Situation of detainees at Guantanamo Bay:UNHRC

I know this post will immediately generate knee-jerk responses from the anti-UN crowd with smears of the commission, but try to look beyond partisanship to see how wrong we are at Guantánamo Bay.

=========
Five independent investigators of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights are calling on the United States to close immediately the detention centre in Guantánamo Bay and bring all detainees before an independent and competent tribunal or release them.

15 February 2006
COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL RIGHTS
CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS
Situation of detainees at Guantánamo Bay
E/CN.4/2006/120

Summary
The present joint report is submitted by five holders of mandates of special
procedures of the Commission on Human Rights who have been jointly following the situation of detainees held at the United States Naval Base at Guantánamo Bay since June 2004.
Section I provides a legal analysis common to all five mandates. Sections II toV
outline the legal framework specific to each mandate, as well as the particular allegations of human rights violations which concern them. The final section contains conclusions and recommendations.

http://www.ohchr.org/english/bodies/chr/docs/62chr/E.CN.4.2006.120_.pdf

Comments

You are Correct

I know this post will immediately generate knee-jerk responses from the anti-UN crowd with smears of the commission ...

Let's see. The UN Commission on Human Rights is composed of 53 member states including (drum roll please) Sudan, Fidel Castro's Cuba (did somebody mention the've got free health care?) and Robert Mugabe's Zimbabwe (give me that farm!). You may recall that Darfur is in Sudan.

Finally, I believe that vanguard of human rights, Libya, chaired the UN Commission on Human Rights Commission in 2003.

You may call it a smear but those facts.

I can't resist...

I know this is picking up a thread from Durst's Journal but I don't mind poking a stick at someone.

There is a Feb. 16, 2006 NY Times article by Ralph Blumenthal that states that VP was not hunting from a car, contrary to the German professor's op-ed type piece in the Charlotte Observer(the one you linked to). In addition, the same NY Times article mentions that Cheney's hunting party was using dogs, contrary to the German teacher's article.
From the NY Times article:

They had taken turns shooting, and now Ms. Armstrong was in the Jeep with her sister. About 100 yards away, Mr. Cheney, Mr. Whittington and Ms. Willeford were walking in a line in a low spot on gently sloping ground.

More from the article:

They were up before 8 Saturday and headed out in two groups, with outriders on horseback to flush the birds and about a dozen American pointers and Labrador retrievers.

So it appears that the old and feeble VP was healthy enough to quench his bloodlust for quail.

Seems as if the good professor had his facts wrong and you foolishly jumped to several incorrect conclusions. Ouch! Facts can be pesky things. No?

Go ahead, have another helping of delicious crow.

No rational reason for existing

One thing I find missing in the Guantanamo/Secret Prison debate is any real effort at forcing the Administration to clearly explain why we need offshore and/or secret prisons in the first place. By this I mean what justification exists for not holding prisoners either in the current theater of war (i.e. Iraq and Afghanistan) or on formal US territory? They damage our reputation, but how exactly do they enhance national security? Do they?This seems like a good place to start since if the Administration actually believed in the humane treatment of prisoners, they have no logical justification for Gitmo or our constellation of off-the-books detention centers far from the theaters of war.If you accept the Administration's assertion that we treat prisoners in accordance with publicly known US and applicable International, then why do we need these extra-threater/US territory prisons?Is it for security? Then why are our federal prisons inadequate to hold people? Is there some escape danger of current federal prisoners we should know about?Is it to isolate prisoners from associates, friends and families? Why is Cuba better than the US for this?I can't think of other legitimate justifications for having a prison in Cuba or in the secret prisons recently disclosed. But I can think of other justifications:

  • The Administration wants the freedom to violate US laws on torture and so needs foreign soil.
  • The Administration tried to forstall the possibility of any judicial review of their actions and so resorted to foreign soil.
  • The Adminstration wants the freedom to make people disappear, so territories with weak local laws are needed.

