The Guardian has another piece on Guantanamo. Five points off for using scare quotes and the term “death chamber.” Ten points granted, however, for quoting the British Foreign Office regarding their concern about the British citizens currently interred down there. Remember, while we won’t subject our own citizens to a military tribunal, we’ll do it to the citizens of our allies.
Maybe I’m wrong, but isn’t the effective doctrine that anyone we’re imprisoning is a citizen of the State of Terror, with which we’re at war?
Addendum: Which doesn’t change what you’re saying, of course – having dual British-Terror citizenship is still different from U.S.-Terror citizenship.
But if we were at war with Japan, and we were doing this to those with dual Canadian-Japanese citizenship who were members of Japan’s armed forces, I don’t think people would be characterizing them as “citizens of our allies.”
That is the effective doctrine.
I personally would consider someone with dual Canadian-Japanese citizenship to be a citizen of Canada so long as Canada was characterizing them as such — so since England wants to claim their Gitmo-bound citizens as citizens, it seems like we should respect that.
Isn’t this all just playing with semantics, though? I mean, using the coincidence of citizenship to justify the internment (or not) of people in conditions that would be considered barbaric to your ‘own people’? I’m not trying to flame or troll here, just making a point. I’m not even going to comment on the fact that there’s no such thing as Terror citizenship, as there’s no such country as Terrorland, however much people might like there to be.
It just sunk in how much more ominous a “death chamber” is than a death chamber. I mean, Texas has a death chamber, but I think only Dr. Evil would have a “death chamber.” Possibly Emperors Palpatine and Nero, as well.