Obama waffles on Guantanamo
"It is more difficult than I think a lot of people realize -- and we are going to get it done -- but part of the challenge ..... is that you have a bunch of folks that have been detained, many of whom who may be very dangerous, who have not been put on trial or have not gone through some adjudication," Obama said.
While some evidence against terrorism suspects may be tainted by the tactics used to obtain it, Obama said, that doesn't change the fact there are "people who are intent on blowing us up."
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nation/politics/bal-obamatv0111,0,45003...
Comments
All talk. No walk.
_______________________________________
Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!
Manfred Nowak is an asshole.
"Portugal wrote to its European Union partners in December urging them to resettle Guantanamo detainees."
Is Portugal "an asshole", too?
_______________________________________
Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!
Then you are completely naïve about American politics. See my last post above (which was cross-posted with yours).
What kind of response is that?
Are we also naïve about Israeli politics when we demand that Israel get out of Gaza, and naïve about Canadian politics when we demand our government take real action on climate change?
Or have you run completely out of arguments and now just have to rely on nonsense?
If it walks like an asshole and talks like an asshole....
I am totally opposed to resettling any Guantanamo detainees in Canada unless they are:
1. Omar Khadr; OR
2. Refugees who individually request asylum here.
These people are not cattle to be tortured and then herded around against their will. And yes, this Ms. Portugal, whoever she is, is also an asshole.
Obama could not, politically, release all detainees in America. It's naïve to think otherwise.
_______________________________________
Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!
Then, I think we have arrived at a solution! We'll offer each detainee $1 million to seek asylum in Canada (which, for that kind of ka-ching, 99% would likely accept). A chartered jet could have them landing in Toronto by the end of the day on January 20th.
_______________________________________
Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!
If America can kidnap people from their homelands, hold them, abuse them, and torture them, America can also compensate and resettle them. It is your mess, you clean it up.
Besides, if the detainees are just poor, innocent, harmless fellers, why the heck would anyone in Canada object to welcoming them to your country with open arms?
_______________________________________
Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!
If America can kidnap people from their homelands, hold them, abuse them, and torture them, America can also compensate and resettle them. It is your mess, you clean it up.
You act as though Obama created the problem (Memo to Mess: Obama isn't ever president yet). He's going to try and solve the problem. And you, of course, have no interest in lending him a hand.
All talk. No walk.
_______________________________________
Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!
Your government kidnapped and tortured them - you should resettle them.
How many could fit comfortably in your place, Sven (since you seem to be so concerned about where they will go)?
Don't worry. I promise not to show them your babble posts.
I suppose you would have said the same thing about the Marshall Plan? The immediate post-war leaders of Germany and Japan were responsible for their countries' war leaders' actions...so they should have been left to clean up their own post-war problems.
All talk. No walk.
_______________________________________
Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!
From Der Spiegel:
On Dec. 11, the Portuguese Foreign Minister Luís Amado wrote: "The time has come for the European Union to step forward. As a matter of principle and coherence, we should send a clear signal of our willingness to help the US government in that regard, namely through the resettlement of detainees. As far as the Portuguese government is concerned, we will be available to participate." His statement indicated it is now possible a solution will emerge. The acceptance of some of the detainees by European countries could become an inauguration gift of sorts for Obama.
Link:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,597991-5,00.html
Like I said, if the detainees are poor, innocent, and harmless fellers, then Canada (particularly the good-willed folks in T.O.) should open their arms wide open.
_______________________________________
Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!
You Americans are so typical, Sven. All talk and bluster about responsibility but always trying to get someone else to clean up your messes as horrible as they are. Isn't it time America took responsibilty for your fuck-ups all over the planet? Isn't it? Not likely, eh? Not when you can still force them off onto a world dumbfounded by your national arrogance and collective madness (and let's not forget the many tyrants and second-rate politicians so cheaply bought off).
Likewise, so many progressives preach "collective solutions" to problems. "Let's all give everyone a helping hand!" But, when it comes to actual sacrifice, it's....
All talk. No walk.
_______________________________________
Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!
I can see FM going back a few years: "You Germans fucked everything up. Tens of millions were killed because of your actions. And, now, you want our help rebuilding your country and helping you fix your major fuck-up?!?!
_______________________________________
Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!
I could understand your position if it was Bush who came calling for help (he's the one who created Gitmo). But, Obama?
So much talk. Zero walk.
_______________________________________
Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!
You mean mop up the blood and hide the evidence of war crimes? No, we don't do that. Another favorite word of Americans is "justice" and we on the left will be glad to help with that when you decide to hand Bush, Cheney, et al, to the International Criminal Court. But justice is like responsibility to Americans, isn't it?
For Germany there was also trials. Handing over your war criminals, Sven?
So Americans aren't responsible for what their governments do? Always, always, trying to duck responsibility. Keeping with historical precedence I see.
So Americans aren't responsible for what their governments do? Always, always, trying to duck responsibility. Keeping with historical precedence I see.
And the Germans and Japanese weren't responsible for what their governments did either. Or, to put it another way, the handful of Germans tried as war criminals were solely responsible for the killing of 50 million people.
_______________________________________
Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!
The Bottom Line: You wouldn't agree to accept detainees in Canada because they're likely to start killing people. If that's not the case, then what's the big deal?
_______________________________________
Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!
They weren't? Tell it to them. How many of them died from fire bombing? Do you so quickly forget how your government made Japanese civilians pay for their nation's war with Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Then you made the Koreans and Vietnamese pay. Latin America has been paying forever and in Haiti you still insist on their blood for stones just because they rebelled against slavery.
The bottom line is that your nation kidnapped people, abused all, killed some, tortured the rest and now you want to relinquish all responsibility for your horrible crimes against humanity (not to mention Abu Gharib and Fallujah) and you are shameless and unaplogetic for it. I will say what the entire world ought to have said long ago: Fuck you. Clean up your own mess.
Don't forget Khalid Shaikh Mohammed even though everyone else seems to have. After just five years at Gitmo gulag for torture and basic human rights abuses, KSM confessed to everything.