If the Administration's actual reasons for wanted prisons outside the combat theater on foreign soil are anything like the three I outlined above, then they have to admit that their claims of respecting rights and laws are false. Because what other reasons do they need these offshore prisons if not to evade US law and accountability?Not only should we close the Gitmo prison, but now that the Cold War is over, we really need to close the entire base, plow it under and return the land back to Cuba, which has never wanted us there since 1959. It would send a signal that we respect the sovreignty of countries whether or not we like them.Quick note to Anon. Evil is evil no matter who calls it. If the Soviets had reported on Nazi persecution of Jews in the 1930s, the persecution would still be true even though the Soviets were mass killers in their own right. By your logic, if Saddam Hussein told you the sky was blue, you'd believe it was green. The UN report is only the latest report of abuses. Some of the prior reports were based on the eyewitness testimony of FBI agents who presumably aren't on the UN payroll.

Re:No rational reason for existing

Come on, Daniel. It boils down to credibility. Any institution that claims it is about "human rights" shouldn't have Cuba, Sudan and Zimbabwe as active participants. Period.

Do you think we should have bad cops who sell drugs, rape women and murder children running around arresting drug dealers, rapists and killers?

Anonymous patron a Hollow Man

If you really believed what you say, you would say who you are. Since you don't, you are a hollow man or woman.
"Our dried voices, when
We whisper together
Are quiet and meaningless
As wind in dry grass
Or rats' feet over broken glass."
T.S. Eliot, 1925
--K.McCook.
http://librarian3.blogspot.com/

Re:Anonymous patron a Hollow Man

You really seem to have a problem with anonymous posting. Talk about shooting the messenger. Hey, LISnews allows posting anonymously (you do realize that it is a feature) and I choose to use that feature.

Listen, I work in a profession that is dominated by left-leaning people. I am part of discussion groups and listserv's as part of my job. I have seen people post things that most rational people would consider politically moderate opinions and they are absolutely eviscerated for being right-wing fascists. I don't put it past certain library people to hold a grudge against people for their political beliefs. You don't have to feel sorry for me or think that I am totally going overboard because I am not asking anything from you. Bottom line, anonymous posting is allowed and I choose to use it. Deal with. If you are so upset by it, you can do what you should have learned when you were a child and simply ignore the posts.

You can call me hollow or any other name. I replied to the post about the UN Commission on Human Rights by pointing out that several totalitarian countries are part of this so-called "human rights" commission. This is a fact, not an opinion. I guess you cannot accept that fact and therefore you call me hollow. Isn't that interesting?

Re:No rational reason for existing

If I'm beating my child and a pedophile turns me in to child protective services, I'm still beating my child.How about addressing my main point - why do we need prisons that are neither in theater nor on actual US Soil. We didn't hide Nazi prisoners -- they were either interned on US soil or behind our lines in Europe. If it worked for Nazi killers, why doesn't it work for al-Qaeda killers? Or in many cases, for relatively innocent people who were "turned in" by people looking for a quick bounty.

More than UN

What I think you are missing here is that the admittedly tainted UN Human Rights Commission is only the latest organization to come forward with allegations about how we're treating prisoners at Gitmo. If you look at the decisions and reports linked from the NGO Global Security, you'll find the reports from a number of organizations including this one on allegations raised by agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation:Unclassified Executive Summary: Army Regulation 15-6: Final Report Investigation into FBI Allegations of Detainee Abuse at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba Detention Facility 09 Jun 2005 [PDF]A number of the allegations are dismissed not because they did not happen, but because they were technically legal because government officials "authorized" the techniques. Techniques I wouldn't want visited on you, no matter what you're accused of, and techniques generally viewed as torture by most other developed countries. Yes, they can't yet hold a candle to what our "allies" Saudi Arabia and Egypt routinely visit on their citizens, but my standards are the US Constitution and the Gospel, not someone's idea of what's expedient.Justify the conduct if you must, but prisoner abuses are going on even if the Libyans are repeating the charges.

Re:No rational reason for existing

But let's say you weren't really beating your child and a pedophile says that you were and he turns you into the police. I would think you'd want to bring up the credibility of Mister Pedophile.

I am a little unsure of what you mean by the term "Nazi prisoner".

Nazi/German POW's didn't have lawyers and the whole idea of them having lawyers would have been silly and is silly now.

If you think treatment of prisoners of war and enemy combatants is worse now than in WWII, then you don't know much about history. I seem to recall there were some German spies that went ashore in Florida and Long Island in WWII. They were eventually caught, guess what happened to some of them? It is eight letters, begins with an E and ends with a D. One more hint, it has an X in it.

Sorry I read and considered it all

I can't give you a knee-jerk reaction but I will give you a reaction.

