I was reading the paper today and I saw a few small stories and had to shake my head. When we think of Gautama bay, what comes to mind? Torture? Yeah that's the predominant message it brings. Gautama bay was a prison on foreign soil where prisoners were not protected by constitutional rights.
Not only did the CIA admit they tortured prisoners there without a fair trial but George Bush vetoed a bill that would stop the torture. Surely that was a defiant war criminal. Many think it's OK to torture terrorists because they are murderers but is it and are they?
When people argue about the death penalty, they always ask what about wrongful convictions. It does happen. Well what about wrongful convictions without a trial or wrongful arrests without a charge? Only the Communists do that? Apparently not.
What about Operation Northwoods? That plan was a historical reality. False flag attacks have been used throughout history to gain public support for invasions of foreign land. What if we tortured someone who was innocent just to obtain a false confession to a false flag attack? Would that be OK if it succeeded in gaining public support for an invasion of a foreign country?
Today we read the news that Omar Khadr, a Canadian prisoner at Gautama bay fired his lawyer and is either gonna pull a Bobby Sands and refuse to participate in what he views to be an illegal trial or he will represent himself.
Now let's pause for a monument and think why is this kid in prison? He was 15 years old, living in Afghanistan. Foreign solders had invaded his country once again. After all Russia tried to invade Afghanistan and the CIA trained the Taliban to repel that invasion. Well here we are once again. Foreign solders invade his country. He is accused of throwing a hand grenade and killing a foreign solder protecting his homeland. So he is arrested and charged with murder in Gautama bay.
If he had thrown a hand grenade at a Russian soldier when they invaded his country, would he be charged with murder? What does the Constitution say about the right to bear arms and providing for the common defense? If foreign solders invaded America and an American citizen shot one of the soldiers dead, would that citizen go to jail for murder or was he exercising his right to bear arms to protect his home and family?
This is assuming he is guilty. What is he is innocent? Everyone knows he will not receive a fair trial at Gautama bay.
Then we read today of the first conviction at Gautama bay. Osama Bin Laden's cook plead guilty to conspiring with al Qaeda and providing material support for terrorism. This after 8 years of torture at Gautama bay. He was accused of helping Bin Laden escape to the Tora Bora mountains of Afghanistan after the U.S. led invasion in 2001.
Why does this sound completely absurd? Before the invasion the Taliban said, what evidence do you have that Osama Bin Laden was responsible for 9/11? The US refused to give them the evidence and demanded they hand him over to face trial in America. They said without evidence we will not hand him over.
These are the same people the Texas oil barons were wining and dining three months earlier lobbying to win the contract for CentGas the Central Asian Oil Pipeline through Afghanistan. As soon as they gave the contract to an Argentina firm instead of an American firm, all of a sudden they were the enemy. After the invasion the American companies were given the contract. If that is not a war for oil, I don't know what is.
Not only that, the bin Laden's built the Twin Towers. They gave George Bush the start up money for his defunct oil company in Texas. Bush helped them escape right after 9/11. Osama was a CIA asset. The 9/11 terrorists got their passports from the CIA in Saudi Arabia.
A war crime is when you torture prisoners. Killing the enemy in a time of war is not a war crime. Neither is helping your leader escape from an invading army.
No comments:
Post a Comment