EU Calls For Guantanamo "Anomaly" Shutdown

[Bozo Erectus]

I agree Berrie, theres plenty of hypocrisy to go around. A pox on all their houses.

 

[FredLC]

Since people are not tortured at Gitmo, and since the prisoners there to not warrant POW rights under the Geneva convention, being illegal combatants instead, the EU can take a flying leap off the nearest cliff as far as them telling us what to do about Gitmo is concerned.

Have a nice day.

And "day... day... day..." echoes from the ivory tower.

I'm not going to start another discussion on the fraud that is "illegal combatent" status; suffices to say that combatents or pows or terrorists or innocent wrong arrests or whatever they are, they are still under the scope of the universal declaration of human rights, which is ratified by the US and that stricly forbiddens imprisionment without trials.

This what pisses me off about this: Austria is all bent out of shape because of Guantanamo (which I agree is a disgrace and also a complete waste of time and resources and should be shut down), but how come they arent upset about all the other gulags around the world, that in comparison make Guantanamo look like an amusement park?

What's this, Bozo, the "but mother, they did it too..." argument?

The criticism I address at the US goes for any nation that takes the same practice. It would go to my nation as well, should we do the same.

Only that, in a proof of faith in the institutions of your nation, your's are the one i have an (apparently unreasonable) hope will listen and correct things.

Regards .

 

[Rambuchan]

"collectivly kiss our rosey red arse"?

"flying leap off the nearest cliff"?

And USians wonder why there are anti-American sentiments around the world? Dim wits. That's what comments such as those make folk look like. Belligerent dim wits at that, trying to justify many quite clear violations of international codes of law. Are you telling the EU to jump off a cliff because you cannot refute the points of violation, because you don't know what they are, or simply because you don't give a damn for international law and agreements that your nation is party to?

Those making such comments ought to check the actual facts of the matter, as to what the UN considers of your position (see the numerous reports they've published on Gitmo). It's the same verdict as most human rights lawyers and pressure groups worth their salt hold. Add to that all your allies taking the same view, well the ones that are left anyway.... According to their Special Reports and legal experts - you guys are contravening your most basic international obligations. Yet you've been wilfully ignoring this and mistakenly interpretting it all as "anti-americanism" or simply by slandering those who bring up your gross violations - in your best interests. And the best you can come up with is....................."kiss my arse"? Nice.

Perhaps next time you want to a buddy to go out on an illegal war, or next time you want to use our airports to transfer to torture chambers (unproven) terrorists, next time you want us to back you diplomatically over some bullying - you will find that you won't have anyone who wants to anymore.

Do you think telling us to "collectivly kiss our rosey red arse" or take a "flying leap off the nearest cliff" is a good way to go about it? Shows how far from sanity you guys are wandering in backing Gitmo.

You guys are messing up your credibility and reputation, and ours in the process, and we're just trying to point that out. That's gratitude for you!

 

[Elrohir]

It's hilarious seeing the, ahem, patriotic responses to the Austrian guy's statements. USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA!

Also, the reason that we Euroscum complain about Gitmo but ignore others is because we have a hope in hell's chance of convincing the American people that the camp is wrong and should be disbanded. The chances of convincing the Chinese government? Zero. It'd be nice to see official condemnation, though.

Ah, so if something is wrong, but you can change it, it deserves condemnation. If it's really wrong, but you can't change it, it's best to ignore it and cozy up to the perpetrators?

I'm afraid I can't follow your logic. If you believe something is wrong, you should oppose it, whether you have a realistic chance of changing it or not. Choose your battles; but don't refuse to fight the war.

Because other countries have nothing to say about people being imprisioned without trial?

If the US goes arresting people under obscure claims and hold them without trial indefinitedly, i'd say that the world has pretty good cause to concern itself with it.

Quite frankly, the complains I see on CFC of US citzens saying that US gets "a hard time" because of guantanamo strikes me as funny to say the least. That people dennounce the practise is the LEAST, I in fact think the world would have cause to put a forceful stop to it, and the world is not doing more because it's powerless to.