I don't think anyone at Gitmo is being detained arbitrarily, and that really is the premise of their report. The detention decisions are specific and made on a case-by-case basis. They didn't just cast a wide net and detian everyone who was caught. However we can discuss some of the points even if we disagree about the need for the detenwho tions.

Thus we can skip the first four dozen points about their detention - remember these are prisoners of war, we have not elevated them to the position of defendant - yes that is true your average Florida armed robber has more rights than those that are at war with the United States. These enemy combatants don't have a right to a trial, they don't have a right to a judge and jury because they are at war with us, not simply contravening the statutes of the various states. To be entirely clear, they want to destroy the United States, they want to kill you and me, the are not just holding up the stop 'n go for a few bucks for crack. Not that your armed crackhead is not dangerous, but the crackheads don't organize and fly jets into the World Trade Center, or blow up London mass transit.

Interrogation techniques should conform to the Geneva convention, however if we can get useful information by giving them a shave and a haircut and playing Eminem 24 hours a day I am all for it. Adjusting sleeping times is torture, geez I worked nights for a decade I didn't know I was being tortured I want reparations.

We can skip down to 54 in which they say force feeding amounts to torture. That is absurd. Either you feed them or they die and then the UN gets all worked up because you let them die from a hunger strike. What about the independent Cuban journalists on the other side of island who are on a hunger strike for freedom to use the Internet and freedom to read and publish what they wish. The Gitmo detainees could take a lesson from them of what really is important.

Skipping down to the low 50's & 60's ...geez someone piddled on their holy book. Get over it. It is was not hand written by the prophet, it was mass produced by HarperCollins. They will get you another copy.

A lot of the rest involves health care. 80 specifically notes that a doctor can't assist in force feeding if the detainee can make a conscious decision to refuse food. I'm OK with that, but once they lapse into unconsciousness drop an NG tube and start an IV. I'm going on the assumption that no rational person wants to die.

So as we examine their conclusions and reccomendations the only one I can agree with is # 102, even there I am not certain that the US does not already meet that standard.

They are not arbitrarily detained, they are not beaten with hot pokers, they are not prevented from praying, they are detained because they are a threat to the safety and security of the United States. Frankly a committee made up of representative UN member states is just a waste of time. Were you expecting more from a group that has Cuba, Eritrea, and other upstanding nations on its roster.

Re:No rational reason for existing

Two random and unrelated thoughts:

Is it for security? Then why are our federal prisons inadequate to hold people? Is there some escape danger of current federal prisoners we should know about?

As an aside, Marion Federal Pen. in Illinois, which I believe houses John Gotti (is he still alive - I thought he had cancer and left us?) and housed Timothy McVeigh, has 23 hour lock-down and those cells have no windows. Now we are really mixing apples and organes but from what I have read Marion sounds a lot worse than Guant. Bay, Cuba. Then again, they serve two different purposes. Those in federal pens are criminals. Those in sunny Cuba are quasi-soldiers who were fighting a war. I really haven't thought that much about this but criminals are different from individuals who fight a war. I guess it goes back to a question/theme that went through the 2004 presidential election: is the war on terrorism a war or is it a criminal matter? If it is criminal matter, which Kerry seemed to suggest then you treat it as such. If it is war, then you treat it as such and I guess that was the message the Bush people suggested.

I know it only goes so far, but I think a vast majority of the people in the United States aren't too concerned about the status of a bunch of enemy combatants in Cuba.

Unrelated to the above, but:

The Administration wants the freedom to violate US laws on torture and so needs foreign soil.

Didn't the President just sign McCain's bill on torture? If so, nix that one.

Re:More than UN

A number of the allegations are dismissed not because they did not happen, but because they were technically legal because government officials "authorized" the techniques. Techniques I wouldn't want visited on you, no matter what you're accused of, and techniques generally viewed as torture by most other developed countries. Yes, they can't yet hold a candle to what our "allies" Saudi Arabia and Egypt routinely visit on their citizens, but my standards are the US Constitution and the Gospel, not idea of what's expedient.

Your first sentence states that some of these allegations were dismissed because they were technically legal according to (I assume) U.S. law. Then you say something about your standards are in the US Constitution and the Gospel. Query: If some of these techniques are technically legal, aren't they passing Constitutional muster?

