EU Calls For Guantanamo "Anomaly" Shutdown

[Azash]

http://euobserver.com/9/21738

EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS - The EU has appealed to Washington to close it Guantanamo prison for terror suspects, with the Austrian presidency referring to it as an "anomaly" which should be stopped "as soon as possible."

"Guantanamo is an anomaly. Therefore, from our point of view, the US must take measures to close the camp as soon as possible," said Austrian Foreign Minister Ursula Plassnik in a statement delivered before the European Parliament on Wednesday (31 May).

Mrs Plassnik spoke on behalf of all EU member states, following several attempts by EU ministers the past few months to agree on such a declaration.

The Austrian foreign minister spoke out against the legal vacuum created by the detention of suspects at the Cuban naval base, stressing "human rights must be respected in this fight against terror."

The statement was welcomed by most political groups in the parliament, with several deputies urging Vienna to raise the issue at the EU-US summit in June - set to be attended by US president George W Bush.

MEPs suggested Washington should either release prisoners where there is no evidence against them or try them under international law.

Around 500 prisoners are currently kept at the Guantanamo prison, four years after the first suspects of links with Al Qaida or the Taleban, were brought in.

"How many more reports do we have to read about gross violations of human rights? The latest one from the Committee Against Torture makes the point again: that torture techniques, which should be abhorrent to any decent person, are still being used," said a British Liberal MEP Elizabeth Lynne.

But the German conservative chair of the parliament's foreign committee Elmar Brok, who visited the camp with an MEPs' delegation earlier this month, said the US has made some genuine effort to improve living conditions at the prison.

His Irish fellow member of the centre-right EPP-ED group Simon Coveney said the findings of the MEPs Guantanamo mission should be reflected in a planned European Parliament resolution and announced he would ask for a delay of the vote until June.

The current text of the resolution, backed by most political groups apart from the biggest EPP-ED faction, calls on the US to implement the UN recommendations immediately and stop all 'special interrogation techniques', including methods involving sexual humiliation, 'water boarding', 'short shackling' and using dogs to induce fear.

The parliament will decide whether to vote on the resolution or postpone it on Thursday (1 June).

About time!

 

[usarmy18]

I have a question. Since when did the EU start calling the shots for the U.S.?

 

[Kozmos]

Since US started to abuse basic human rights. I mean really, if you are going to treat them like crap why not just shoot them.

 

[croxis]

Since when the US call the shots in other countries? like, for example, invading a sovereign nation without a declaration of war.

And this is not calling the shots. Nations have been calling other nations to do or not do something for hundreds of years. This is just keeping the status-quo.

 

[Verbose]

I have a question. Since when did the EU start calling the shots for the U.S.?

Since when did the US get so high and mighty it cannot tolerate the dissent of others?

 

[usarmy18]

How is the US getting high and mighty as a country because I asked a simple question? All I asked is since when did the U.S. start listening to whatever the EU parliament votes on? The EU isn't the UN.

 

[usarmy18]

Since US started to abuse basic human rights. I mean really, if you are going to treat them like crap why not just shoot them.

Yea, I know. That article stated alot of heavy handed torture and abuse that goes on at Guantanamo. For example:

'special interrogation techniques', including methods involving sexual humiliation, 'water boarding', 'short shackling' and using dogs to induce fear.

The horror .

EDIT: I guess if we want to be asses about it we could just start lopping off fingers and carving out eyes. I guess then we really would be torturing them.

2nd EDIT: Just for the record, I see Guantanamo in the same light as our POW camps during WW2 for German prisoners. We're at war and I don't see the sense of letting all of them go because one or two might be innocent. Let's see, there is roughly 400 detainees at Guantanamo and if say 10 of them are innocent then that's .025% that are innocent and the rest get set free.

3rd EDIT: Let's say a higher number, 50, are detained in Guantanamo when they really shouldn't be. That's still only 12%. You can argue that none of them should be there till you're blue in the face but in the end, they are all detained in Guantanamo because they were captured fighting US forces.

4th EDIT: Bush says he wants to end Guantanamo anyways and try the detainees in U.S. courts. Since what he says pretty much goes in the military (he's our boss afterall), I guess we're gonna see how many are really guilty or not.

5th damn EDIT: Here is the definitions of water boarding and short shackling.

The modern practice of waterboarding involves tying the victim to a board with the head lower than the feet so that he or she is unable to move. A piece of cloth is held tightly over the face, and water is poured onto the cloth. Breathing is extremely difficult and the victim will be in fear of imminent death by asphyxiation. However, it is relatively difficult to aspirate a large amount of water since the lungs are higher than the mouth, and the victim is unlikely to actually die if this is done by skilled practitioners. Waterboarding may be used by captors who wish to impose anguish without leaving marks on their victims as evidence.

This is a psychological technique and not really a physical one. It's going to be banned soon by the US anyways.

Short shackling is a technique that American interrogators use in the War on Terror. According to a military report the suspect's hands are shackled to an eyebolt in the floor, so that the suspect is forced to lie in an fetal position or squat. It is believed that the suspect's feet are also bound to the eyebolt, similar to hogtieng, but this has not been confirmed in any government reports.

Wow, they're shackled to the floor and forced to sit for a couple of hours.