In the end, it will be a decision of US authorities. Unfortunately, because recent administration, in my evaluation, seens to lack the wisdom and serenity to put the power they whild to good use.

Unless they are being tortured, of their countries laws were broken in apprehending them, then no, not really, they don't get a say. (If you have evidence of torture, please post it) Why should the USA allow Austria to dictate it's actions? Will Austria, in turn, allow the US to meddle in it's affairs? (More than usual? )

All laws are imperfect. But you will notice the relevant fact that the solution here adopt is not law reformation - it's law circunventing. Apparently, US authorities are quite happy with ignoring law instead of bettering it in order to cover other possible prisioners of the kind - possibly, under the premisse that in the future they can do the same again - a possibly true one.

And while i'm not an expert in US law, i'm quite sure Guantanamo is againt the law. That is the very reason why these guys are there, instead of Texas or Colorado or North Carolina...

No, it's not. You see, Guantanamo Bay is a US military facility - legally rented from Cuba, and can only be terminated by mutual consent or refusal to pay; thanks to Castro's blunder in cashing our first rent check, it's still ours even if he won't accept the money any longer. It's not on US soil, and is therefore not subject to most US laws. The USMJ (Universal Code of Military Justice) is enforced, I believe, but that is all. I also am not a legal expert, (But my father is a retiring Judge Advocate General in the USAF, so I know something of it) but I know enough to say that while general human rights will be respected - no torture - it's agreed by most legal experts that Guantanamo Bay isn't subject to US laws.

 

[Rambuchan]

(If you have evidence of torture, please post it)

Here you go.

Judging from what you're posting, I'll say you've never read any of these reports. Am I right?

 

[Berrie]

A pox on all their houses.

English is not my native language. Could you please explain your comment?
Or was it just sarcasm? (in that case I don't get it either )

 

[PrinceOfLeigh]

This what pisses me off about this: Austria is all bent out of shape because of Guantanamo (which I agree is a disgrace and also a complete waste of time and resources and should be shut down), but how come they arent upset about all the other gulags around the world, that in comparison make Guantanamo look like an amusement park?

I agree. But the other 'gulags' around the world China, Zimbabwe, Iran aren't invading other countries under the pretense that a dictator is in charge.

How often have US, and yes UK, adminstration spokespeople claimed that the war in Afghanistan and Iraq was a good thing as people are living better? Americans claim that the US stands for freedom, liberty, equal opportunity yet they complain when people point out that they have dropped below their own standards. If you claim to be the world's policeman enforcing democracy and human rights around the world you should have your own house in order first.

EDIT:

Unless they are being tortured, of their countries laws were broken in apprehending them, then no, not really, they don't get a say.

As far as I was aware there are British citizens in Gitmo and, despite requests for their transfer from the US's supposed closest ally, some have yet to be released.

 

[Elrohir]

Here you go.

Judging from what you're posting, I'll say you've never read any of these reports. Am I right?

Sorry Ram, I don't know what's up, but I can't load that page. My browser freezes; is it a large PDF file? (Or maybe the BBC is putting spyware on my computer ) Do you have an alternate link?

 

[FredLC]

Unless they are being tortured, of their countries laws were broken in apprehending them, then no, not really, they don't get a say. (If you have evidence of torture, please post it) Why should the USA allow Austria to dictate it's actions? Will Austria, in turn, allow the US to meddle in it's affairs? (More than usual? )

We don't know, because there were no trials. How can we knoew if there were violations in their aprehensions? And, as such, "in dubio pro reo" - you can ask your father what does this means.

US should not get orders from other nations - that much we agree about. It however, should also not impose it's might over citzens of other nations - not without proper trials. Actually, not over anyone at all, local or foreigner.

The unwillingness to do so, not the bending of the US to alien orders, is the subject here.