Re:More than UN

" If some of these techniques are technically legal, aren't they passing Constitutional muster?"Since some laws are ruled unconstitutional from time to time, not necessarily.Also, some laws are simply unjust. No matter what part of the political spectrum one is on, one can usually point to some law that does not appear to be moral.

Still no reason for overseas prisons?

Nothing in your post addressed why we need prisons in Cuba and secret facilities outside the theater of war Why can't these prisons be in desolate parts of the US , or confined to Iraq and Afghanistan?"Didn't the President just sign McCain's bill on torture? If so, nix that one."He signed it, but with a statement that the amendment will not impinge on his "inherent authority" as Commander in Chief to treat detainees as he sees fit:

The executive branch shall construe Title X in Division A of the Act, relating to detainees, in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary executive branch and as Commander in Chief and consistent with the constitutional limitations on the judicial power, which will assist in achieving the shared objective of the Congress and the President, evidenced in Title X, of protecting the American people from further terrorist attacks.

Source: Statement on Signing the Department of Defense, Emergency Supplemental, January 2, 2006Since the President, the Attorney General, and other officials of the President previously argued that the Constitutional Authority of the President would allow the government to treat detainees any way the gov't saw fit, this signing statement negates the effect of the amendment. Otherwise why bother with the statement?

Re:Anonymous patron a Hollow Man

TOMEBOY! Come out, come out, wherever you are!

Re:Still no reason for overseas prisons?

But, but, but ....

First, there is a difference between treatment and torture, quit mixing the two up. They are not interchangable.

Second, Presidential signing statements don't mean squat when it comes to interpreting the legislative history of a statute. That is why they call it "legislative" history. He signed it, so it became law, if you look for it in the USC you won't find the president's statement.

I'm not sure what you want: Congress passed a law, the President could have vetoed it (unfortunately something this President hasn't done at all in almost 6 years even though some real crap from Congress has passed his desk) but he signed it and it became law.

Re:Anonymous patron a Hollow Man

Drats, I would have gotten away with it if it wasn't for you meddling kids....

Nice try. Don't insult TOMEBOY.

Re:No rational reason for existing

If I'm beating my child and a pedophile turns me in to child protective services, I'm still beating my child.

I'll give you one thing, I agree with your comparison of the UN Commission on Human Rights to a pedophile.

UK Officials, High Court Judges: "Close Gimto"

UK officialPeter Hain, Secretary for Northern Ireland, a one-time terror hot spot, calls for closure of the Gitmo prison camps and claims that PM Tony Blair shares his view.Criticism of Gitmo was echoed by members of Britain's high court, and for different reasons, even by a member of Britain's Conservative Party.To the President's supporters - Does Britain have a point?

Tomeboy wouldn't hide

I don't believe that Tomeboy would hide behind anonymous posting. He use a psuedonym, but I've seen no evidence that he fears his own paper trail.You have to respect someone who is willing to leave a paper trail. It allows for accountability.

Re:UK Officials, High Court Judges: "Close Gimto"

I'm not really interested in what the UK and especially Hain has to say as he is a complete sack of shite.

Re:UK Officials, High Court Judges: "Close Gimto"

Written like a true Irishman!

Re:Tomeboy wouldn't hide

It allows for accountability.

My heavens, you people really have a problem with anonymity. Next thing you know the left-wing version of librarianship's HUAC will be knocking at my door.

Then again, I am reminded of this:

http://www.shush.ws/history/091204_091804.htm

Re:Tomeboy wouldn't hide

"My heavens, you people really have a problem with anonymity."Tomeboy is anonymous. No one I know knows his "secret identity." Having a pseudonym and an e-mail address that betrays neither his name nor his workplace affords him all the protections you say you need because you don't feel comfortable standing up for your beliefs publicly.What separates Tomeboy, Bibliofuture, and even Ender, Duke of URL from you is their willingness to acquire a history and have their past statements available for people to see. This allows people to see if what they're saying now contradicts what they said then. You yourself (possibly) have taken advantange of this feature when you tell me that I am selective in applying my standards. But we cannot give you the same scrutiny you feel comfortable giving to us.You have the right to make anonymous comments. In fact, if you check the LISNews record, you'll see that I'm was in the minority for allowing anonymous comments on LISNews. Keep making them. But I'll keep commending people either for their courteous in giving us a psuedonym to let us get a sense of the person over time or praising people courageous enough to take contrary stands openly -- like Mdoneil and GregS.Finally, I don't see SRRT or anyone else trying to track you down. Assuming that you've been making the lion's share of anon comments this week, your comments are pretty common in the RW blogosphere, so why single you out?

