Dear Detainee;
If you are receiving this, then you’re one of the 140 “guests” we’ll be releasing this holiday season. Congratulations! We hope you’ve enjoyed your stay in sunny Cuba.
Of course, the fact that we’re releasing you implies that we no longer suspect you of anything. True, true. And there’s bound to be a few soreheads who wonder why we kept you chained up for nearly two years without formally charging you with anything only to eventually conclude that you were completely innocent… Well, that’s a fair question, though I must be honest and say that some of you haven’t been terribly polite in asking it.
The thing is, you were caught with Taliban or Al Qaeda operatives. Or near Taliban or Al Qaeda operatives. Or somewhere that we were pretty sure looked the kind of place Taliban or Al Qaeda operatives might be hanging out. Like, for instance, Afghanistan. If you don’t want to be picked up again, you might want to make better choices in your living situation. Just a suggestion.
Okay now, as it turns out, many of you seem to be Al Qaeda or Taliban kidnap victims that were being held for ransom when we caught you. So you were being held by those terrorist scum and then ended up getting imprisoned by your liberators for almost two additional years without representation or recourse. To those of you who fit that description, let me be the first to say… “Ooops.”
Naturally, some of you are bound to be a little ticked off by this. Some of you are going to complain that if we’d allowed you a lawyer, some rights, even the barest amount of contact with an approved intermediary, even prisoner of war status, then you’d have been able to establish your innocence quite a while ago. Some of you might point out that the spurious and ill-defined “enemy combatant” designation we saddled you with has little precedent in American or international law, and that your very plight is ample illustration why.
Um, yeah, once again, you got us on that one. It’s a good point.
But look at it from our perspective - we disregarded all conventional precedents for the fair treatment of prisoners because, uh, well, it was in our interests to do so. Doesn’t that make sense? Some sense? A little? Ultimately, this way was a real timesaver. Well, for us, anyway. And a money-saver too: Do you have any idea how much it would have cost to set up a secure means of allowing you your rights while safeguarding our interests? Well, a lot. A whole lot. It would have been a huge headache, let me tell you.
So don’t get all whiny on us - you missed a year or two, and now you get to go back home. And what did you miss, really? Not too much. Here’s a summary:
Hamid Karzai’s the President of Afghanistan. Seems like a good guy, dresses well. The US took over Iraq. No need to go into it, but they started it. Um, “The Return of the King” comes out next week, but you should really rent the first two before you see it. The Euro’s doing really well. Rachel’s dating Joey even though she had Ross’ baby. Al Qaeda has been almost completely destroyed, no matter what you glean from their videos, audio tapes, well-coordinated attacks, or recruiters. Osama, Omar, and Saddam are all still at large, but we caught Scott Peterson. Madonna tongue-kissed Britney at the MTV awards, but Britney’s New York restaurant came and went while you were indisposed. There is considerable hand-wringing over the respective nuclear programs in Iran and North Korea. And in two years, you have in fact missed only one full season of “The Sopranos.” And it was kinda disappointing anyway.
So, that’s that. Please report to Area 7D at dawn tomorrow, and enjoy your trip home, and please help yourselves to complimentary in-flight chips and beverages. We regret the inconvenience.
Yours,
Lieutenant Charles P. Capamonte (”Cappy”)





27 comments
Linkmeister
December 4, 2003 at 5:00 pm
1Wait. Britney opened and closed a restaurant? One she owned? I can see her closing many a restaurant, understand, but one she owned?
Linkmeister
December 4, 2003 at 5:01 pm
2Oh, and what happened to those steel tariffs Bush instituted? What did the WTO say about those? ‘Cause, you know, they were really gonna hurt my factory interests in Kandahar, so what happened to those?
ttam117
December 4, 2003 at 5:59 pm
3Don’t forget that the Yankees did not win the last two World Series, and who won the Superbowls.
Elliott
December 4, 2003 at 6:16 pm
4I saw The Return of The King yesterday at an industry screening and let me tell you, those guys will love the theme of the whole movie. You know, the battle against a faceless evil that is trying to homogenize Middle Earth in it’s image. The good guys win, I hope I didn’t spoil anything
Ken, Just Ken...
December 4, 2003 at 6:37 pm
5Wait, I’m Abul-Aziz Alarifay, I’m supposed to be on the list!
