Consequence Free Detention Policy? Posted by Patrick Barry

Something I forgot to mention before is that one of the other bothersome aspects of Elizabeth Bumiller piece, is that it deals rather one-sidedly with the consequences of a change in the U.S.' methods for detaining suspected terrorists. It's true that a portion of released detainees ending up as extremists is bad.  (It's also, I might add, pretty unsurprising)  There's every indication that the Obama administration is aware of just how bad it is. They're so aware that they've actually taken steps to avoid it happening in the future.

But it's also true that the alternative of maintaining the Bush system for detention carries repercussions.  It obviously does.  Part of the administration's rationale for abandoning the status quo was because it had become clear that the cost of continuing it was quite high. By not presenting the repercussions of the Bush administration choosing to use Guantanamo (damaged prestige, boon to Al Qaeda recruiting, American deaths), the article makes it seem as if continuing with the current system is consequence free, when it's pretty clear that's not the case. 

Comments

[glucosamine sulphate]

Hi,
As far as I know on the way to 'Fortress Europe', in detention or identification camps, during deportation, or once repatriated, many refugees and migrants die. No matter how different the circumstances of these deaths are, they can all be ultimately put down to one and only reason: the building of a 'Fortress Europe'.