Skip to main content

The recent capture of an Al-Quaida leader in Libya has elicited the usual Republican reaction.

Instead of praising the Obama administration for the daring raid that captured Abu Abas Al-Libi, who is said to have participated in the deadly attack on American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in the 1990's, Republican Senators Lindsey Grahman, Kelly Ayotte and Saxby Chambliss used the occasion to heap praise instead on one of their proudest creations, the Guantanamo prison. “Guantanamo Bay... is a top-rate detention facility,” said Senator Ayotte,  contrasting Guantanamo with the Navy ship where Al-Libit was being held.   Senator Chambliss went further, suggesting that for the nation's enemies indefinite detention and interrogation at Guantanamo was preferable to standard treatment in our courts, where lawyers get involved.      

 

Since its creation as a "temporary" holding facility by the Bush II administration, Republicans can't seem to get enough of Guantanamo.  They defend it at every turn.  Austerity conscious as they claim to be, they never complain about the .5 billion dollars we spend to house its current population of 160 prisoners each year.    They seem to be saying that despite the expense, the nation simply must keep the facility.

Where else could we put people who have made trouble for us and not have the courts looking over our shoulders, second-guessing us with all their talk about rights?   Without courts and lawyers and absent a hunger strike, once they are there, years go by before we even hear from the prisoners again.   Republicans have learned there's no place better than Guantanamo--off our shores, in another country-- to get something literally out of sight and out of mind.

Thought of that way, Guantanamo does seem like the perfect place to put anything or anyone we don't want to think about, which is for some of our politicians a long and growing list.  For all the talk about closing Guantanamo, maybe some of our leaders who don't want to be thinking about all the things they don't want to think about are thinking instead how many of those things they detest would go away if we didn’t close Guantanamo, but we expanded it.   After all, at forty-five square miles, Guantanamo Bay could accommodate far, far more than the 160 prisoners there now.  

How many more?

Let’s see now:  Manila houses more than 110,000/ sq. mile, Athens, 45,000.   At a mere 80,000 bodies/sq. mile, surely a reasonable number, we could easily house 4 million more at Guantanamo, and once there instead of here that would be 4 million less bothersome things we might have to think about.

What kinds of things you ask?  It should be obvious.

We don't want to think about climate change, evolution, our changing demographics, unwanted children, or the toxic effects of multi-generation poverty. And that's just a start.  We don't want to think about our top-heavy economic system, our declining middle class, attacks on public schools, worker and voter rights, the real effects of free trade agreements on America's workers or the effect on democracy of unlimited campaign contributions.

Surely, those who voice concern about such minor issues are irritants the nation would do far better without.  That’s why he simple and obvious solution would be an expanded Guantanamo, a perfect home for the disaffected.

For more than a century, the French had their Devil's Island just off the northern coast of South America, where they housed their own political prisoners.  We fortunately have our own facility, and we should use it.

We can get rid of Guantanamo, just like all those teary-eyed liberals would like. We'll change its name.

We'll call it Denial Isle instead.   (Oct, 2013)

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site