To Ms. Colleen Graffy
Re: Guanta'namo is not a spa, but neither is it a torture camp, The Guardian, http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1736270,00.html
Ms. Graffy:
You make a rather impassioned defense of Guantanamo in your article in The Guardian. You ask "Why if 900 journalists have been to GITMO, why do all the photos look the same? Why don't they show anything of the more swell conditions you purport to exist?" Well, why didnt you include some of your own? You said you had been there, where are YOUR photos? Could it be that journalists are prevented from taking pictures of things they see that are inappropriate and do not want to publish pictures showing things all rosy if they are unallowed to show pictures of other things happening as well?
If the perceptions of problems at Guantanamo are misconceptions, and the administration you work for really wants to clear up said alleged misconceptions, I have an idea that I think might work. Have the administration install webcams throughout the camp and have the webcams broadcast 24 hour uninterrupted coverage of what goes on in the camp. The webcams have to be installed such that, other than going to the bathroom, the inmates cannot be taken where the cameras do not reach. If there is some question as to whether or not this is inappropriate re: the rights of the inmates, ask the inmates to sign something with the appropriate legal wording that agrees to the webcams and stipulates that the cameras are there for ensuring that the world can see that the inmates are receiving proper treatment.
Come to think of it, to be completely sure we are in the right everywhere, why doesnt the administration do this wherever it is detaining enemy combatants? Now, the ball is in your court and that of the Bush administration. Ah yes, one more thing. To be sure that the webcam coverage is genuine and really covers the entire camp, you will probably need a third party that cares about the rights of the detainees to install the webcams or at least supervise the installation. Might I suggest Amnesty International? Sure, they aren't your biggest fans, but if your installations of webcams passes muster with THEM, I would say you are well on your way to proving your case. What do you think?
Re: Guanta'namo is not a spa, but neither is it a torture camp, The Guardian, http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1736270,00.html
Ms. Graffy:
You make a rather impassioned defense of Guantanamo in your article in The Guardian. You ask "Why if 900 journalists have been to GITMO, why do all the photos look the same? Why don't they show anything of the more swell conditions you purport to exist?" Well, why didnt you include some of your own? You said you had been there, where are YOUR photos? Could it be that journalists are prevented from taking pictures of things they see that are inappropriate and do not want to publish pictures showing things all rosy if they are unallowed to show pictures of other things happening as well?
If the perceptions of problems at Guantanamo are misconceptions, and the administration you work for really wants to clear up said alleged misconceptions, I have an idea that I think might work. Have the administration install webcams throughout the camp and have the webcams broadcast 24 hour uninterrupted coverage of what goes on in the camp. The webcams have to be installed such that, other than going to the bathroom, the inmates cannot be taken where the cameras do not reach. If there is some question as to whether or not this is inappropriate re: the rights of the inmates, ask the inmates to sign something with the appropriate legal wording that agrees to the webcams and stipulates that the cameras are there for ensuring that the world can see that the inmates are receiving proper treatment.
Come to think of it, to be completely sure we are in the right everywhere, why doesnt the administration do this wherever it is detaining enemy combatants? Now, the ball is in your court and that of the Bush administration. Ah yes, one more thing. To be sure that the webcam coverage is genuine and really covers the entire camp, you will probably need a third party that cares about the rights of the detainees to install the webcams or at least supervise the installation. Might I suggest Amnesty International? Sure, they aren't your biggest fans, but if your installations of webcams passes muster with THEM, I would say you are well on your way to proving your case. What do you think?