Everything, you ask?
Every thing!
The American inquisition extracted-confession included KSM's plan to bomb the Plaza Bank before it was even built!
The bottom line is that your nation kidnapped people, abused all, killed some, tortured the rest and now you want to relinquish all responsibility for your horrible crimes against humanity (not to mention Abu Gharib and Fallujah) and you are shameless and unaplogetic for it. I will say what the entire world ought to have said long ago: Fuck you. Clean up your own mess.
Wonderful. If that's the position that the world takes as well, Gitmo will never get closed down (or the detainees will be returned to their homeland and what may happen will happen).
_______________________________________
Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!
Don't forget Khalid Shaikh Mohammed...
I hear he'd be a wonderful neighbor.
Please welcome him to Canada with open arms of forgiveness and love.
_______________________________________
Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!
What a statement. Let's translate it: We reject responsibilty for our own actions and crimes and unless the world cleans up after us we will continue to make these innocent and unfortunate human beings pay. And your best friends with Israel? That begins to explain a lot. No wonder Americans are irrationally afraid of being attacked. You think you deserve it.
Face it, FM, you'd rather move to America than invite Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and his ilk to live as your neighbors in Canada.
_______________________________________
Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!
Face it, FM, you'd rather move to America than invite Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and his ilk to live as your neighbors in Canada
Do you have any idea of the scum of the earth your government, Britain, and our's knowingly welcomed with open arms since at least the end of WW II?
From the same Der Spiegel article:
"Germany became the second EU country to signal that it didn't want to be responsible for a failure to close Guantanamo. A spokesman for the Foreign Ministry confirmed Monday that Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier had ordered his staff to research the legal and political issues surrounding the possibility of Germany taking in former Guantanamo prisoners. A government spokesperson said the country is considering taking in Guantanamo inmates who have not been charged in the US and who have become stateless or are threatened with torture or persecution if they return to the countries from where they came."
I don't get it. The detainees are just a bunch of friendly and harmless fellows (that those paranoid Americans think are all dangerous and stuff). So, why won't Canada open the doors wide open to them?
_______________________________________
Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!
I am confused about the argument here and why you keep asking if Canada is going to take these detainees, Sven?
Guantanamo should be closed and trials based on the rule of law and due process should happen immediately. Any detainees found innocent should be returned to exactly where they were found. That includes Khadr.
Canada has been shameful in its immigration policy and it has received relatively very few refugees from Iraq and other war zones, while Scandinavian countries and others have taken in tens of thousands. Our government and the majority of our population are hypocritical.
I am not hopeful that anyone from Gitmo will ever be granted refugee status here, or even that Mr. Khadr will be allowed back.
The US became responsible for the safety and the lives of those people it kidnapped and broke mercilessly over these past years. If they feel their lives are at risk if they are repatriated, hey need to be resettled in communities of their own culture and provided with the necessary medical and psychological support.
No impunity for war criminals and torturers!
I am confused about the argument here and why you keep asking if Canada is going to take these detainees, Sven?
Guantanamo should be closed and trials based on the rule of law and due process should happen immediately. Any detainees found innocent should be returned to exactly where they were found. That includes Khadr.
The problem with returning all detainees to their respective homelands is that many of them will be persecuted and killed.
The question then becomes: What do you do with those detainees?
Politically, it would be impossible for Obama to simply release them in the United States. Gitmo would stay in place before that happened. So, several European countries are considering taking in detainees to assist Obama (who didn't create Gitmo) with the closing of the camp.
Some, like FM, just say, "Fuck you. You solve the problem. It's your problem." What is unsaid is: "No fuckin' way do I want dangerous people like that roaming free in Canada!"
_______________________________________
Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!
The Bottom Line: You wouldn't agree to accept detainees in Canada because they're likely to start killing people. If that's not the case, then what's the big deal?
Why can't we rely on the "Sven defence"?
Here's what's going to happen:
(1) Several detainees will be tried (and some, likely, will be convicted and confined)
(2) The rest will be returned to their homelands and many of those will be killed (no one wants these people roaming free in their country because they are dangerous--if they weren't dangerous, this would be a non-issue).
_______________________________________
Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!
I am confused about the argument here and why you keep asking if Canada is going to take these detainees, Sven?
Guantanamo should be closed and trials based on the rule of law and due process should happen immediately. Any detainees found innocent should be returned to exactly where they were found. That includes Khadr.
The problem with returning all detainees to their respective homelands is that many of them will be persecuted and killed.
The question then becomes: What do you do with those detainees?
Politically, it would be impossible for Obama to simply release them in the United States. Gitmo would stay in place before that happened. So, several European countries are considering taking in detainees to assist Obama (who didn't create Gitmo) with the closing of the camp.
Some, like FM, just say, "Fuck you. You solve the problem. It's your problem." What is unsaid is: "No fuckin' way do I want dangerous people like that roaming free in Canada!"
_______________________________________
Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!
There are people being tortured all over the world; we cannot take in every one of them. Us/Canada etc. should never have gone into Afghanistan or Iraq. We should leave and return any of its citizens that were taken. End of story. They can apply in due process for refugee status and wait in line.
I think I understand now. The U.S. saved all these detainees from persecution, torture, and death in their home countries. Guantanamo is a kind of safe haven.
Thanks, Sven, for clarifying that point. We should definitely keep Gitmo open, so those poor folks can feel secure.
When did you say you were moving there?
Here's what's going to happen:
(1) Several detainees will be tried (and some, likely, will be convicted and confined)
(2) The rest will be returned to their homelands and many of those will be killed (no one wants these people roaming free in their country because they are dangerous--if they weren't dangerous, this would be a non-issue).
Don't complain to us. Complain to your government. It wasn't "politically impossible" for them to grab people at random from foreign countries and confine them, torture them, interrogate them, deny them legal counsel, and deny them habeas corpus, but somehow it's "politically impossible" to release them?
You didn't try to get Canada to take OJ Simpson after he was acquitted, did you? Apparently it wasn't "politically impossible" to release that dangerous man back into the US society.
