UN expert wants Gitmo detainees freed or tried

By EDITH M. LEDERER Associated Press Writer

Oct 26th, 2009 | UNITED NATIONS -- All detainees at the Guantanamo Bay prison should be freed or transferred to U.S. federal courts for trial by the Jan. 22 deadline set by President Barack Obama, a U.N. human rights investigator said Monday.

Martin Scheinin, who reports on the protection of human rights in the war on terror, said the U.S. Navy-run prison in Cuba should not be closed by trying to prosecute detainees through military commissions, which he said do not meet international human rights standards despite "small fixes." [...] [link@sig]

______________________________________________________

Neither the crisis nor the recommendation are novel.

I don't know much about Scheinin, although I'd be happy to hear him on Salon Radio and/or Bill Moyers' Journal. But I'm pleased to see that he doesn't truck with minimalist cosmetic pseudo-solutions.

Unfortunately, superficially appealing Baby Steps and token improvements are the pragmatist's stock in trade. Ironic, isn't it, that a political philosophy ostensibly based on "What Works" operates in accordance with What Works to give them maximum political cover, appease critics, and co-opt or marginalize resistance-- all in the service of temporizing?

Turns out that the fullest expression of the phrase is "What Works for Us". Who knew?

This wire service report is only the first shoe; it will be interesting to see whether Team Obama's response conforms to my expectations: they'll piss all over Scheinin as they have Judge Goldstone, to their infinite discredit and my infinite dismay.

Trick or treat!

Somehow-- maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but soon enough-- the Rutgers Women's Basketball team are going to wind up scrimmaging with The Boys at the White House gym, with Caroline Kennedy as an honorary referee, and Auntie Oprah afterwards handing 'round non-alcoholic brewskis to all and sundry.

I trust you're familiar with the expression "more Catholic than the Pope".

It appears that a posse is forming to drag you to the auto-da-fé!

FWIW, having been born and raised in a Roman Catholic family, even though it didn't "take" for me, I know a few devout Roman Catholics-- including one in the biz, who's met Benedict and is familiar with the Vatican.

Their impression is that Benedict is a "holy" man and an intellectual who unfortunately has a tin ear for the administrative and political ramifications of his position.

Benedict's ill-chosen words at Regensburg were predictably spun by devotees as entirely innocuous; naturally, as with the Mohammed cartoons, it was the only hysterical Muslims who misinterpreted and distorted the Pope's words, and hypocritically overreacted.

The Catholics I talk to didn't disagree that the Pope really stepped on his prick, although naturally they wouldn't use that metaphor.

Likewise, Benedict's well-intended but impulsive decision to reinstate four excommunicated bishops, including notorious Holocaust denier Bishop Richard Williamson, likewise blew up in his face.

I can't say whether being "impolitic", or politically obtuse, is a spiritual defect. But ex cathedra or not, Benedict is on a par with Joe Biden when it comes to putting his jewelled slippers into his mouth.

As far as "recruitment" goes, the Catholic institution is perpetually as hungry for fresh meat as the Amerikan military. I don't think the Pope is particularly anxious to put more asses in the seats (and seminaries) because it's the run-up to the Clash of Civilizations Armageddon anticipated by Dominionist zealots and yahoo fundie wingnuts alike.

I think that the Church is perenially obsessed with increasing membership because it's a traditional priority; "Islamofascist" hysterics and homophobic Anglicans happen to be the loudest knocks of opportunity du jour.

And as for you: get down there and give me fifty Hail Marys!

The assumption that the press in this country even drinks water is doubtful at best, and in any case irrelevant. Forget about it.

Otherwise, you are well on your way to the answers you ostensibly seek; the clues are before you, and your own words need only a little rearrangement to solve the mystery:

What's the deal? Why does the press in this country support wars so easily?

Seriously: they are bought off.

Wars sell newspapers.

I was just wandering through the broken furniture here at the Fight Club, and the question grabbed my attention.

BTW, as long as you're "here", check link@sig; was it helpful at all?