> Are those huts "designed" in some way ?
My theory is that they were designed for the internal
US reaction only (since it is clear that the US does
not give 2 cents for world opinion - if they did then
Sept. 11th probably wouldn't have happened at all).
I have a feeling that the specification included a
requirement that not even the poorest, worst accommo-
dated, US voter would be able to claim that "they are
living under better conditions than I am".
That would have been a big challenge for any run-of-the-mill
prison-cell architect, but the man/woman responsible
for this construction must be somebody very special
because, apart from satisfying the specification, he/she
has managed to outrage world opinion at the same time.
Some of the world's best architects spent years trying to
do that and most have failed miserably (who gets outraged
these days at new buildings that are, in fact, unfit for
human habitation? Nobody of any significance!) Now,
using nothing more than some 2x4s, a bit of chicken
netting and a hot tin roof, this anonymous designer has
achieved world-wide fame/infamy in only a few days!
The sad aspect is that, although the structure could not
legally be used in Europe even to house stray dogs, it
is still many times better than the accommodation
provided by most of the world's prison administrations
even for their own nationals held awaiting trial.
It is well ventilated and well drained and there is adequate
provision for daylight to enter. Easily cleanable toilet
facilities have been provided, including one redundant
bucket, plus a fresh change of clothing.
You have only to compare that with a regular Russian
prison cell in which up to 100 remanded prisoners, many
of them with tuberculosis, might be kept packed into a
windowless cellar room wearing the same clothes they
had on when arrested months before, and with only one
bucket between the lot of them, to appreciate the
benevolence of the US authorities. I would really like to
see the results of a survey conducted among prison
populations in Russia, Turkey, Thailand, etc, offered the
chance to exchange their cell for one on Guantanamo,
to see how many would rather stay put than switch.
The problem is that the Geneva Convention does not
permit exposing prisoners of war to the public gaze and
the US authorities were misguided enough to "ill-treat"
their prisoners out in the open for all to see - most other
societies take pains to exclude prying eyes.
This very openness amounts, however, to nothing less
than a cunning attempt at mental torture, in my opinion.
I would hazard a guess that most human beings, kept in
well-lit pigeon coops in the hot Cuban sun, would soon
be willing to tell their captors more than the maximum
allowed by the Geneva Convention (name, rank and
number) in merciful exchange for a nice, friendly,
old-fashioned US penitentiary cell.
It will be interesting to see how long it takes before the
first man breaks down and spills the beans.
Derek Thornton
----- Original Message -----
From: "patachon" <phsov@xxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, January 21, 2002 8:28 PM
My theory is that they were designed for the internal
US reaction only (since it is clear that the US does
not give 2 cents for world opinion - if they did then
Sept. 11th probably wouldn't have happened at all).
I have a feeling that the specification included a
requirement that not even the poorest, worst accommo-
dated, US voter would be able to claim that "they are
living under better conditions than I am".
That would have been a big challenge for any run-of-the-mill
prison-cell architect, but the man/woman responsible
for this construction must be somebody very special
because, apart from satisfying the specification, he/she
has managed to outrage world opinion at the same time.
Some of the world's best architects spent years trying to
do that and most have failed miserably (who gets outraged
these days at new buildings that are, in fact, unfit for
human habitation? Nobody of any significance!) Now,
using nothing more than some 2x4s, a bit of chicken
netting and a hot tin roof, this anonymous designer has
achieved world-wide fame/infamy in only a few days!
The sad aspect is that, although the structure could not
legally be used in Europe even to house stray dogs, it
is still many times better than the accommodation
provided by most of the world's prison administrations
even for their own nationals held awaiting trial.
It is well ventilated and well drained and there is adequate
provision for daylight to enter. Easily cleanable toilet
facilities have been provided, including one redundant
bucket, plus a fresh change of clothing.
You have only to compare that with a regular Russian
prison cell in which up to 100 remanded prisoners, many
of them with tuberculosis, might be kept packed into a
windowless cellar room wearing the same clothes they
had on when arrested months before, and with only one
bucket between the lot of them, to appreciate the
benevolence of the US authorities. I would really like to
see the results of a survey conducted among prison
populations in Russia, Turkey, Thailand, etc, offered the
chance to exchange their cell for one on Guantanamo,
to see how many would rather stay put than switch.
The problem is that the Geneva Convention does not
permit exposing prisoners of war to the public gaze and
the US authorities were misguided enough to "ill-treat"
their prisoners out in the open for all to see - most other
societies take pains to exclude prying eyes.
This very openness amounts, however, to nothing less
than a cunning attempt at mental torture, in my opinion.
I would hazard a guess that most human beings, kept in
well-lit pigeon coops in the hot Cuban sun, would soon
be willing to tell their captors more than the maximum
allowed by the Geneva Convention (name, rank and
number) in merciful exchange for a nice, friendly,
old-fashioned US penitentiary cell.
It will be interesting to see how long it takes before the
first man breaks down and spills the beans.
Derek Thornton
----- Original Message -----
From: "patachon" <phsov@xxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, January 21, 2002 8:28 PM