What about Posada Carriles, the terrorist who is living free in the USA?
What about Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, George W. Bush, Henry Kissinger, and dozens of other dangerous and powerful terrorists and mass murderers who are allowed to live among decent folk in the USA?
Politically impossible? Only because people like you let them get away with it.
As was mentioned before, the U.S. government has welcomed some of the lowest of the low with open arms. They've knowingly and willfully harboured the lowest of the low from international justice. Your government does what it wants, Sven.
Releasing the "confessed" 9-11 mastermind and all those civilians abducted in Pakistan and labelled "al Qa'eda", picked off the streets and mule paths in Afghanistan and Iraq, London, Morocco, Haiti etc by the inquisition would be tantamount to Jack Ruby sleeping in on the day he was supposed to shoot Oswald. KSM and the rest of the most dangerous "al Qa'eda" are patsies, Sven. Obama's job will be to sign the execution order for these highest ranking patsies before any of them actually receive a fair trial or talk to anyone with any investigative news credentials.
But it sounds like they have nothing on the likes of Khadr. The evidence surrounding his case apparently does not represent a compromise of "national security"
I'd be happy to accept these poor abused people into Canada, as refugees even, from the crazy tyranny of Guantanamo Bay.
But as free people, if they were released into either Canada or the US, wouldn't they be able to cross the border like other people? So would it really a big difference which nation they were released into? Or will America release them into other nations and then still bar them from ever visiting the USA?
I am pretty damned sure these detainees will never want to step another foot in the Land O the Free if they ever get released.
The incredible thing, you know, is that they actually believe their own bullshit after a while. Sven will actually convince himself that Guantamano is being kept open so that people who have been physically and psychologically tortured by his country for years won't be harmed if sent home.
[Unionist, slapping self in head:]
Got it!
GW Bush opened Guantanamo for really bad reasons.
Barracks Obomber will keep it open - for really nice reasons!
I humbly thank you, Sven! It sometimes gets too chilly up here in winter to follow simple Amurrikan logic.
The greatest act of repair is the trial and punishment of the criminals: those who ordered the torture, those who implemented it, those who abetted it. The greater the number of senior torturers tried--Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney, Mr. Ashcroft, Mr. Gonzales, Ms. Rice, Mr. Tenet, and Mr. Rumsfeld for a start--the fewer trials need be held of torture's thousand grunts and straw bosses. What is vital (I mean the term literally, for lives hang in the balance) is that the tortured have the chance to confront their torturers in court. The victims need the catharsis of seeing the once omnipotent authority brought low, the demi-god made human. Their thirst to be safe again, which we can never fully slake, can be partly relieved by showing that even crimes committed in dark cells in the distant wastelands of empire can be brought to light and the criminals punished.
Where trials are not possible (though in America they are) a victim may find lesser relief in a victim-driven truth-and-reconciliation commission of the kind South Africa used to reckon with Apartheid. What will not do is an inquiry of the kind Mr. Obama is contemplating, a variant of the 9/11 Commission, which will give the victim little public voice, will levy no penalties, and will urge him to "trust the authorities" about crimes that include abuse of the highest authority and savage ruptures of trust.
But even trials will not be enough. The United States, having damaged its victims for life, must also offer them care--medical, psychological, financial--for life. The innocence or guilt of the victims, all of whom Bush has accused of terrorism and some of whom may be guilty, is irrelevant to our duty.
If we repair the individual, we will also repair humanity, which is our burden too since torture, though we try to forget, is a crime against humanity. Millions of Muslim innocents have come to fear our midnight knock, our black hood descending swiftly over their eyes, and they deserve peace from our terror. When we give it to one, we give it to all. And in doing so--here, an argument even an American president might understand--we dissuade a few young men from strapping bombs to their chests.
[Unionist, slapping self in head:]
Got it!
GW Bush opened Guantanamo for really bad reasons.
Barracks Obomber will keep it open - for really nice reasons!
I humbly thank you, Sven! It sometimes gets too chilly up here in winter to follow simple Amurrikan logic.
Who said that Obama wants to keep Gitmo open?
The "simple Amurrikan logic" is: Obama wants to close Gitmo. That's pretty simple to follow. And, having grown up on the Canadian border in northern Minnesota, I know that even cold Canadian winters do not make that kind of logic too difficult to follow.
The high-falutin (yet equally simple) Soviet Canuckistan logic:
America = Evil™ (always...and forever, at least until a Chavesesque leader someday, and blessedly, rules the land).
_______________________________________
Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!
M. Spector, that is about as likely to happen as Iran and Israel joining hands tomorrow morning and singing kumbaya around a campfire.
_______________________________________
Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!
Who said that Obama wants to keep Gitmo open?
Obama did!
And so, we return to the opening post - and so, the circle is complete:
In particular, he said, he was unlikely to close the Guantanamo Bay detention center in the first 100 days of his presidency.
"It is more difficult than I think a lot of people realize -- and we are going to get it done -- but part of the challenge ..... is that you have a bunch of folks that have been detained, many of whom who may be very dangerous, who have not been put on trial or have not gone through some adjudication," Obama said.
While some evidence against terrorism suspects may be tainted by the tactics used to obtain it, Obama said, that doesn't change the fact there are "people who are intent on blowing us up."
So, Guantanamo has to be kept open until the "trials" are finished and the "very dangerous" people "who are intent on blowing us up" have been - whatever.
Now, explain how that is different from George W. Bush's policy. I don't recall him saying, "I want to keep Gitmo open long after all the detainees have been tried and sentenced." I may have missed that quote.
On this front - as on Israel, Iran, Afghanistan - there is no discernible substantive difference between the two presidents.
Now, that may change. I hope.
M. Spector, that is about as likely to happen as Iran and Israel joining hands tomorrow morning and singing kumbaya around a campfire.
So what's your point? That people shouldn't speak the truth because powerful people don't want to hear it?
Unionist, you take that to mean that he wants to keep Gitmo open?
Like I've been saying, it's not as simple as those who wear shit-colored glasses would seem to believe.
