[lbo-talk] Portrait of a Gitmo inmate

Bill Bartlett billbartlett at dodo.com.au
Thu Jun 15 17:44:46 PDT 2006


At 6:15 PM -0400 15/6/06, Michael Pollak wrote:


>http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n11/contents.html [but only for subscribers]
>
>London Review of Books
>Vol. 28 No. 11 dated 8 June 2006
>
>It'll all be over one day
>James Meek
>
>Enemy Combatant: A British Muslim's Journey to Guantánamo and Back
>by Moazzam Begg and Victoria Brittain
>
>Free Press, 395 pp, £18.99

[...]


>This was not the first time Begg had met Martin.
>On the first occasion, Begg had been embarrassed
>at how badly dressed the diplomat was, in his
>pink shirt and white slacks, compared with his
>favourite American interrogator, the well
>turned-out 'Kim'. With characteristic
>restraint, Begg describes his relationship with
>Martin as 'full of disappointments'.

Meanwhile, still in Guantanamo, Australian David Hicks is so disappointed with the diplomatic representation from his own country, that he is about to become a British citizen. The depths of disappointment is not being represented by a diplomat who is badly dressed, the true depths is being the citizen of a country which enthusiastically supports its citizens being kidnapped and tortured.

The Australian government certainly can't be accused of not sticking with the script of the war on terror television drama.

Anyhow, this review (or truncated version of it) was enough to get me thinking. Maybe there's a way to please everybody on this whole Guantanamo problem. George Bush and John Howard want to keep Guantanamo going, the civilised world wants to axe the series, on account of old-fashioned human rights notions that kidnapping, torture and arbitrary detention aren't very nice.

The obvious solution is to let the current cast of prisoners go, but keep Guantanamo going. Hire professional actors to play the parts of the bad guys. Maybe even throw in a few big name stars? Let's face it, the current stars on the bad guy side are putting on very ordinary performances and are so unreliable that the drama can't even be televised. Professional actors would change that.

If the CIA wants to add a bit of realism, it could always kidnap the actors, rather than recruit them in the industry standard way. I'm sure the kidnapped actors would retain their professional pride and still do a good job, once the role was properly explained to them. Whereas of course the amateurs filling the roles at present just don't have a clue what is expected of them. Hardly surprising when you think about it, they aren't Americans and just don't have a decent understanding of the cultural context of the audience.

Note that the only American kidnapee (forget his name) knew instinctively what do do. he promptly confessed to everything on cue and was imprisoned for life. Yet he wasn't even a professional actor! Think how smoothly the whole thing would run if you could get some good character actors and maybe a passable Hollywood director onto the CIA team! (Maybe the Big Brother director could be "head-hunted"? Though that programme tends to make the same mistakes as the War on Terror series, casting amateurs.)

I'm thinking that Osama would probably give himself up in anguish. Of course that need not be a disaster either, as long as the real Osama could be replaced by a professional actor for the trial.

Like they are doing with the Saddam Hussein trial.

Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list