No, a red herring would be mentioning that I have a cat picture almost identical to your icon. Which I do, but that's quite beside the point.
The article demonstrates--assuming it's an accurate report, which you can always deny--that the prisoners are far better fed than most jailed American criminals, and thus any claims of starvation is flat out ludicrous. (I can't remember offhand if the Rolling Stone article made any such claims, and I don't have the time or desire at the moment to wade through that dreck.) It also begs the question of why, if we are torturing or otherwise mistreating the inmates so much, we'd treat them to a quality buffet tailored to their dietary preferences.
It also alludes to the fact the prisoners regularly attack the guards (with makeshift lethal weapons; see the bottom of the first page). Moreover, the strongest criticism it can make against the camp is "The conflicting accounts of prisoners' exercise time highlight a need for neutral monitors to examine conditions and report their findings, said Curt Goering of Amnesty International USA." And this is from a paper whose editorial position, I'm fairly sure, is strongly against the camp. (Again, I don't have time to check, so feel free to make me eat crow on this point if you can find a relevant editorial.) So you'll forgive me if I fail to find the Rolling Stone article convincing.
Or you won't. That may not be the most accurate phrase to end this conversation. Ah well.
no subject
The article demonstrates--assuming it's an accurate report, which you can always deny--that the prisoners are far better fed than most jailed American criminals, and thus any claims of starvation is flat out ludicrous. (I can't remember offhand if the Rolling Stone article made any such claims, and I don't have the time or desire at the moment to wade through that dreck.) It also begs the question of why, if we are torturing or otherwise mistreating the inmates so much, we'd treat them to a quality buffet tailored to their dietary preferences.
It also alludes to the fact the prisoners regularly attack the guards (with makeshift lethal weapons; see the bottom of the first page). Moreover, the strongest criticism it can make against the camp is "The conflicting accounts of prisoners' exercise time highlight a need for neutral monitors to examine conditions and report their findings, said Curt Goering of Amnesty International USA." And this is from a paper whose editorial position, I'm fairly sure, is strongly against the camp. (Again, I don't have time to check, so feel free to make me eat crow on this point if you can find a relevant editorial.) So you'll forgive me if I fail to find the Rolling Stone article convincing.
Or you won't. That may not be the most accurate phrase to end this conversation. Ah well.