You say you want expediency? Agree to take all detainees into T.O. and I'm sure we could have Gitmo closed down and all detainees safely tucked away in your neighborhoods within a week following Obama's inauguration.
Oh? You say you're not looking for that kind of "expediency"?!?
_______________________________________
Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!
__Hmmm Sven keeps insistinng that if these people in Gitmo, go home they will be tortured and killed, yet he has provided no proof of this, at all.
_________________________________________________________
"watching the tide roll away"
M. Spector, that is about as likely to happen as Iran and Israel joining hands tomorrow morning and singing kumbaya around a campfire.
So what's your point? That people shouldn't speak the truth because powerful people don't want to hear it?
Well, the truth is that I'd like my farts to smell like rose pedals.
But that's not going to happen.
So, I prefer to live in reality.
_______________________________________
Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!
__Hmmm Sven keeps insistinng that if these people in Gitmo, go home they will be tortured and killed, yet he has provided no proof of this, at all.
Which is completely beside the point, because even if it's true, it doesn't excuse the USA from doing what is right for those detainees.
__Hmmm Sven keeps insistinng that if these people in Gitmo, go home they will be tortured and killed, yet he has provided no proof of this, at all.
Heck, I'll take your word for it. Let's send 'em home. No skin off my nose.
_______________________________________
Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!
Well, the truth is that I'd like my farts to smell like rose pedals.
But that's not going to happen.
So, I prefer to live in reality.
In reality, your farts smell a whole lot better than your political opinions.
In reality, your farts smell a whole lot better than your political opinions.
Well, truth be told, my farts smell like apple plumbs. It ain't rose pedals, which would be my preference, but they smell better than any political opinions.
_______________________________________
Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!
Unionist, you take that to mean that he wants to keep Gitmo open?
No, I take it to mean that he will keep it open.
By the way, you've been repeating over and over and over and over and over that the only problem is where to send the poor inmates.
Funny, that's not what Eau-Balm-Uh said.
He said the problem is that there's a buncha terra-rists there who want to blow us up and we haven't put them on trial yet.
So I guess he's really saying, they should be released on bail, resettled in Canada and Portugal and other countries, then subpoenaed back for trial as their turn comes up?
By the way, where did you get this invention anyway that Obama is looking for countries to take these people?
Obomba was interviewed today by George Stephanopoulos on ABC's "This Week":
Asked if he would appoint a special prosecutor to investigate such matters as warrant-less wire-tapping and torture, Obama demurred.
"We're still evaluating how we're going to approach the whole issue of interrogations, detentions, and so forth," he said. "And obviously we're going to be looking at past practices and I don't believe that anybody is above the law.
"On the other hand I also have a belief that we need to look forward as opposed to looking backwards. And part of my job is to make sure that for example at the CIA, you've got extraordinarily talented people who are working very hard to keep Americans safe. I don't want them to suddenly feel like they've got to spend all their time looking over their shoulders and lawyering."
So Sven, you were challenged to provide proof of your assertations and apparently you cannot. So you do not hesitate to be shallow and at best "flp".
What a useless twit you are.
___________________________________________________________
"watching the tide roll away"
So Sven, you were challenged to provide proof of your assertations and apparently you cannot. So you do not hesitate to be shallow and at best "flp".
What kind of "proof" do you want? The only thing I am citing are the statements of several European countries who have said that many detainees will be persecuted and killed if returned to their homeland.
Evidently, that doesn't satisfy you and you're inclined to simply ship them back to their homelands?
_______________________________________
Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!
Sven, do you suspect you're being monitored by shadow feds? Is that why youre not making any sense right now? Because if that's the case, we certainly would understand.
Sven, do you suspect you're being monitored by shadow feds? Is that why youre not making any sense right now? Because if that's the case, we certainly would understand.
Fortunately, unlike some countries...*cough* *cuba* *cough*, I don't worry about what some government aparatchik thinks about what I write.
_______________________________________
Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!
Fortunately, unlike some countries...*cough* *cuba* *cough*, I don't worry about what some government aparatchik thinks about what I write.
And indeed why should you? Your politics don't present a challenge to them in the slightest!
___________________________________________________________ "watching the tide roll away"
Fortunately, unlike some countries...*cough* *cuba* *cough*, I don't worry about what some government aparatchik thinks about what I write.
And indeed why should you? Your politics don't present a challenge to them in the slightest!
How the heck to progressive "heros" like Kucinich and Cynthia McKinney manage to stay out of jail in this country? My, my, my. I guess their ideas, like mine, don't "challenge" anyone in power either?
Again, take your shit-colored glasses off. You'll see things better that way.
_______________________________________
Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!
I have to agree with you. That was such a clever repartee.
_______________________________________
Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!
Unionist, you take that to mean that he wants to keep Gitmo open?
Like I've been saying, it's not as simple as those who wear shit-colored glasses would seem to believe.
You say you want expediency? Agree to take all detainees into T.O. and I'm sure we could have Gitmo closed down and all detainees safely tucked away in your neighborhoods within a week following Obama's inauguration.
Oh? You say you're not looking for that kind of "expediency"?!?
__
The anti-Canadian snarl of condescension is a rather unfortunate approach, Sven.
And unfortunately it also led others to respond with anti-"American" comments. Too bad. I would hope we could keep ourselves out of the gutter this low life Sven inhabits. Some of my favourite relatives are US Democrats, Americans, though not Republican losers like Sven.
I fail to see why the straw alternative posed by Sven was the US releasing the prisoners holus bolus into the US general pop. Surely there'd be treatment for them to undo the effects of torture first? A consideration of language training where necessary, protection, support, jobs, etc? Of course, some of them will be so damaged from the Gitmo boys' club that they will never be independent human beings again, sadly, like Omar Khadr, I fear.
I propose that regardless of where they are resettled, the US pays the full cost of resettlement, including full, lifelong treatment and support for those rendered permanently disabled by Gitmo.
