« Oh, That School Shooting. | Main | You Too Can Lose Weight and Keep it Off: The Terri Schiavo Success Story »
March 31, 2005
If I Pretend Not to See You, You Will Not Exist
The worse it gets, the less we hear of it from the media:
In Iraq, the United States is now detaining a record 10,200 people, more than double the number held five months ago. The number of detainees held in Afghanistan also appears to be on the rise. Individuals detained in Afghanistan by U.S. forces rose from 350 in June of 2004 to 500 in January of 2005. No numbers on Afghanistan are available since January 2005 since the Department of Defense has introduced a policy of classifying information related to U.S. detentions in Afghanistan, including the number of detainees held and the specific legal basis for their detentions."One of the concerning developments we're seeing as U.S. detention operations in these places mature is a trend toward greater secrecy, not less," Pearlstein said. Behind the Wire updates a report Human Rights First issued in June 2004 on the scope and nature of U.S. global detention operations in the "war on terrorism."
That's 10,000 people held under conditions the State Department would condemn, especially if the deed was committed by a nation we did not like. The scope of the torture story is increasing; there are more and more confirmations of people who died under custody. Corroborating evidence is emerging on the "renditions."
In other words, the situation is the exact opposite of the impression one would get by watching news or reading newspapers.
Posted by zeynep at March 31, 2005 09:29 AM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.underthesamesun.org/mt-tb.cgi/426
Comments
I was very glad to read your thoughts on the Shaiavo case. From what I'd read on many websites, I thought I was alone in feeling that Terri ought to have been granted the right to live. She had her family there with her, loving her, appreciating her presence. Why should her husband, who had moved on to another life with another woman and two children, have kept them from spending more time with her? I don't know if she could have communicated with them, but they felt that she did. Why was the husband so set on ending what life she had with her family? I think the family--who cared about being with her--should have been granted custody. The husband definitely had a conflict of interest.
How could any impartial court denh their plea for custody of their daughter, whom they loved?
I belive this was not a simple case of ending "life suppport." They starved her to death. Is food considered medicine? And I doubt that the poor woman did not suffer...Yes, much cortex was destroyed...but if you step on an ant, doesn't it feel pain? I hate to use the Republican right's choice of words--but we certainly should err on the side of life.
I am extremely left-leaning in most issues, but I think that people who simply dismiss this case as right-wing bible=hugging types promoting their theories are wrong. No matter what our political party interrests, we should always consider the human elements involved. How would it have hurt anyone to let Terri live in the presence of her family who loved her. If she truly felt no pain, or had no consciousnee, then it would have cost her nothing to stay with them. Why whas the husband so vindictive--which is how he seems to me.
It's over now...Terri is at peace...But what did she suffer being starved to death--higher cortical functions intact or not--and how much do her family suffer now? And what does the husband gain?--"closure"? I can't help but feel that he was very vindictive in keeping Terri's parents from her at the end....Why? so he can have closure?
Posted by: Hope Molinaro at April 1, 2005 08:59 PM