Light Reading

All,

You can find the readings regarding GitMo here, here, and here. This is an update on Mrs Gorman case: it seems that the DOJ continues to screw up. I also highly recommend you look up Lt Col Stephen Abraham (mentioned in Mrs Gorman's article), as he is the primary tribunalist-cum-advocate to shed light on the Combat Status Review Tribunals in which he himself took part. After repeatedly raising concerns, he eventually quit and even wrote an amicus brief on behalf of a detainee case being reviewed by the Supreme Court. As Mrs Gorman reports, the Supreme Court was so impressed, this is the first time in 60 years it overturned its decision whether or not to review a case. (Cf. here and here and here on Lt Col Abraham, although this is not required. I'm particularly infuriated at those pundits who would denigrate this 26 year veteran and intelligence officer for... what now? For ending his career because he could not in good conscience continue in a role which he believed to be unconstitutional? Parrhesia much?)

Back to required reading: On child detainees, the case of Mohammed Jawad from a factual perspective and an interest perspective, and an older piece that proves the duplicity of the government (e.g., it states that the US, in response to international outrage after it was revealed three children under 14 were at Gitmo, released them in 2004). As for what "normally" is done with child soldiers, cf. this brief report from 2008 stating UNICEF's concern that the US intends to ignore the United Nations Human Rights Commission and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (2002, et al)--even though we signed and ratified them.

Incidentally, I've been trolling to find a couple decent articles to give you all background on the specific individuals who are to receive trial, as well as general history regarding the prison. In my searching, I have come across a number of illegitimate sources (of course), as well as many legitimate ones. However, the ability to tell the difference is one of the primary purposes of a liberal arts education, insofar as it teaches you critical thinking. Indulge me as I show you an example.

Imagine two individuals chatting as they wait for the F/V line at the Lower East Side subway station. One is reading The New York Times. The other is reading The New York Daily News (apparently the most widely read newspaper in America). Both might assume that they are reading legitimate, objective news sources. The person reading the Times sees an article about the alleged terrorists being moved for trial to NYC. The person reading the Daily reads the following first line for their version of the news--please note, not the op/ed page, but news--article: "The diabolical monsters who plotted the mass slaughter of 9/11 are headed to New York City for the mother of all murder trials" (11.13.2009). Eek. By contrast, read (as part of the assignment) this op/ed from the Times. Yes, it is an op/ed. Nevertheless, this does not detract from its validity and soundness, insofar as it continuously cites official documents, their authors, their detractors, etc., to prove its point. Put another way, although this article may convince people of the author's view, it does so by using information rather than rhetoric. There is a difference. (I am assigning this as part of the reading. I am not interested in the author's statements regarding Iraq except insofar as they are relevant to our understanding of our nation's actions since 9.11. That is, we will not have a debate about the Iraq war in class, even if it is related. We will talk about our treatment of "those people" who allegedly had something to do with the organization that claimed responsibility for the attacks on 9.11.)

Finally, the Executive Order that officially called for the closure of the prison at Guantanamo Bay.

This may seem like a lot, but it really reads quite quickly. Just open each article into a new tab and read through them. There is some intention to the order of the articles.

Cheers,

-W.