These are the things that would be offered to them by other accepting countries. I wonder how come Sven thinks the US is not capable of a proper resettlement program and would just 'release them'?
And why the hell would we care so much about Obama's 'political problem' anyway? lol
Seriously though, I do believe that those against whom the US has not been able to build a case, after all this time, should be immediately released under appropriate resettlement plans and with US funded support.
Frankly, I doubt they'd be safe in the US as the CIA would no doubt swoop them up for it's mind control programs to turn them into CIA ops or assassins.
But then, of course, the CIA operates those programs in several countires including Canada ... hmm
I fail to see why the straw alternative posed by Sven was the US releasing the prisoners holus bolus into the US general pop.
That wasn't Sven's idea, it was mine. I still maintain it's the fair and logical thing to do (Sven doesn't even bother to argue that point, simply dismissing it as being unlikely to happen, and presumably therefore not worth discussing).
For their own protection, as I indicated above, the releasees should be resettled under the witness protection program and given $25 million each in compensation for their ordeal.
Yes. All they need is "treatment"...and they will then be good boys who will love peace and sing kumbaya.
Riiiiiiiiight.
_______________________________________
Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!
the releasees should be resettled under the witness protection program and given $25 million each in compensation for their ordeal.
Where'd you pull that number from?
Straight from your ass.
Besides, that would make them decidedly "rich" (by any fair definition of that term)...and I thought you hated "rich" people?
_______________________________________
Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!
Besides, that would make them decidedly "rich" (by any fair definition of that term)...and I thought you hated "rich" people?
What's wrong with that? Don't you want me to hate the Guantanamo detainees?
Sven, do you suspect you're being monitored by shadow feds? Is that why youre not making any sense right now? Because if that's the case, we certainly would understand.
Fortunately, unlike some countries...*cough* *cuba* *cough*, I don't worry about what some government aparatchik thinks about what I write.
Right. Those NSA spooks only ever use illegal wiretap on "al Qa'eda" agents of chaos. As M Spector says about your safe political opinions expressed here, you would prolly never have to worry about being disappeared overseas on some secret CIA torture flight in the middle of the am. And you would prolly never see the inside of a torture cell at Gitmo, because you're one of the large minority of Americans who believes in and supports the inquisition. Yours is not to question why.
What's wrong with that? Don't you want me to hate the Guantanamo detainees?
I don't want you to hate anyone.
_______________________________________
Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!
I don't want you to hate anyone.
Sorry, I didn't mean to infringe on your territory.
Sven will want a few of these T-shirts with a change of warmongering plutocrats in the works
OBL? Shadow gov severed all covert ties to OBL and his Islamic Gladios some undisclosed time after 1992. Sven, surely you were aware of this?
No wonder, then, that many of these men had no useful or "actionable" intelligence to offer to their interrogators at Guantánamo, and how distressing, therefore, to discover that torture techniques were introduced because, in a horrific resuscitation of the witch hunts of the 17th century, prisoners who claimed to have no knowledge of al-Qaeda or the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden were regarded not as innocent men captured by mistake, or foot soldiers recruited to help the Taliban fight an inter-Muslim civil war that began long before the 9/11 attacks and had nothing to do with bin Laden's small and secretive terror network, but as al-Qaeda operatives who had been trained to resist interrogation.
Witch hunts and phony war go together.
So Sven, you were challenged to provide proof of your assertations and apparently you cannot. So you do not hesitate to be shallow and at best "flp".
What kind of "proof" do you want?
Where did Obama say he's looking for places to resettle detainees?
Where did he say that's holding up the closure of Gitmo?
Not saying he didn't say it - just asking for your source.
The anti-Canadian snarl of condescension is a rather unfortunate approach, Sven.
And unfortunately it also led others to respond with anti-"American" comments.
Examples?
What has happened to Sven? I seriously hope he is no human rights lawyer. He just gets further and further right, and resembles the right more and more with every post.
For some sick and strange reason I am actually enjoying the surprised disappointment that some are having at the (shocking!) news that Obama will not leave Iraq right away or close Gitmo in his first 100 days.
I myself was shocked that anyone believed this in the first place and would greatly prefer if Obama would do these things. The fact that he stated he wanted to increase presence in the failed and doomed mission in Afghanistan and mused about invading Pakistan should have easily given it away that he would be in Iraq just as long as Bush would have been and that Gitmo would remain open for awhile. His cabinet and advisor picks are helping some wake up to the fact that there is no "hope and change". "Yes we Can" maintain the status quo!
I need to research the history of Gitmo more, but Obama should close it immediately and hand over control of this land to Cuba. All detainees should be returned to their countries of citizenship. Once there, if they wish to apply for refugee status, go for it. I don't believe they should be bumbed ahead of anyone else in line. He should also immediately end the embargo and travel restrictions with Cuba. Both of these things would not be difficult to do if he actually had any intention of doing them.
All detainees should be returned to their countries of citizenship. Once there, if they wish to apply for refugee status, go for it. I don't believe they should be bumbed ahead of anyone else in line.
I suppose that's one way to handle it. But, I thought there were U.N. "rules" about not repatriating people to a country in which they are likely to be persecuted or killed? I may be wrong. But, even if that is not the case, should a person be shipped back to a country if there is a high probability that they will be killed there?
He should also immediately end the embargo and travel restrictions with Cuba.
That is long overdue. The embargo has no purpose (and, as a tertiary side benefit, it will eliminate the ruling party's excuse that the only reason Cuba is failing economically is because of a US embargo--which is absurd).
_______________________________________
Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!
Where did Obama say he's looking for places to resettle detainees?
Where did he say that's holding up the closure of Gitmo?
Not saying he didn't say it - just asking for your source.
Fair questions. I don't think he has said it. But it's been written about extensively (at least down here) about the basic problem Obama has: If he can't (or doesn't feel it's right to) send many detainees to their homelands (due to a belief they will be persecuted or killed), then where does he release them? Politically, it would be suicide to simply release them into American society.
_______________________________________
Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!
