Guantanamo Suicides: More proof that conservatives are the "party of death"
Oh, that David Reinhard. What a kidder. At the same time, there is no denying he is anything but a "flamer." No, I don't mean that in a Queer Month context, folks. I am merely stating that in his latest column about the inmates at Guantanamo Bay, his comments merely add fuel to the fire, increasing the polemic flames. A columnist wishing to have a sincere dialogue on this, or any issue, wouldn't be such a flamer.
Obviously it's clear that Guantanamo Bay isn't a subject to be taken seriously by Dave. Nor are the three inmates that committed suicide there. It's incredible that he, as a representative from the side that continually castigates the Left as being the "party of death", mocks these suicides. But nothing is as funny to a conservative as death, be it hypothetical (see Coulter, Anne + "New York Times building") or real, as Dave makes clear in his latest column.
Dave takes on the first-person persepctive of "Abdul" who writes home from Guantanamo, complaining of the ill treatment received at the hands of the American captors. Getting to eat ice cream, having arrows pointed to Mecca, Harry Potter books written in Arabic... why it's almsot worth being held indefintiely, and with no due process of the law!
If it could be determined that every Islamic prisoner being held in Guantanamo, most of them herded up in the chaos that ensued on the battlefronts of Afghanistan and Iraq, were complicit in fighting a holy war jihad, then I would whole-heartedly support holding them indefinitely in a prison. However, to do that would require a trial and conviction for each prisoner. It's something called the "American judicial process" and for all their screaming about "activist judges" it's something that Dave and his conservative ilk conveniently ignore when it doesn't suit there purposes.
Why does the Bush administration and his conservative apologists resist the increasingly vocal demand to allow prisoners at Guantanamo Bay their day in court? Because, undoubtedly, it will be revealed that some prisoners being held are, in fact, nothing more than your typical goat farmer, and the only thing they threaten America with is providing some lousy goat's cheese. When revelations like that come to pass, it would reflect poorly on the Bush administration's decision to have held these prisoners for so long without charges being pressed, and they can't have that. Solution? Continue to hold prisoners without charges being pressed, and you'll never have to risk losing face.
I was wondering how the right would spin this, and here it is. The three Islamic prisoners that committed suicide at Guantanamo are fools. How could they deprive themselves of such an earthly paradise? Why, it's practically like conservatives are lining up to enter and stay at a place that Human Rights Watch and the UN Human Rights Commission are increasingly calling to be closed down. Bush himself has voiced his desire to see the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed, but that may be a political parsing of words, as Dave and otehr watchdogs take human-rights supporters to task. (And, contrary to the belief Dave intends with his column, Human Rights Watch called for Guantanamo's closing last May, which was well before the three recent suicides.)
So, here we go folks. Another example of the Right's unique ability to politicize more deaths. Have I ever told you how much they truly are the "party of death?" Because whenver they are in power, more people tend to die.
Or, in this case, kill themselves. All you can eat ice cream or not.
Obviously it's clear that Guantanamo Bay isn't a subject to be taken seriously by Dave. Nor are the three inmates that committed suicide there. It's incredible that he, as a representative from the side that continually castigates the Left as being the "party of death", mocks these suicides. But nothing is as funny to a conservative as death, be it hypothetical (see Coulter, Anne + "New York Times building") or real, as Dave makes clear in his latest column.
Dave takes on the first-person persepctive of "Abdul" who writes home from Guantanamo, complaining of the ill treatment received at the hands of the American captors. Getting to eat ice cream, having arrows pointed to Mecca, Harry Potter books written in Arabic... why it's almsot worth being held indefintiely, and with no due process of the law!
If it could be determined that every Islamic prisoner being held in Guantanamo, most of them herded up in the chaos that ensued on the battlefronts of Afghanistan and Iraq, were complicit in fighting a holy war jihad, then I would whole-heartedly support holding them indefinitely in a prison. However, to do that would require a trial and conviction for each prisoner. It's something called the "American judicial process" and for all their screaming about "activist judges" it's something that Dave and his conservative ilk conveniently ignore when it doesn't suit there purposes.
