of closing Gitmo.
    They miss the deep responsibility of “their” actions in continuing to permit such a travesty of human rights and the deficit of compassion laid bare by this continuum of cruelty.
    And make no mistake; it continues as a direct result of our apathy and worse; complicity.
    Fear is the mental illness exhibited by all but a few, outspoken and brave, citizens who genuinely see this whole gambit for what it is in actuality. Fear, is of course, a thief and we’re allowing it to continually steal from us.
    As time moves forward it becomes harder and harder to stop the momentum toward the ultimate price paid; freedom for acquiescence; security for acquiescence: The whole second amendment gambit is exactly that; the illusion of a free people who can own “guns”; ooh, the ultimate power (not), (who can be murdered at will if they step out of line).
    Which is of course no freedom at all; womb to tomb under control.
    We are in fact, the suckers in the ultimate sting…

  45. @ Celsius 233 May 5, 2013

    I think you make a very important point. Apathy, acquiescence, and downright complicity are all important factors here. Of the three apathy is (I think) the most important.

    mfi

  46. Carol Newquist

    I believe when people who post here say “Americans” it’s obviously code for “White” third generation or greater. It’s a racist and elitist characterization. There is no defining monolithic entity called “Americans,” anymore than there is a defining monolithic entity called “Muslims.” It’s usually former and now disillusioned “Liberals” who use this stereotype, and it’s quite contradictory and simple-minded. It shows just how jaded they are, and it shows how the “Nazi Credo” resides just below the surface for them. Similar things were said of the Jews to malign them as an entire homogenous group. They were all the same, at least according to their numerous creepy critics.

    There are not an insubstantial number of U.S. citizens, and those about to become U.S. citizens, who haven’t the faintest clue what GITMO is, so they are neither apathetic or acquiescent. They’re uneducated, uninformed and distracted. But that’s not all “Americans,” just some.

  47. Celsius 233

    @ markfromireland
    May 5, 2013
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Yes, apathy is a crime of omission which is unforgivable in these times.

  48. two beers

    And, just to show us how humane it all is, the detainees will be given the right of gay marriage if that is their wish.

    That gets the Blue Tribe on board.

    Now, to get the Red Tribe on board, let’s ban abortions among the prisoners.

    Mission Accomplished!

  49. Carol Newquist

    Now, to get the Red Tribe on board, let’s ban abortions among the prisoners.

    Mission Accomplished!

    Ha!! I like it, and for the pièce de résistance of rights, the prisoners will be given the right to bare arms, meaning no sleeves. It will help save money due to the strain sequestration is putting on the budget, and using less fabric is environmentally conscious thus it’s Green.

    It’s a Win-Win!

  50. Ha!! I like it, and for the pièce de résistance of rights, the prisoners will be given the right to bare arms, meaning no sleeves. It will help save money due to the strain sequestration is putting on the budget, and using less fabric is environmentally conscious thus it’s Green.

    It’s sunny down there. Throw some sunscreen in the vending machines and you’ve enlisted the business sector as well.

  51. Carol Newquist

    Good call, Petro. And, for good measure, let’s throw in some “illegal” Cuban cigars. In fact, let’s make sure not to omit anything, lest we be labeled apathetic because, as we have just been informed, apathy is a crime of omission. Shit, if we keep adding to the list, soon enough they won’t even feel like detainees. Just like us.

  52. Everythings Jake

    That island is toast and that is probably how the problem will be resolved. We’ll blow through 400 ppm this month. Seems to me the conservative consensus will start moving towards 2050 for 450 ppm. The alarmists who keep looking like they’re actually right about it all, are starting to wonder about 2030-ish for that, and then pondering whether that means an ocean acidification level (climate change’s twin crisis) sufficient to wipe out the phytoplankton, i.e. the entry level species on the food chain gone along with 50% of the planet’s oxygen.

    But, NY Times shuts down its environmental desk and gives Bill Keller another 1000 plus words to tell us why he’s not wrong this time about invading another middle east nation.

    Anyone have any clue what the inside thinking is at the highest levels, or heck, at any level of policy planning? Do they think there’s gonna be a technological breakthrough or are they sitting on one, are they in denial, is someone planning mass planet wide slaughter to bring the population level down? I simply don’t get it.

  53. Everythings Jake:

    Anyone have any clue what the inside thinking is at the highest levels, or heck, at any level of policy planning? Do they think there’s gonna be a technological breakthrough or are they sitting on one, are they in denial, is someone planning mass planet wide slaughter to bring the population level down? I simply don’t get it.

    I’ll not pretend to know, but I do like to do me some speculatin’.

    I think that those who profit from the status quo, to the degree that they may be aware of the consequences of the status quo, feel that they can safely ensconce themselves from said consequences.

    But I’m willing to bet that they’re getting a little edgy – feeling the heat, as it were. I wonder how the luxo offshore real-estate in Dubai, at sea level, is doing these days?

    Those libertarian Seasteaders no doubt still feel like they can float above it all, of course.

  54. S Brennan

    A great take down of Joel Stein [and other lazy “intellectuals”] by Elspeth Reeve. Long story short, generational warriors are jerks.

    http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2013/05/me-generation-time/65054/

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén