Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Increased Abuse of Prisoners At Guantanamo Bay SInce Obama Elected
Here is a report about there being an increase in abuse of Guantanamo Bay prisoners since Obama took office. The articles observes that this increase seems to be a simple reaction to the fact the prison will be closed down soon, and that the increase in abuse does not seem to be coming from the top -- i.e., from Obama himself. I only bring this up precisely because of the question of interpretation. When issues of this kind of abuse came out during the Bush administration, the report might observe that there was no evidence of a connection to the top (Bush), but . . . there was always a "but." Reporters always assumed that, even if no evidence could be found connecting abuse to Bush, that he was directly involved, that he was directing that abuse in fact occur. I'm not saying that he did or did not, since I have no evidence one way or the other; rather, I am interested in the fact that the author of this piece repeats Obama's not involved, and seems determined to drive home the point that Obama's not actually responsible. Bush didn't receive this kind of defense against accusations of abuse (which I assume are not being made against Obama anyway) by Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity. Suppose John McCain had been elected, and he had closed the prison, and there was a report of more abuse -- how do you think this report would likely have read?