No, it's not. You see, Guantanamo Bay is a US military facility - legally rented from Cuba, and can only be terminated by mutual consent or refusal to pay; thanks to Castro's blunder in cashing our first rent check, it's still ours even if he won't accept the money any longer. It's not on US soil, and is therefore not subject to most US laws. The USMJ (Universal Code of Military Justice) is enforced, I believe, but that is all. I also am not a legal expert, (But my father is a retiring Judge Advocate General in the USAF, so I know something of it) but I know enough to say that while general human rights will be respected - no torture - it's agreed by most legal experts that Guantanamo Bay isn't subject to US laws.

You have no need to elaborate on how the circunvention was implemented, Elrohir. It's old news.

Suffices to say that if the US authorities have taken, to somewhere else, practices they can't do in their own country because if they did they would violate the law, than they are in breech of their morality, no matter if a gap in the manner law in the US is written prevents a breech in legality.

What is exactly what I said. Guantanamo is in guantanamo, because a facility exactly alike would be illegal in Texas, Colorado or North Carolina.

I don't know why you guys feel so confortable with the idea that all your army has to do to be able to ignore the laws of your nation is to travel abroad. Perhaps the gaps in our mentality standards are too far away - I would certainly dislike quite a lot that Brazilian armies could ignore Brazil's laws in the moment they step into Argentina or Paraguay...

Nonetheless, for reasons stated, I consider g-bay a rather black spot in the US history - am I'm quite confident that this is the judgement history has in store for it as well - in cooler times, when the passion that generated it has faded.

Regards .

 

[Mr. Do]

Ah, so if something is wrong, but you can change it, it deserves condemnation. If it's really wrong, but you can't change it, it's best to ignore it and cozy up to the perpetrators?

I'm afraid I can't follow your logic. If you believe something is wrong, you should oppose it, whether you have a realistic chance of changing it or not. Choose your battles; but don't refuse to fight the war.

Don't be deliberately obtuse. The post of mine that you quoted specifcally said that it'd be good for other human rights abusers to be condemned. This is the very definition of what, "choosing your battles" means. Plus, obviously, we in Europe cannot very well go about condemning Chinese human rights abuses whilst our closest ally in this world, the US, goes about abusing the spirit of human rights laws, even if people like you are capable of "proving" it's legal to do what's gone on at Gitmo. You might've heard about how this guy, name begins with a J, once said something about getting your own house in order before you go around messing with other people. And Guantanamo Bay is certainly, in that respect, an anomoly in the western world, that needs to be removed before we can even think about asking non-western countries to clear up their own human rights.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

What's this, Bozo, the "but mother, they did it too..." argument?

The criticism I address at the US goes for any nation that takes the same practice. It would go to my nation as well, should we do the same.

Only that, in a proof of faith in the institutions of your nation, your's are the one i have an (apparently unreasonable) hope will listen and correct things.

Regards .

Many Europeans and others say exactly that, and I understand where youre coming from, and appreciate it, but the fact is it bothers us when our supposed allies treat us like the enemy, and coddle their real enemies.

 

[Elrohir]

We don't know, because there were no trials. How can we knoew if there were violations in their aprehensions? And, as such, "in dubio pro reo" - you can ask your father what does this means.

Don't sound to condescending. I know enough Latin to read that; and as I said, I don't have a problem with trials for most prisoners at Guantanamo. Did you not read that portion of my earlier post?

US should not get orders from other nations - that much we agree about. It however, should also not impose it's might over citzens of other nations - not without proper trials. Actually, not over anyone at all, local or foreigner.

The unwillingness to do so, not the bending of the US to alien orders, is the subject here.

And members of other nations should not attack US troops or civilians. If they didn't do that, we wouldn't have a problem. The US is merely defending itself by apprehending these people. Would you prefer we simply shot them in the head on the battlefield, and left them? Would that be more acceptable to you?

Suffices to say that if the US authorities have taken to somewhere else practices they can't do in their own country because if so they would violate the law, they are in breech of their morality, no matter if a gap in the manner law in the US is written in the US prevents a breech in legality.

What is exactly what I said. Guantanamo is in guantanamo, because a facility exactly alike would be illegal in Texas, Colorado or North Carolina.

So the USG and USC must obey all US laws, no matter where they go in the world? No exceptions?

American tourists, driving on the right side of the road, will play havoc in London then.

