User login

Who's online

There are currently 5 users and 28 guests online.

Online users

  • wilson
  • chad360
  • Rick
  • The Fire Inside
  • JT

Support OlyBlog

OlyBlog is run by volunteers who care about Olympia. If you like what we're doing, make a donation:

OlyBlog is powered by:

Who's new

  • bobschwenkler
  • talltrees
  • Toni Holm
  • wehrland
  • reggie.ventura

    Creative Commons License
 
Submitted by Rick on Mon, 10/03/2005 - 7:34pm.

ForGodJames Yee, who worked as a chaplain at Guantanamo, wrote a book about his experience at the camp. From a review of the book:

The book, "For God and Country: Faith and Patriotism Under Fire," offers Mr. Yee’s first public comments on what occurred at the camp while he was there.

In the book, to be published this week by PublicAffairs, Mr. Yee writes that Maj. Gen. Geoffrey D. Miller, the prison’s commanding officer - who would later become Mr. Yee’s chief antagonist in pressing suspicions of espionage against him - regularly incited anger toward the prisoners with emotional slogans delivered to the troops.

Mr. Yee writes that when General Miller visited the prison, he would tell the guards sternly, "The war is on." That remark and similar comments, Mr. Yee writes, were designed to let soldiers know they were operating in a combat environment where it was understood that rules protecting detainees were relaxed and instances of mistreatment would be overlooked.


The book was co-written by Aimee Molloy. Here's what she says about it:
I just finished co-writing For God and Country: Faith and Patriotism Under Fire with Chaplain James Yee, which will be published in October by PublicAffairs. Chaplain Yee was the Muslim chaplain at Guantanamo who was arrested in September 2003 on suspicion of espionage. He spent 76 days in solitary confinement and was kept under very harsh conditions. In the end, he was never charged with espionage or related crimes, but with mishandling classified information, a far less serious offense. Even so, Chaplain Yee never mishandled classified documents and the government ultimately dropped all charges against him. His story is really fascinating and it's a frightening account of how the "war on terror" can get out of hand.

The publisher is Public Affairs.

See also this article.

»

Should be a pretty interestin

Should be a pretty interesting book, though the review does note Mr. Yee does not go into the accusations against him (which is a bit disappointing, since the accusations against him are the reason he gained notoriety). I don't see why any of these events are shocking to the American public. In a time of crisis, especially when the government believes the Union is at stake, drastic measures are taken. Lincoln, generally looked upon as one of the greatest executives the U.S. has ever had, was also the closest to a dictatorship we have ever witnessed.
»

But Lincoln was right. Bush

But Lincoln was right. Bush cynically used fear to simulate a crisis in order to further his political agenda. Big difference.
»

Lincoln was only proven corre

Lincoln was only proven correct in hindsight (and because the victor has the ability to write history). The Civil War was by no means popular for either side involved and a heavy hand was used to both bring the Union back together during the war and to mesh it together once the fighting was done. Only time will tell whether or not military action in Afghanistan and Iraq was the correct action to take or not.
»

Time is aready beginning to t

Time is aready beginning to tell in Afganistan, and the story isn't pretty. And it dosn't matter how many times you say it -- the war in Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terrorism. Another film recommendation: Hijacking Catastrophy.
»

