A Children's Treasury of NYT Commenters Who Love Eternal Detention
The New York Times posted an op-ed online Sunday night that's jarring not only because of its content but because of its very existence: It's a column from a prisoner at Guantánamo Bay that explains how degrading and painful it is to be force fed while trying to hold a hunger strike to protest his eternal imprisonment for not doing a bad thing, whatever the bad thing was, because he has never been charged with anything. When Alice Paul does it in Occoquan, we give her a halo and put her in a Hilary Swank movie. When scary Muslim strangers do it, we say, "Welp, his fault for looking like a terrorist." And by "we" your Wonkette means the fart goblins who have taken to the New York Times comment section on the column to whine about how this man deserves to rot forever, for the crime of being sent to Guantanamo Bay.
From the column, (which you must also go read in its entirety or you are never allowed to read Wonkette again):
ONE man here weighs just 77 pounds. Another, 98. Last thing I knew, I weighed 132, but that was a month ago.
I’ve been on a hunger strike since Feb. 10 and have lost well over 30 pounds. I will not eat until they restore my dignity.
I’ve been detained at Guantánamo for 11 years and three months. I have never been charged with any crime. I have never received a trial.
Maybe Samir Naji al Hasan Moqbel secretly looooves beheading American contractors and it's, like, his favorite thing in the world. But shouldn't the United States have to at least try to prove it? (Prosecutors could start with... oh say, other documents on the Times website pertaining to his case.) But nay, sayeth the commentariat! Behold, the (now mostly removed) comments supporting #toughjustice in the #waronterror:
Jack Belicic: Too bad that the folks he murdered cannot also write touching op-eds.
Indeed! He murdered so many people. We have a list right here! You can't see it, because it's invisible, but he totally did. Trust us. It's real.
These are things the government has not even bothered to say. Next we have a comment from a man who appears to be upholding the fine Internet tradition of commenting on articles without actually reading them:
Robert Tyler: Poor fellow! He can surely take solace in his conviction that he will soon be surrounded by houris whose only purpose is to provide him with manifold and indescribable delights throughout eternity. While he's waiting, he might reflect on what his active hostility to the US has wrought, and why he should enjoy a degree of humanitarian treatment he and his fellows deny to others. My sympathies go out to him to the same extent that they do to Mengele, DeSade, Torquemada, Tojo, Ilsa Koch, etc.. For a real education in penal brutality, Samir might want to try a stint at Carandiru, Brazil, Tadmor in Syria, La Sante in Paris or Dyarbakir in Turkey.
Tyler doesn't have any actual criticism to contribute, so he hides the fact that it's rooted in bullshit ("his active hostility," his "manifold...delights," "humanitarian treatment he and his fellows deny to others") by using all of the big words he has ever seen. In short, Robert Tyler is the reason people do not have more dinner parties.
This sack of rabid bat guano hates freedom of speech almost as much as he hates grammar, like a real American:
Gforz: Disgusting. The NYT giving a platform to another terrorist. That's why we're not having any trials of the terrorists in public, papers like the NYT would become basically mouthpieces for our enemies.
I, too, would like to hear the other side of the story (and you KNOW there is another side to the story, don't you folks?). This guy just magically happens to be at wrong place at wrong time, and the US just flat out makes up a story about him being Bin Laden's bodyguard? Yea, I think I'll take the word of our military over this guy's.
You can never have the levels of proof and evidence necessary, the protections of a typical US murder case, where you rope off the crime scene, have chain of custody, etc. for crimes and actions in foreign countries, oftentimes hostile foreign countries.
We have released many prisoners from Gitmo over time, therefore I believe and trust that our military is attempting to indeed balance fairness with protection of our people. If it is a close call evidence-wise, I would personally err on the side of protecting our people, our sons and daughters, rather than potentially making a mistake by releasing a terrorist to potentially do further damage to our country. That's just me, though.
Hey look everybody! This guy trusts the military! Nothing bad has ever happened doing that. "You can never have the levels of proof," so just fuck it, throw everybody in jail. If anybody should be entrusted with blanket powers of indefinite detention, it's the guys with the guns. They have never been wrong before, and always fix their mistakes.
Next up, here is this man with a helpful "I told you so." It is only reasonable to expect that the consequences for traveling to a country that the United States likes to bomb would be JAIL FOREVER:
Paul: It was your choice to go to Afghanistan and to involve yourself in that mess. Not a smart choice, but it was yours. And by the way, a hunger strike is a personal choice also. You made it, now live with the consequences.
Paul some other commenter goes on:
So, these people who previously lived in mud huts and shared their living space with goats think that Gitmo is harsh/cruel/inhumane?
Fuck it, we'd rather live in a mud hut with goats than inside "Paul's" head, or JohnAdams or any of those other yucksters who'd probably chain up Americans living in Houston if they weren't "American" enough.
Aaaaand we're done. One of these days, we should probably look into voting for a president who promises to close Gitmo.