Why does the Bush administration and his conservative apologists resist the increasingly vocal demand to allow prisoners at Guantanamo Bay their day in court? Because, undoubtedly, it will be revealed that some prisoners being held are, in fact, nothing more than your typical goat farmer, and the only thing they threaten America with is providing some lousy goat's cheese. When revelations like that come to pass, it would reflect poorly on the Bush administration's decision to have held these prisoners for so long without charges being pressed, and they can't have that. Solution? Continue to hold prisoners without charges being pressed, and you'll never have to risk losing face.
I was wondering how the right would spin this, and here it is. The three Islamic prisoners that committed suicide at Guantanamo are fools. How could they deprive themselves of such an earthly paradise? Why, it's practically like conservatives are lining up to enter and stay at a place that Human Rights Watch and the UN Human Rights Commission are increasingly calling to be closed down. Bush himself has voiced his desire to see the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed, but that may be a political parsing of words, as Dave and otehr watchdogs take human-rights supporters to task. (And, contrary to the belief Dave intends with his column, Human Rights Watch called for Guantanamo's closing last May, which was well before the three recent suicides.)
So, here we go folks. Another example of the Right's unique ability to politicize more deaths. Have I ever told you how much they truly are the "party of death?" Because whenver they are in power, more people tend to die.
Or, in this case, kill themselves. All you can eat ice cream or not.
posted by true_slicky at 6:20 PM
5 Comments:
This latest from Reinhardt is beyond tasteless, it's abhorent. I realize this is how the right is spinning this, but that's no excuse for the utter lack of class and decency the O showed in printing this trash. I was hoping to come here and see you rip him apart, but...
Hey, I felt I ripped Dave just fine, even if it's not to your liking.
I'm more interested in pushing a frame on consevatives- that they support a "culture of death" and their policies that only end up in more people dying. If they wish to lecture us on "end of life" issues such as assisted suicide or abortion, then they should be denied the ability to have their platform taken seriously.
Especially if they mock and dismiss other life-and-death issues so cavalierly as Dave does in his latest column. A little consistency would be welcome, but consistency is a mark of leadership, and we can never confuse that with today's conservatives.
Reinhard's column was racist and extremely disrespectful. The only silver lining is this:
When he feels strongly about an issue, he writes an angry column.
When he is scared about an issue, he writes a condescending column. This column was so full of hate and racism, I can only wonder if the Lord Jesus Himself has been visiting Mr. Reinhard at night, chastising him on his belief system...
Though I usually do not do so, I found Reinhard's editorial so loathsome that I actually emailed him the following:
Greetings Yourself
David: I just wanted to tell you that your "Greetings from Guantanamo" appearing in the Thursday, 06/15/06 issue of The Oregonian may be one of the most distasteful articles I've read in about three years. I do not suppose you care, but were I subscriber to your paper it would surely prompt me to cancel.
The response from Reinhard (and I quote): "You're right. I don't care."
Which could be taken two ways, don't you think?
Terry
To the head honcho of this blog. Dear friend, I would just like to say that I find it utterly disgusting at how mean spirited you can be. Yes, David Reinhard has quite a different opinion on things than you do. Political views are not what make people! Yes, he likes George Bush, yes, he is anti-abortion. But in NO way does that make him a bad man. He could say the same thing about you, just because someone says something you disagree with, doesn't make it right, or even acceptable, to rip apart his character. I once had the chance to talk to David, and he told me that so many people call him, email him, and send him letters full of hate. One Hateful person even told him he should get an MRI scan because he had a "cancer" in his body. This is because the person disagreed with his article? He may have a different opinion than you, even an "evil" opinion on politics than you, but in no way does that make a person an evil person. Now im not standing up for him here, I am merely standing up for people in a minority who have a different opinion. I thought the United States had moved on from bashing people for their different views, I thought we had moved on from the days when if you said something different from the majority you could be killed. This blog shows that not all of us are maturing and being open-minded, loving people. Besides, I thought Democrats were into that whole peace love and equality mumbo jumbo.
Post a Comment
<< Home