War On Terror: Briefs Defend Guantanomo Bay Speedos
THE Independent gets beneath the burka on the War on Terror.
And readers are introduced to “the case of the Guantanamo lawyer, the detainees and the illegal pair of paints”.
Lawyers, we learn, have been pressing the US Government for evidence against their clients. In response, commanders at Guantanamo Bay have written to the briefs.
The allegation is: inmates are accused of wearing contraband underpants and swimming trunks. And not just any swimming trunks but Speedos, the budgie smugglers adored by Olympic swimmers and men of a certain vintage in Italian beaches.
And the US wants to know who has supplied these pants. It is a matter of no little urgency.
Astonishingly, this makes news in the paper’s main section and not in a Sunday supplement, in which the Indy’s fashion editor looks at what the terror suspect is wearing under his orange overalls this year.
Beneath The Veiled Threats
But this is a criminal matter. And the US is pointing the finger at Clive Stafford Smith, legal director of human rights groups Reprieve (champions of feely moving boxer shorts), and one of his associates within the group.
Under US law it is a criminal offence to bring any “illicit item” into prison. Underwear is banned. Speedos may represent a breach of a prisoner’s human rights.
As the judge advocate notes in a missive to Mr Smith: “Your client Shaker Aamer… was recently discovered to be wearing Under Armor briefs and a Speedo bathing suit…We are investigating the matter to determine the origins of the above contraband and ensure that parties who have been involved understand the seriousness of the transgression.”
We can only say that Speedos are on open sale in many major department stores and via online operators. Under Armor briefs may well be part of a shadowy arms deal.
That the two should be worn together is a matter of some interest and suggests low self-esteem in the wearer.
Security Measures
Mr Stafford Smith is unimpressed. He calls it an “unfounded accusation”. He is doing “a job that involves legal briefs, not the other sort”.
He goes on: “I cannot imagine who would want to give my client Speedos or why. Mr Aamer is hardly in a position to go swimming, since the only available water is the toilet in his cell.”
We are no position to say whether Mr Aamer is wont to perch on the toilet bowl’s edge, pressing the flush and diving in to surf on the wave.
All we can say with any certainty is that anyone who wears Speedos in a non-competitive arena is most likely of dubious mind.
Indeed, had the suspects all warn Y-fronts with their vests tucked in, they would most likely be free and leading meaningful and decent lives…
Posted: 14th, September 2007 | In: Broadsheets Comments (6) | TrackBack | Permalink