Four years into a project is

Four years into a project is not a measure of success or failure, especially when the foundation for the end goal had to essentially be built from scratch. Let's not forget that both the Civil War and Second World War were both declared unwinnable early in their respective years, especially when it appeared the Union and Allied forces would fall to their enemies. Iraq, to an extent, is related to terrorism. It just depends how vague you want to get. We do know Hussein's Iraq supported Hezeballah and other anti-Irseali campaigns with fiscal support. Justification for an invasion? No, I don't think so, either. If you believe in the Bush Doctrine, though, invading Iraq makes perfect sense (and even from a non-petroleum standpoint). The problem, though, is that the Bush Doctrine leaves open too many possibilities for future invasions and leaves the door open for the Republic to be engaged in endless conflicts (which can be debated as well, since the U.S. was already involved in every corner of the world prior to President Bush. The difference, though, is that it was under an international flag which, for some, seems to be justification. To me, however, it is not. An invasion based on a shaky premise is an invasion based on a shaky premise, whether it's under the U.S. flag or the UN flag). I'll give this film a try but I'm going to come in with a bias. I gave both "Fahrenheit 9/11" and "Outfoxed" a whirl and they left a terrible after-taste in my mouth. I'm not too fond of "documentaries" which can be disproven by simply reading a book on the subject (Moore's film was, by far, the worst. I've spoken with many progressives who cannot stand him because of how his claims, while not blatantly false, can't exactly stand on their own two feet). But yes, in short, Iraq is not about terrorism. Keep in mind, though, it's not just about Halliburton or President Bush. There are a great deal of factors involved with the United States being in Iraq. The American people are going to have to decide if they wish to be engaged in conflicts similiar to Iraq in the future (because if we continue to use petroleum in the manner we do we're going to see more of them, long after President Bush has left office).
»

We could go on like this fore

We could go on like this forever. I appreciate your candor, and willingness to engage on these topics. Just a few points:

At some level, it boils down to whether you think that the best way to get what you want from other contries is by dominating them or by persuading them. If you believe the later (as I do), then there is nothing right about the Bush doctrine. Do you read the blog Informed Comment by Juan Cole. Check it out. It contains huge amounts of specific information about how Bush policies have damaged America in the perception of the moderate populations in Arab countries, and how this will not further the goal of helping these countries become more democratic.

You want to be really careful when you start talking about fact checking with regard to A MOVIE, compared to the BS that comes out of this administration. The present leaders haven't been able to play straight for 15 mins in a row. What people like Moore and Greenwald do is raise important questions. That's their job.

Finally, this is not an academic exercise. People (on both sides) are being killed and maimed. This requires that we not be taken in by academic arguments. Empire is dangerous because information dominance becomes so total that there is no possibility for evidence to counteract policy decisions.

»

Given the fact that all charg

Given the fact that all charges were eventually dropped by the government (which leads me to believe they had no case whatsoever) I don't see why he should neccesarily address the charges. Imagine, if you will, yourself in his shoes. Would you want to keep hearing and talking about an event that was as uncomfortable as that most likely was for Mr. Yee?
»

No, but it would be similar t

No, but it would be similar to Monica Lewinsky (to be nonpartisan I will also include Rush Limbaugh) publishing a book and not addressing either their relationship with President Clinton or their ability to obtain prescription medication (obviously going into more detail than that but those are the issues at hand for these individuals). In Ms. Lewinsky's case she did nothing illegal and in the case of Mr. Limbaugh, well, when the ACLU is coming to his defense you can take an educated guess that the government is probably overstepping their boundary. My point is that if a specific event or specific chain of events are the reason anyone is giving you the time of day on a national level I think it would only make sense to address that issue, whether or not charges were dropped, dismissed, proven innocent, etc. If this were his second, third, tenth book then yes, I could see the point of rehashing events. This being his first major publication, though, I think it's only fair for a reader to expect certain things to be discussed. EDIT: Not saying the entire book has to be about the event but I think it's fair to expect a healthy portion.
»

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

OlyBlog.net

OlyBlog is devoted to hyperlocal news and discussion specifically about Olympia, Washington. Contributors to OlyBlog are citizen journalists who care about their community and are tired of corporate media.

If you'd like to contribute, please register for an account. Here is a list of local news beats that need to be covered. You can post your news as a personal blog entry, and it will be reviewed (and possibly edited) for promotion to the front page. You can also send news via email. All members of OlyBlog agree to abide by our comment and fair use policies. If you are frustrated about something said in a comment thread, go here.

Now playing at:

Latest Classified Ads

Get Firefox!


More Flickr photos tagged with olympia washington

OlyBlog is a site for news and discussion about Olympia, Washington.
free hit counter