Email
Password
Remember meForgot password?
    Log in with Twitter

article imageOp-Ed: Guantánamo Bay and the rhetoric of tyranny

By Alexander Baron     Dec 21, 2011 in Politics
New York - A recent article in 'Foreign Affairs' gives an interesting insight into the mentality of those whose idea of protecting us is to lock up people indefinitely without trial or evidence.
A recent article in Foreign Affairs gives an interesting insight into what the war on terror is really all about. Anyone reading this article who was fourteen or fifteen years old at the time of the September 11 atrocities will doubtless remember the idealistic sounding rhetoric that was espoused by politicians on both sides of the Atlantic once the world had had time to take in the scale of the horror, and we had all realised things would never be quite the same again.
For those who are unfamiliar with Foreign Affairs, formerly quarterly now published six times a year, it is the journal of the Council on Foreign Relations, a name that features in what might be called the intelligent conspiracy literate from the 1960s onwards. Dubbed the Invisible Government by former FBI agent Dan Smoot, it was subjected to intense scrutiny from the 1970s after the publication of the classic None Dare Call It Conspiracy. Smoot's book on the CFR and the Gary Allen/Larry Abraham book have both been scanned and published on-line for you to download and educate yourself for free here and here.
The scrutiny of these so-called conspiracy theorists and cranks forced the CFR into the open, and like that other group of arch-conspirators the Bilderbergers - with whom it has an overlapping membership - the CFR now has its own website in addition to a separate website for its theoretical journal.
Carol Rosenberg's article Why Obama Can't Close Guantanamo reveals the reason he has not kept his pre-election promise to close this now notorious concentration camp: “The responsibility lies not so much with the White House but with Congress, which has thwarted President Barack Obama's plans”.
This article is quite lengthy and needs to be digested by the reader, and will be little comfort when one considers all the other things the President doesn't take issue with, like murdering American citizens, though at the moment he is limiting this to bad guys on foreign soil.
The author comments thus on two men who were released from the camp, sort of, a 48 year old who died from natural causes, apparently a heart attack, and a 37 year old who decided enough was enough, and ended it all.
These men were, it seems “[people] against whom the United States had no evidence to convict of a war crime but had concluded w[ere] too dangerous to let go.”
In other words, these men had committed no war crimes, nor any crimes, but some anonymous, faceless bureaucrat(s) in Washington or elsewhere had decided on gossip, hearsay or perhaps on a whim that they were dangerous (to whom?) and should be detained indefinitely.
This is far worse than a Presidential decree, it actually harps back to lettre de cachet which was in the first instance a royal prerogative, but in the United States, foreign nationals and - if our masters get their way - American citizens can be detained indefinitely without due process. If this is indeed the case, or is to become the case, the question that must be asked is what did American soldiers die for in World War I, World War II, Korea, Vietnam and Iraq. And what are they dying for still, in Afghanistan? The simple and terrible answer is, they died for nothing.
This opinion article was written by an independent writer. The opinions and views expressed herein are those of the author and are not necessarily intended to reflect those of DigitalJournal.com
More about Guantánamo Bay, habeas corpus, lettre de cachet, Foreign affairs, Cfr
More news from
Latest News
Top News