Here be I

Here be I.

I must say it's nice to be missed around these parts. I'm still enjoying my self-imposed blogging break, but I will jump in here for a bit. Fang, if you're reading this, I loved the chocolates.

Some may recall my sending a
letter to since retired LJ Editor John Berry about this issue of blogosphere anonymity. The fact is, regardless of what moniker we may give ourselves, we are all strangers at Blake's Drive-In, with an exception here and there. Slashgirl could be Slashboy, tomeboy tomegirl, Daniel Danielle. You get the picture, that being there are no pictures around here. That said, I do understand Daniel's point re associating a poster's own handle with a paper trail. However I think this anon's postings, from what I've read here, can be discerned by just reading his/her posts. They are obviously articulate, well-constructed, as are Daniel's, and within the pale of good debate. To borrow a mantra from the left, let's celebrate our LISNews diversity and our choice to respond or watch TV Land.

But the underlying issue here is all about self-control, or lack thereof. Like a smoker or alcoholic, carpers of anonymous postings like John Berry (IFFORUM) and kmccook choose to project their weakness on something or someone else. This followed by the insult that a "Hank E. Pank" or "I.B.Hott" in the author line magically legitimizes. No. It's about self-control, with the hope of getting some dirt on the way. Many of us remember kmccook's public pledge a year or so back not to respond to those of us who fail to disclose our real name? She has and will undoubtedly again, like John Berry. And blame us, the "Hallow Men"...again. The death of shame.

Speaking of shame, I'm hardly surprised with kmcook's ad hominem modus operandi ( Fang should be so proud). Ironic that she, of all folks around here, would have no appreciation for the Nom de guerre that protected past freedom fighters and revolutionaries. Can we assume any collection development lectured upon by kmccook makes no mention of the merits of Orwell, Dickens, Carroll, Sand, Voltaire, etc...? If you really believed what you say, you would say who you are is the recess debate of pig tails and hissy brats, not of fellow members of the academy.

Daniel, you have always been one to engage on substance. And while it may be frustrating to detect who it is you are really debating, I know you are smart enough to weed out the crackpots from those of us who feel this profession is intolerant of conservative voices and would use their power to intimidate. The anonymous poster in discussion here is not IMHO a crackpot. Though I do have some non-anonymous nominees to share if interested. ; )

Freudian Truth?

Hallow Men.

I swear this was inadvertant.

Re:You are Correct

You may call it a smear but those facts.

Yes, but you forgot to relate those facts to any meaningful context. In other words, the way you used those facts constituted a clear and present smear. Part of that smear, by the way, was the way you selected which facts to present. You did not name the remaining fifty countries on the commission. You also ignored this fact: The devil may quote scripture to suit his purpose. What this means in this case is that other human rights violators have a vested interest in pointing out how the United States itself violates human rights. From their point view, it would be seen as validation of their practices. You, on the other hand, have a vested interest in denying any such charges however much the evidence shows the charges to be true, to support the Bush regime.

Re:Tomeboy wouldn't hide

Finally, I don't see SRRT or anyone else trying to track you down. Assuming that you've been making the lion's share of anon comments this week, your comments are pretty common in the RW blogosphere, so why single you out?

Geez Daniel, let's talk about a chilling effect. You know, I consider you much more reasonable and rational than mccook et al; however, when you post comments like the one above you show your true colors. Is it a common thing for SRRT to track down people? Why should I give them the opportunity to track me down. I stumbled across those things from Shush and my question is whether the content of those emails by those individuals is true. If so, that ain't a good thing. Shouldn't people have the opportunity to say anything they want without fear? I would venture to guess that is what the owner of LISNews had in mind when the owner allowed users the option of using the anonymous feature. When people post anonymously, you have three options: (1) Choose not to read the post (2) Choose to read the post and not respond (3) Choose to read the post and then respond to the content contained within that post.

If you choose to be an apologist for the type of retaliatory behavior that I found on Shush, then you are no better than those individuals who appear to have no commitment to the diversity of ideas and free expression.

Just accept the anonymous posts for what they are and either respond or don't respond. I'll say it again, at LISNews there is this feature that allows people to post anonymously and I choose to use that feature.