Wow, 99 posts, all about Sven's silly argument. From what I can deduce: Canada has done something to upset Sven, as these are certainly not the first posts of his that reveal some kind of irritation with or jealousy about Canada.
So Sven, on behalf of all Canadians, (except those here who participate on Babble, as I would not presume to speak for them, but I will for others, who don't know I'm speaking for them): We're sorry. Whatever it was we did to ruin your day, or your week or your year, whether it was the server at the coffee house you visited in Toronto or Winnipeg who made the comment about Americans who never bother to buy Canadian money when they come to Canada, whether it was the VIA Rail attendant who got your snack order wrong, or whether it was our own Prime Minister, who perhaps has not had the time to reply to your letter yet, we feel bad that you feel bad about Canada, and if there's anything we can do that will make it up to you, we will do it. Except clean up your country's foreign policy, human rights, economic or environmental disasters.
And Hoodeet, I didn't know that about Canada's refugee policy. I thought Canada was pretty good about taking refugees in. I don't about about refugees from Iraq, but from war-infested African countries, from the Bosnian crisis, from ruined economies in South and Central America. I'm sure it's pretty sucky, but most likely better than anything the US is doing. Correct me if I'm wrong.
jas, what I was pointing out is that Obama (some posters' beliefs to the contrary) does not have an easy decision to make about Gitmo. Some say, "Just close it!" (as though they were parroting a Nike advertisement). I have suggested that if it's that simple, then Canada should be more than happy to welcome the nice gentlemen now detained in Gitmo into Canada's warm, welcoming arms.
But, I don't know a lot of babblers who would like the detainees living in their neighborhood. Why? Because most of them are extremely dangerous.
So, Obama has a problem...and a problem that he didn't create.
As far as Canadians go, I like Canadians, as a general matter. I have spent a lot of time in Canada (probably more time in Canada than most Canadians have spent in the USA). And I have a keen interest in Canada (in contrast to most Americans--and Europeans and Asians, for that matter--who probably couldn't even name your PM). Likewise, if you asked the average American (or European) who Jack Layton was, I'd be stunned if even 1% of them had the slightest clue as to who he was.
So, you needn't apologize "on behalf of all Canadians" for anything.
_______________________________________
Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!
Sven, you could have just made that point in your first post, rather than using coy provocation. I would agree with you that the average Canadian probably buys into the same bullshit re: the terrorist threat as the average American does, but progressive Canadians see that many of these are prisoners abducted on a somewhat random basis and held illegally and on very specious grounds, so there is a recognition that their designation of "dangerous" has been assigned to them by their illegal captors and certainly not yet proven.
Furthermore, just because Obama has a problem he didn't create, doesn't mean Canadians are morally obliged to help him out. He knows what he's getting into, and Americans themselves need to take responsibility for their actions, or lack of. If there were some detainees who, after given a fair trial (or proper investigation of their illegal detention) expressed a desire to resettle in Canada, I'm sure many Canadians would welcome that. The expenses of resettlement however would still have to be borne by the US gov't.
but progressive Canadians see that many of these are prisoners abducted on a somewhat random basis and held illegally and on very specious grounds, so there is a recognition that their designation of "dangerous" has been assigned to them by their illegal captors and certainly not yet proven.
That is so easy to say, isn't it? If these kind young men in Gitmo are not dangerous (and were just "randomly" picked up and detained by the Americans), then I'm sure you wouldn't mind it at all if those detainees who couldn't be sent back to their homeland were resettled in T.O., for example, even at American expense?
But, of course, the answer would be "No". Probably because, deep down, even "progressives" in Canada will quietly admit (to themselves) that these detainees are likely very dangerous people.
_______________________________________
Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!
For some sick and strange reason I am actually enjoying the surprised disappointment that some are having at the (shocking!) news that Obama will not leave Iraq right away or close Gitmo in his first 100 days.
Actually, Ghislaine, most of the posters in this thread have been warning against the exaggerated Obama love affair since long before his nomination. Kindly indicate one post in this thread expressing surprise that Obama has, in fact, lived up to our expectations as being equal to Bush on foreign policy matters.
Actually, Ghislaine, most of the posters in this thread have been warning against the exaggerated Obama love affair since long before his nomination. Kindly indicate one post in this thread expressing surprise that Obama has, in fact, lived up to our expectations as being equal to Bush on foreign policy matters.
I think we started to see the fearsome back-tracking by Obama after he secured the Democratic nomination around June (and that back-tracking was well documents on babble).
_______________________________________
Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!
Too bad Harper's already done those Senate appointments, that would have been a great place to put 18 of the detainees anyway. And for those who assume the detainees are immanently dangerous, this just gives you an added reason to abolish the senate.
For some sick and strange reason I am actually enjoying the surprised disappointment that some are having at the (shocking!) news that Obama will not leave Iraq right away or close Gitmo in his first 100 days.
Actually, Ghislaine, most of the posters in this thread have been warning against the exaggerated Obama love affair since long before his nomination. Kindly indicate one post in this thread expressing surprise that Obama has, in fact, lived up to our expectations as being equal to Bush on foreign policy matters.
I actually was referring to Americans, rather than babble posters. Sorry about that, I thought my comment about the time and money people donated based on their misguided expectations about Obama's plans made this clear. Posters here have been skeptical pretty much from the getgo and I love the nickname Obomba.
That is so easy to say, isn't it? If these kind young men in Gitmo are not dangerous (and were just "randomly" picked up and detained by the Americans), then I'm sure you wouldn't mind it at all if those detainees who couldn't be sent back to their homeland were resettled in T.O., for example, even at American expense?
But, of course, the answer would be "No". Probably because, deep down, even "progressives" in Canada will quietly admit (to themselves) that these detainees are likely very dangerous people.
You keep saying this, and it's so fucking hypocritical!
YOUR country is the one that illegally snatched them from foreign lands.
YOUR country is the one that illegally tortured them.
YOUR country is the one that illegally imprisoned them for years.
YOUR country is the one that turned innocent people into psychotics through years of physical and mental torture.