 

[Steph]

How is the US getting high and mighty as a country because I asked a simple question? All I asked is since when did the U.S. start listening to whatever the EU parliament votes on? The EU isn't the UN.

Because the US listen to UN?

 

[Steph]

I don't see the sense of letting all of them go because one or two might be innocent

Why do you have trial for crimes? Why don't you just send to the death row every suspect of any crime? There may be one or two innocents, but as long as the culprits are dealt with, you should be OK.

 

[The Yankee]

How is the US getting high and mighty as a country because I asked a simple question? All I asked is since when did the U.S. start listening to whatever the EU parliament votes on? The EU isn't the UN.

It's just a statement. Not unlike when a city council passes a resolution telling the state to do something. The state doesn't even have to apply. This is just a lot more visible....and international.

Now if they threatened something like embargoes if the US didn't comply...that'd be one big incident.

 

[Azash]

Because the US listen to UN?

OT: Ted Nugent is running for senate next time and is looking to get the US out of the UN because "there are evil people in the UN!!!!!!!!!!" (He's always screaming)

 

[Steph]

OT: Ted Nugent is running for senate next time and is looking to get the US out of the UN because "there are evil people in the UN!!!!!!!!!!" (He's always screaming)

He is right, and if he succeeds, there will indeed be less evil people in the UN

 

[PrinceOfLeigh]

EDIT: I guess if we want to be asses about it we could just start lopping off fingers and carving out eyes. I guess then we really would be torturing them.

Don't be daft, we fly them to other countries for that.

2nd EDIT: Just for the record, I see Guantanamo in the same light as our POW camps during WW2 for German prisoners. We're at war and I don't see the sense of letting all of them go because one or two might be innocent.

Actually, legally, you are not at war. With either Afghanistan or Iraq.

Let's see, there is roughly 400 detainees at Guantanamo and if say 10 of them are innocent then that's .025% that are innocent and the rest get set free.
3rd EDIT: Let's say a higher number, 50, are detained in Guantanamo when they really shouldn't be. That's still only 12%. You can argue that none of them should be there till you're blue in the face but in the end, they are all detained in Guantanamo because they were captured fighting US forces.

When you signed up to defend the Constitution did you actually read it? Or understand what it stood for?

 

[usarmy18]

Don't be daft, we fly them to other countries for that.

Oooh boy, where's the proof? There is no physical proof of this, just logs of flights and accusations leveled by men detained. It's virtually just he said she said.

Actually, legally, you are not at war. With either Afghanistan or Iraq.

Congress authorized the use of force in Iraq and Afghanistan. While it's not a formal declaration of war we're obviously in a state of war right now.

When you signed up to defend the Constitution did you actually read it? Or understand what it stood for?

Yes I did actually. I read it in high school. Nowhere in there does it say I have to give a crap about terrorist peoples.

Moderator Action: Please enjoy a free seven day vacation. Profanity removed. - The Yankee
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[PrinceOfLeigh]

Congress authorized the use of force in Iraq and Afghanistan. While it's not a formal declaration of war we're obviously in a state of war right now.

What I was getting at is that although we were at war with those countries, we are not anymore. It is an occupation which the recognised Governments of Afghanistan and Iraq have authorised. Can't hold prisoners of war if there is no war.

 

[IglooDame]

3rd EDIT: Let's say a higher number, 50, are detained in Guantanamo when they really shouldn't be. That's still only 12%. You can argue that none of them should be there till you're blue in the face but in the end, they are all detained in Guantanamo because they were captured fighting US forces.

And we know that how, exactly?

Oh, right, because the captors say so.

 

[Azash]

The horror

Have you ever had a "real" guard dog growl at you? A rottweiler growled at me once, and trust me, it was terrifying.

 

[usarmy18]

And we know that how, exactly?

Oh, right, because the captors say so.

I'm just going to jump to a logical idea/excuse/conclusion/whatever and say that since it seems like the PR guys up in the Pentagon **** a brick everytime something like what the OP posted happens, that someone would be smart enough to start releasing detainees if there wasn't probable cause to keep them there. Or how much crap the US is taking for keeping Guantanamo running. I'd think they'd have already evaluated the worth of keeping Guantanamo open or closing it already. I could be wrong though.

 

[usarmy18]

Have you ever had a "real" guard dog growl at you? A rottweiler growled at me once, and trust me, it was terrifying.

I've had a German Shepard try to take a chunk out of my ass when I was in high school. I've been chased by a couple of pitbulls and some big fluffy white thing riding a bike in the country before. I didn't find it overly terrifying. The pitbulls kinda freaked me out and the German Shepard biting me in the left cheek hurt. It doesn't say that the guards let the dogs bite the men however so it was all just a psychological game and I haven't read anywhere that it's against the law to have a dog growl at someone. Can you point me to a link?

 

[IglooDame]

I'm just going to jump to a logical idea/excuse/conclusion/whatever and say that since it seems like the PR guys up in the Pentagon **** a brick everytime something like what the OP posted happens, that someone would be smart enough to start releasing detainees if there wasn't probable cause to keep them there.

The PR guys in the Pentagon follow the JCS/Rumsfeld's orders, just like everyone else there. And does it look to you like Sec. Rumsfeld gives a flying fig about when something like what the OP posted happens?