Yes, his name is Abul-Aziz too, but he’s got a different last name!
What do you mean all we Islamics look the same to you?!?
tim
December 4, 2003 at 8:28 pm
6Speaking of the flight home, I bet the line for the security check is sheer hell.
Bryan
December 4, 2003 at 10:05 pm
7Hmmm, they’ve been listed on every terrorist data base in the known world and on printed lists in those parts of the world that don’t have computers, so they aren’t even going to be allowed to take taxis.
Some are being sent back to areas where they were kidnap victims of people who haven’t been captured, or may, in fact, be allies of the US.
Oh, yes, this situation as centuries of law suits all over it. These cases will become a major industry.
John Isbell
December 4, 2003 at 11:16 pm
8I have to say the grass on their lawns will be getting pretty long. Imagine what the neighbors think.
boozy
December 4, 2003 at 11:55 pm
9…and the newspapers piling up and the junk mail and the cat crap…
Kalikat
December 5, 2003 at 1:44 am
10What do you think the inflight movie is going to be, The Manchurian Candidate?
tim
December 5, 2003 at 8:10 am
11Kalikat, I was thinking “The Shawshank Redemption”, but I don’t think the government has enough of a sense of humor to run that one.
boozy
December 5, 2003 at 2:34 pm
12They’ll probably just show episodes of “Oz”.
Andrew Lutes
December 6, 2003 at 2:01 am
13Lincoln had suspects jailed for months on end without charge for unspecified reasons. Franklin Roosevelt not only confined Japanese Americans but also confined German and Italian civilians here in the USA. So there’s historical precident.
Dan
December 6, 2003 at 10:13 am
14You’re a fucking idiot, Felber. I don’t know about you, but I don’t want to die in the name of political correctness. Terrorist cells are active, as we have seen in the past two years, and our government should take all necessary means to imprison them. We gave them quality health care and food, two things they sure as hell wouldn’t have gotten in the caves. I want my government to take all necessary measures to get these guys, and cotton-candy ass liberals like you are just killing us slowly.
Jacob
December 6, 2003 at 10:58 am
15Funny post, Adam.
Lutes, there’s historical precedence for postal workers gunning down their supervisors and co-workers–okay, an extreme example. How about the historical precedence of slavery? Although there may be historical precedence for an action, that in and of itself is not a good argument (even though it is a common argument).
A better source to cite is the US Constitution, Article 1, Sec. 9: “The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.” I don’t know how far the Writ of Habeas Corpus extends…but we should have done a much better better job determining combatant status two years ago. It begs to ask, If we are so sure that these detainees are threats, why do we apparently not have the balls to give them good counsel? Maybe we just aren’t all that sure, but don’t want to have to admit to our ignorance. This is a corollary to the law of “Shoot first and ask questions later.”
April
December 6, 2003 at 11:27 am
16As a former “host” of our Guantanamo Bay guests, (I’m a Navy journalist trying very hard to turn the military media into the liberal media) I have to point out in all fairness that the International Red Cross representatives brought the alleged al Qaida terrorists cookies. Oreos. Yum. I salivated with envy as I watched them sitting cross-legged in their dog pens licking the cream centers.
Murray
December 6, 2003 at 12:06 pm
17Dan
I’m guessing that you belong to the “Kill em all, let God sort them out” philosophy of justice.
Adam is bringing up two points. 1. The guilty should be charged and sentenced. (Who disagrees with that?) and 2. The innocent should be sent home. (You may or may not agree with this, but give us the benefit of the doubt that in the long run America will benefit worldwide by not being kidnappers).
The problem is that nothing is being done. Justice isn’t being served on either end.
Are you saying that liberals are wrong for asking that justice be given to the guilty, and freedom give to the innocent?
I’m a bit confused by your saying that terrorist cells are a danger and that these terrorists should be locked away. Who disagrees that terrorists should be dealt with harshly? But what does this have to do with the Afghani prisoners of war who have been held in Gitmo for two years?
Living with only a large tarp for shelter, no privacy or personal items or any contact with family is hardly my idea of a good time. How much would you like to bet that everyone there would do anything to go back to “starving in their caves” with their wives and kids?
I’m guessing that you feel the need to bolster an internally inconsistent argument, with an ad hominum personal attack. It might, to some with limited powers of logic, appear to add force and hence credibility to what you have to say.