YOUR country is the one that doesn't have any grounds to put the vast majority of them on trial (even after years of interrogation, and with kangaroo courts that are designed to ensure conviction on evidence that would be laughed out of a real court).
YOUR country is the one that would never consider allowing these innocent men to live among you (despite all the proven war criminals and terrorists who already do).
And now you have the nerve to mock Canadians because we might not want to have those broken, embittered men living in our country?
Shame on you.
And now you have the nerve to mock Canadians because we might not want to have those broken, embittered men living in our country?
Shame on you.
You say that you wouldn't have these men in Canada because they are "broken men" (presumably, they were broken because of Gitmo—but, otherwise, apparently, they would be perfectly acceptable next-door neighbors).
Whether broken men or not, can you admit that many (if not most) of the detainees were (and are) also extremely dangerous men even before they stepped foot in Gitmo...and not merely "broken men" because of Gitmo? Or, is your only objection to giving these men resettlement rights in Canada because they are "broken" and that, before Gitmo, you can honestly say you'd have welcomed them into your neighborhood?
I mean there are two alternatives: (1) the men are not dangerous and, therefore, having them in Canada would be no big deal or (2) they are dangerous and releasing them in the US (at least those that cannot be sent to their homelands) would be politically difficult, if not impossible, for Obama (how long would Obama last in office if even one of the released detainees subsequently helped kill 1,000 Americans?).
_______________________________________
Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!
YOUR country is the one that turned innocent people into psychotics through years of physical and mental torture.
This statement, by itself, says volumes. The detainees were, in effect, poor, innocent, harmless men who were randomly snatched and put in Gitmo and, as a result, America has turned them into psychotics.
If I could find 100 similar pre-Gitmo men with similar profiles and backgrounds, are you saying that you'd be pleased to call them neighbors of yours if they wanted to move to your neighborhood?
ETA: And please answer that last question with a straight face.
_______________________________________
Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!
Whether broken men or not, can you admit that many (if not most) of the detainees were (and are) also extremely dangerous men even before they stepped foot in Gitmo...and not merely "broken men" because of Gitmo?
No, I will not admit that. This is the old assumption that anyone arrested must be guilty otherwise they wouldn't have been arrested. If you bothered to do some reading about Guantanamo and the detainees there, you would know that many of them were in the wrong place at the wrong time, or were maliciously turned in to the US invaders by snitches seeking rewards, and were entirely innocent of wrongdoing. Why do you suppose their torturers are unable to back up any reasonable charges against them?
If it hasn't been removed from your local library by the Patriot Act police, you should read Enemy Combatant by Moazzem Begg. You should also read the dozens of articles by journalist Andy Worthington, who has spent years researching the detainees, at http://www.andyworthington.co.uk/ and other sites on the web.
The only men I know to have been "extremely dangerous" are the scumbags who detained, interrogated and tortured these men for years. They are still walking the streets of your country with impunity.
That doesn't seem to disturb you one bit.
There are two alternatives: (1) the men are not dangerous and, therefore releasing them to live in the US would be no big deal or (2) they are dangerous and releasing them anywhere in the world would be politically difficult, if not impossible.
If they are dangerous, they are not likely any more dangerous than Obama himself, who will in very short order after January 20 have the blood of thousands of people, including Americans, on his hands.
Tell us, Sven, who gets to decide whether any particular detainee is "dangerous"? And what is the standard of dangerousness? If a detainee has developed an abiding hatred of George W. Bush, does that make him dangerous? If so, there are millions of USians also whom you will want to lock up forever, for your own protection.
Are we supposed to feel sympathy for your dilemma? I don't.
Whether broken men or not, can you admit that many (if not most) of the detainees were (and are) also extremely dangerous men even before they stepped foot in Gitmo...and not merely "broken men" because of Gitmo?
No, I will not admit that. This is the old assumption that anyone arrested must be guilty otherwise they wouldn't have been arrested. If you bothered to do some reading about Guantanamo and the detainees there, you would know that many of them were in the wrong place at the wrong time, or were maliciously turned in to the US invaders by snitches seeking rewards, and were entirely innocent of wrongdoing.
Cool. Then anyone meeting their profile and background who would like to move into your neighborhood would be welcomed by you with open and loving arms.
_______________________________________
Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!
That is long overdue. The embargo has no purpose (and, as a tertiary side benefit, it will eliminate the ruling party's excuse that the only reason Cuba is failing economically is because of a US embargo--which is absurd).
And a US-led medieval siege on one desert nation in the Middle East wasnt very effective either. If Helms-Burton is ineffective, then why is it still US policy and outvoted by the UN year after year by a wide margin? Use your head for something more than a hatrack, Sven.
Well, Fidel, it's hard to believe that the US embargo is the principal cause for the abject poverty in that country when most of the other nations of the world are free to trade with Cuba. I look forward to the end of the embargo and seeing how Cuba fares in the ensuing years.
Wouldn't it be something if Cuba miraculously revived economically simply due to being able to trade with the uber capitalists?!?! And, if they don’t revive economically, their bullshit woe-is-me-because-of-the-US-embargo excuse will be blown out of the water.
_______________________________________
Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!
Cool. Then anyone meeting their profile and background who would like to move into your neighborhood would be welcomed by you with open and loving arms.
I'd rather have Omar Khadr living in my neighbourhood than you.
Cool. Then anyone meeting their profile and background who would like to move into your neighborhood would be welcomed by you with open and loving arms.
I'd rather have Omar Khadr living in my neighbourhood than you.
And, while your at it, you can invite people like Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and his closest friends to be your neighbor as well and you can sit around, hold hands, and sing Kumbaya together after talking about how evil Israel is and how wonderful Hamas is. That would be quite the neighborhood BBQ.
_______________________________________
Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!
Well, Fidel, it's hard to believe that the US embargo is the principal cause for the abject poverty in that country when most of the other nations of the world are free to trade with Cuba. I look forward to the end of the embargo and seeing how Cuba fares in the ensuing years.
Do you sometimes ponder why US client states like Haiti and Guatemala are the poverty-stricken hellholes that they are and trading freely with the US and internationally? Haiti is just 55 miles from Cuba.
