Let's not hide it. I'm generally on the left-ish side of the political fence. But in an effort to be open minded and read diverse magazines, I signed up for the newsletter from the Weekly Standard. I just got my first e-mail and read their featured article, It's Hard Out Here for an Iraqi, which, I think, was trying to challenge the view that Guantanamo Bay is causing increased hatred for the US.
The article contains long and odd excerpts from the tribunal proceedings of this disturbed guy with some issues around his sexuality and his "small penis." He also has tendency to say "fuck" a lot and clearly had some financial issues. In short, he seems very confused and, according the author, Thomas Joscelyn, is by "no means typical."
So, what should I take from this?
In the author's conclusion: "There is no hint of Ali's fate in the transcript. The tribunal board continually reiterates that it doesn't have the power to make an immediate decision. For all of Ali's troubles, he says, he would like to be freed and serve America. If the U.S. military won't take him, there's always hip-hop. Or Yale."
So, in 5,000 pages of tribunal proceedings, this writer finds a guy in Guantanamo Bay who has huge personal issues with his sexuality and family, who doesn't support the former Iraqi regime or the Taliban and wants to "serve America." Does that mean I should stop questioning the human rights implications of detaining people with no charge for four years?
And they feature this article on their listserv?
Pass me a copy of The Nation, please!