Don’t feel bad Dan, this is how all Right wingers act. What they lack in brain power they make up for with threats and cursing.
Once again an overwhelming (if not infinite) mouth to brain power ratio, asserts itself.
Dan, if you are having trouble understanding this you might ask a 4th grader to translate it for you.
vlm
December 6, 2003 at 2:45 pm
18In the meantime, let’s talk about the most important thing in the post: Rachel and Joey have decided not to date after all.
Judd
December 6, 2003 at 5:44 pm
19The way things are being run by the Bush/Rove administration, We are all gonna be living in caves!!!! Murray.. you know of any near you?
Anonymous
December 6, 2003 at 5:59 pm
20Dungaree ‘Danger’ Dan wrote: “We gave them quality health care and food, two things they sure as hell wouldn’t have gotten in the caves.”
Kind of a side issue, but why do so many people have a problem with people living in caves? It seems to me that, in a desert climate, a nice cool shady cave would be the best place to live.
Think on these things,
Chris
John Isbell
December 7, 2003 at 10:52 am
21“I don’t know about you, but I don’t want to die in the name of political correctness.”
Dan, I don’t know if you ever fuck, since I don’t know your private life, but I smell idiot here and it’s coming from you. I won’t die for PC - find me someone who will - but I will die for our constitution, because I am a patriot. Evidently you won’t. There’s a whole big world for you to move to that lacks it. Enjoy.
mary
December 7, 2003 at 11:56 pm
22dan, you’re right. afghans have little to no access to health care. but you’d think that we, as their saviors, would solve that problem.
releasing the prisoners at gitmo is not an act of pc. pc is calling blacks “african-american”. releasing prisoners after twenty-four hours odf confinement, or allowing people the right to a fair trial of their peers is constituitional. try reading it sometime. then maybe us “cotton-candy ass liberals” will make a teensy bit more sense.
Pat R.
December 8, 2003 at 7:11 am
23Hey, Dan, way to reinforce every negative stereotype of right-wingers that a cotton-candy ass liberal might hold! Great work!
Pudge
December 11, 2003 at 4:08 pm
24Dan, I don’t know if you ever fuck, since I don’t know your private life, but I smell idiot here and it’s coming from you. I won’t die for PC - find me someone who will - but I will die for our constitution, because I am a patriot. Evidently you won’t.
John Isbell, while I don’t subscribe to Dan’s brand of justice, the Constitution, the Geneva Convention, nor federal laws were violated by keeping them prisoner. “Justice” perhaps was, but not the law.
Tom Bridge
December 12, 2003 at 1:16 pm
25While many on the left will find this either erudite or witty, I think you’re so self-interested in having these interned combatants be about the Geneva convention and nothing else that you’re unable to see the people that were freed from the Taliban.
Granted, I don’t think the Bush administration chose the right reasons to go into Afghanistan, I think we can all agree that deposing some of those fascists running resource rich countries into the ground and their peoples through plastic shredders might not be such a bad thing.
Lampooning the hard-working men and women of the US Military may seem like a good idea to you, but they’re the reason you get to behave as you do without threat of foreign invasion. They work for you, and this is all you can do? Make fun of them?
What a sick fuck you are.
Ol' Zeb
December 13, 2003 at 3:43 pm
26Tom, chill — take a few deep breaths.
I can speak only for myself, but I have respect and sympathy for the soldiers and the families they’ve left behind. They are trying to do their assigned tasks as well as they can with their best intent. (Well perhaps not the two soldiers in Iraq who, in front of a TV camera, dumped a few hundred rounds into the car of a suspected looter –a dozen 2-by-4s on the roof — and then ran their tank back and forth over it a few times, and then laughed when the real owner of the car came by. But when you pluck teenagers outta’ Smallville and dump ‘em in Iraq with their life on the line 24-7 some will snap. Not everyone can take things as well as Gomer Pyle did.)
The complaint is not about the men and women who put their lives on the line, it’s about the chickenhawks who send people to kill and be killed with zero risk to their own sorry asses.
And for my soapbox rant, reservists should get full government salary compensation while on duty. They go to fight a war for Haliburton and Carlisle while their own families starve and get their homes reposessed.
Not nice, Tom, not nice at all.
Anonymous
December 15, 2003 at 12:47 pm
27Tom’s not only rude, but he’s a spammer — check out his “comments” in some of the other posts — they are virtually identical to this one.