Imagine that Puerto Rico or Newfoundland were free to import anything from around the world at a premium but banned from exporting anything to Canada or the US? Trade was not a problem for the US-backed mafia government in the years leading up to the peoples' revolution in Cuba, and yet Cubans ate a steady diet of malanga and cane sugar and teeth rotting out of their heads. In fact, the US government favoured sugar quotas on imports from Cuba for many years - something which free traders would suggest violates capitalist rules for liberalized free trade.
The ability to trade freely with natural geographic partners is an idea older than the hills - something that predates Adam Smith and British "tea company's" policies for import-export business of dealing in illicit drugs and slave labour. The CIA and their friends in organized crime would like very much to transform Cuba into a conduit for drug running to the US like it was before, Sven. Dont ever fool yourself. Trade as a weapon, and the dept for economic warfare on Latin America has routinely violated all laws for true free trade policies over the years.
They're dumping cheap US rice in Haiti today and crippling Haitians' ability to earn a living. Haiti, coincidentally, does not represent an ideological thorn in the side of the vicious empire. Haiti does not stand out as country standing alone in defiance of the vicious empire and demonstrating to all the capitalist thirdworld colonies that defying the empire is a possibility. Cuba represents hope for tens of millions of desperately poor people without education or the basic human right to see a doctor on a regular basis. That Cuba represents hope for millions is a personal terror for the rightwing ideologues in your country, Sven.
Sure, Fidel. Whatever you say.
_______________________________________
Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!
Youre so full of shit your eyes must be a deep brown by now, Sven.
This is everyone's last chance to apply to be a prisoner at G'timo as it is being closed soon.
Cool. Then anyone meeting their profile and background who would like to move into your neighborhood would be welcomed by you with open and loving arms.
I'd rather have Omar Khadr living in my neighbourhood than you.
Excelent post.
"When I said I'd close Guantanamo, I didn't realize it was chock full of terrorists! This changes everything!"
"When I said I'd close Guantanamo, I didn't realize it was chock full of terrorists! This changes everything!"
I heard Canada is going to welcome the detainees upon release. Is that true?
_______________________________________
Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!
I heard Canada is going to welcome the detainees upon release. Is that true?
I heard someone suggest that the detainees should just be returned to their home countries.
What a wacky idea, eh!?
I heard someone suggest that the detainees should just be returned to their home countries.
What a wacky idea, eh!?
The US is prohibited from returning detainees to their home countries if it is likely that they will be persecuted or killed upon their return. And, as I understand it, that is true for many, many detainees. That's why some European countries are considering taking in some of the detainees. But, I think T.O. would be an ideal location, no?
_______________________________________
Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!
Yes, they were real concerned about the fate of human beings when they shipped a Canadian to Syria, or bombed wedding parties for that matter.
You are a funny man. Let me introduce you to Maher Arar.
Anyway, I don't think the detainees were refugees fleeing to the U.S. looking for liberty.
But then, you live there, so maybe you know better.
Yes, they were real concerned about the fate of human beings when they shipped a Canadian to Syria, or bombed wedding parties for that matter.
So, in your view, the American should send the detainees home?
_______________________________________
Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!
But then, you live there, so maybe you know better.
One of many articles re Europeans talking about accepting detainees:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/22/AR2008122201749.html?wprss=rss_politics
_______________________________________
Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!
I'm not sure why I'm bothering, but who knows, maybe someone is listening.
1. Have you ever heard of U.S. rendition of prisoners to countries where they are tortured?
2. Have you ever heard of Maher Arar?
3. Have you ever heard of Guantanamo detainees being tortured - by the U.S.? And you, with a straight face (or keyboard), suggest that the U.S. is concerned about the health and safety of the prisoners?
4. How about asking the detainees if they'd like to go home?
5. Are the detainees allowed to have opinions as to whether they want to be freed, where they would like to go, how they are being treated, etc.?
6. Do you do kids' parties and bar mitzvahs?
Well, obviously, if they want to go home, let them. But, there is clearly concern that many, many of the detainees will be tortured or killed if they return home.
So, for those detainees, I think Canada (particularly the TO area) should raise its hand and take in a few of the poor fellers.
_______________________________________
Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!
Canada should demand the return of Omar Khadr. The rest are the responsibility of their capturers and torturers. Why wouldn't your homeland offer them residence status? Don't you have a Statue of Liberty, or some such scam?
U.N. Official from a few days ago: "Manfred Nowak, special rapporteur for the U.N. Human Rights Council, said more countries that had criticized U.S. treatment of Guantanamo detainees should accept some prisoners so Obama could fulfill a campaign pledge to shut down the prison camp."
Read report here: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090105/wl_nm/us_un_guantanamo
_______________________________________
Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!
If those detainees who cannot be returned home are dangerous, then you might understand why Obama couldn't, politically, release them all into US society (a problem, by the way, that he didn't create and has pledged to solve)...and that's why Europe is looking at helping Obama. Will Canada?
If those detainees are not dangerous, then Canada should have no qualms welcoming them with open arms, no?
But, I think too many critics are all talk and no walk.
_______________________________________
Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!
Sven, what is your problem? Either they go home, or the U.S. welcomes and resettles them. Why are you quoting all these characters? Is the U.S. short of land?? Or is there a danger they will be tortured?
How about stop quoting some Austrian idiot and tell us what the precise problem is?
Why isn't Omar Khadr back home yet?
Obama is afraid we'll torture him?
What a pathetic joke.
Manfred Nowak is an asshole. Why should critics of US war crimes be obliged to come to their assistance?
The Guantanamo detainees who are innocent (i.e. the ones the US has no intention of putting on trial) should be given $25 million each in compensation and settled in the USA under the witness protection program.
What's that you say? They're dangerous people? Well, who made them dangerous? And if they're too dangerous to live in the USA, why should anyone else accept them?
Then you are completely naïve about American politics. See my last post above (which was cross-posted with yours).
_______________________________________
Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!