Skip to main content

Regarding the Controversy Over Guantanamo Bay

   The U.S. has faced criticism from abroad over detaining inmates at Guantanamo (foreign nationals usually) for lengthy periods of time without a trial or fair hearing. I already fully understand the original reasoning for these practices. The U.S. has been fighting a war on terrorism, so the prisoners could fall under the definition of "prisoners of war." Also, the prisoners don't really have the protection of the Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution, because they are typically not U.S. citizens. I disagree with the practice, though, and I will explain why.
   The ethical distinction that should be employed comes from the fact that, by all appearances, the U.S. now seems to be using Guantanamo as a "detention center." The prisoners have human rights, therefore they do have the right to a speedy and public hearing/trial before an "impartial tribunal," as stated, for example, in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Even in a time of war, it is questionable how far our country could go in depriving war prisoners of rights. The problem with the war on terror is that it has continued seemingly indefinitely, allowing for seemingly indefinite stays for some inmates without any kind of fair hearing.
   The U.S. should be allowing prisoners in Guantanamo fair and speedy hearing and trial proceedings- due process, essentially. It is bad enough that in U.S. jails and prisons where the inmates are supposed to be afforded Constitutional rights, inmates often wait very long for their case proceedings to make any progress while they stay behind bars. It is not that hard to say that the rights could be granted to Guantanamo inmates.
   President Obama promised to close Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp during his first campaign, but it remains open, some prisoners having been transferred. http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/15/politics/guantanamo-bay-house-bill-terrorism/

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Personality Types and the Fall of Man Argument

   There will be some who will want to say that I was being illogical or unbiblical when I wrote the post about how personality differences get misunderstood.  Their argument is basically that differing personalities are a consequence of the Fall of Man- a consequence of the DNA getting disordered.  Therefore, they will say, that people who don't fit the "perfect personality" are sinful. God created one man, they will say, with a perfect personality (Adam).  In truth, they can cite Adam, Eve, and Jesus.  That argument is not correct, and I will stand my ground on this.    The reason why they are not correct is because they are making the unwarranted assumption all of Adam's descendants would have had the same personality had the Fall never happened. I can say with a fair degree of certainty that had the Fall never happened, there would have been different kinds of people with different personalities, it just would have been a more perfect world. ...

This performance of "Lowzer" is better than the other performance of "Lozer"

   So I uncovered and uploaded another different "live" performance of the Sullivan's Dog song "Lowzer" from our days of performing (notice how I play with the spelling on purpose to upset people who take things too seriously?) Please disregard my complaining in the previous post about the vocal balance in the other version and about it being the only surviving version. Praise God this other version exists so people can hear a version closer to how it should really sound. Oh yeah, for those who don't know, I am the guitar player on the left hand side who is difficult to see, but I am not the bass player on the left who can be prominently seen. My playing can be heard quite well in the intro, though.      And the video URL:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T10OtiZFOZA&feature=youtu.be

The Process Used in Writing "The Semantolkino'hara" book

     People wanted to learn the process by which I wrote "The Semantolkino'hara," and they seem to think the process is more valuable than the content of the book. Well....the book is really quite good and well-written. (It can be purchased here: http://www.magcloud.com/browse/issue/825648  ) The musical materials discussed are invaluable. The way the book came about is as interesting as the process used, and the way it came was infused together with the process used. The introduction in the book describes how I was thinking about everything, and kind of explains the process:       FROM THE INTRODUCTION:       "The writing of this book started with the idea of subjecting certain musical materials of my life to a method of human conjunctive analysis combining the objective tools of musical analysis with subjective human studies and theology, allowing for the possibility of reinterpretable studies. After a preliminary amount of inv...