BTW, I'd be anxious to read your thoughts on the merits of Hollywood blacklisting during the 40's and 50's. Is it all just situational, depending on who is being targeted?

Re:Tomeboy wouldn't hide

If you choose to be an apologist for the type of retaliatory behavior that I found on Shush, then you are no better than those individuals who appear to have no commitment to the diversity of ideas and free expression.

The SRRT remark was a jest in response to the "left-library equivalent of the HUAC" statement you made. Given what I've read of both it seems like a fair comparison, except SRRT doesn't have the same power.I didn't read the Shush article. I'm on record as being against any kind of retalitory behavior for speech. I've done no agitating to ban anonymous patrons from LISNews. It is within my tech-knowhow to ban anon patrons from my LISNews journal, but I haven't done so and don't intend to.If you really feel a chlling effect, then I think you are being overly sensitive about anonymous posting. I would think that if you were fully comfortable, neither my nor Kathleen's remarks would rattle you so much.Your remarks about anon posting:

When people post anonymously, you have three options: (1) Choose not to read the post (2) Choose to read the post and not respond (3) Choose to read the post and then respond to the content contained within that post.

Apply equally to postings by named/pseudonamed individuals. I accept you've been exercising option 3, but you still have options 1 and 2 when I post things you don't like.Try to think of your anonymous postings as antiwar protests. People have a right to protest our $130,000 a minute occupation, but others have an equal right to stand across the street with "Support the President" signs or scream "get a job" as they drive past the antiwar protesters.And so, you have the right to post anonymously, which no one has tried to take away. And other people have the right to comment on your posts, including your unwillingness to tie your views to a pseudonym. You in turn have the right to ignore or respond to our criticisms.

Re:You are Correct

Paraphrasing Eric "Otter" Stratton: let's not let a few bad apples spoil a good time for everyone at the UN High Commission for Human Rights! So what if they have terrible human rights abusers on the commission and have even had some of them chair that same commission?

Shocking how you don't apply this "let's not let a few bad apples spoil it for everyone else" maxim to the Bush Administration?

Extra bonus points for a lucid thought.

Re:Tomeboy wouldn't hide

Daniel, read the Shush link. If true, the content is unprofessional and contrary to anyone who works in libraries.

If true, it is by the same person who is baiting me with insults to reveal my name.

Daniel, why post things if you can't handle the responses? I'm not complaining about your posting things, I am criticizing the content of your posts. You guys are soooo concerned about my bloody name rather than what I have posted.

Re:You are Correct

You may call it a smear but those facts.
I call it what it is, Ad hominem tu quoque. It is a step above the classic "But Clinton..." defense often used. Two Wrongs don't make a Right.

Re:You are Correct

This is typical. You live in utter denial of the war crimes and atrocities being committed by your government, on your behalf, while still proclaiming that the U.S. is all about human rights and civil liberties, and then when those countries you are emulating welcome you into the fold as one of them, you smear them as having inferior moral attitudes and being unfit to judge you as one them thereby.

Typical. So typical.

The Bush presidency is the basket full of bad apples, by the way, but I don't judge my keypals by what the presidency does. I know that they, and most American citizens, are too good for the likes of trash like George Bush.

Re:Tomeboy wouldn't hide

Bottom line on Anonymous posting: Don't hate the playa, hate the game.

Re:You are Correct

And did you know that every time a bell rings or Cheney shoots a shotgun, a Republican clubs a poor child?

I find your posts fascinating, how do you do it?

Re:Tomeboy wouldn't hide

Unfortunately, it was/is quite true. I could give more information but prefer not to give the cowards the attention.

Re:Tomeboy wouldn't hide

You'd know a LOT more about cowardice than we would.

Here you be, indeed!

Tomeboy! I'd wondered what had happened to you. I hope you've enjoyed your sabbatical from LisNews. As for anonymity, what greater freedom of expression can there be than to be anonymous? Tomeboy brings up a good point re revolutionaries and freedomfighters. And in the interest of disclosure: "Makhno" is a nomme de plume/guerre/whatever I happen to feel like. I like the sound, too...and it makes Mrs. Makhno giggle when I whisper it in her ear...

Re:Here you be, indeed!

Thanks for the kind words Makhno!

I'm afraid Mrs. tomeboy has her own name for me, particularly when spending too much time on the laptop.

Syndicate content