I don't know why you guys feel so confortable with the idea that all your army has to do to be able to ignore the laws of your nation is to travel abroad. Perhaps the gaps in our mentality standards are too far away - I would certainly dislike quite a lot that Brazilian armies could ignora Brazil's laws in the moment they step into Argentina or Paraguay...

Nonetheless, for reasons stated, I consider g-bay a reather black spot in the US history - am I'm quite confident that this is the judgement history has in store for it as well - in cooler times, when the passion that generated it has faded.

Regards .

They are not ignoring the ones that they have to - basic human rights - but they are ignoring the ones they don't have to. If they were torturing them at Guantanamo, I would feel differently. But locking them up in what is a relatively (Compared to most US prisons) a cushy prison doesn't fit under my definition of torture. Even holding them without trial wouldn't count.

Considering the historical revisionism that seems to be so popular these days, and will likely continue to be in the future, I imagine you're right. I only hope enough people in the future remember the truth, so that it can be known even then that the US did not break any laws in holding prisoners at Guantanamo Bay.

 

[Rambuchan]

Sorry Ram, I don't know what's up, but I can't load that page. My browser freezes; is it a large PDF file? (Or maybe the BBC is putting spyware on my computer ) Do you have an alternate link?

Try this instead: http://ap.ohchr.org/documents/dpage_e.aspx?m=103

You will find the report I linked you to on that page, which was indeed in PDF. This is its title:

[27/02/2006 ---- E/CN.4/2006/120]

"Situation of detainees at Guantánamo Bay

- Report of the Chairperson-Rapporteur of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, Leila Zerrougui;
- the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, Leandro Despouy;
- the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Manfred Nowak;
- the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, Asma Jahangir;
- and the Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attain."

That's the report that details the legal facts of the matter, as seen by the UN. Your statements are in direct opposition to them, or are seemingly ignorant of the UN's legal perspective. I hope the read is interesting and enlightening.

 

[FredLC]

Many Europeans and others say exactly that, and I understand where youre coming from, and appreciate it, but the fact is it bothers us when our supposed allies treat us like the enemy, and coddle their real enemies.

Treat you like the enemy would mean embargoes and attacks, not advice.

Quite frankly, Bozo, your argument reeks of an repulsion to criticism. And in this case, due criticism.

Nobody in Europe, AFAIK, justify or reveres the Gulags in the world; they just don't waste their breath on the blind ears of their perpetrators.

That Europe don't think that of the US; that, with all the rivalry of these last years, Europe still hopes that the US is a country that listens, is significant, don't you think? What does it say about how your allies see you, and how they see your enemies?

Regards .

 

[betazed]

Suffices to say that if the US authorities have taken to somewhere else practices they can't do in their own country because if so they would violate the law, they are in breech of their morality, no matter if a gap in the manner law in the US is written in the US prevents a breech in legality.

I don't think the argument that just because G-bay would not be practical on US soil because of US laws, means that it is wrong. Don't get me wrong, G-bay is wrong for any number of reasons, but IMO not this.

This logic essentially says that US is obligated to treat everyone according to US laws everywhere. If that is the case then the people who want to come under (and be treated with all the advantages of) US laws are also obligated to come under a US system (you can't have the advantages and the rights of the laws without the responsibilities of the system). Taken that logic to its limit would mean that US is entirely correct in imposing its system (democracy and all) on whoever wants to be treated with US laws. Now we know where we can take that line of reasoning to. A justified pax-Americana. You sure you want that?

Edit: This post also answers Masquerouge's question below.

 

[Masquerouge]

So the USG and USC must obey all US laws, no matter where they go in the world? No exceptions?

American tourists, driving on the right side of the road, will play havoc in London then.

That's not the question and you know it. What we're asking you is, since the US government apparently feel so confortable about Guantanamo, why not put it on US soil? Could it be because thanks to the power and dedication of the US justice system, IT WOULD NOT LAST 5 SECONDS ON US SOIL?
So why not adapt the US constitution to allow such things as Guantanamo on US soil?

 

[Mr. Do]

This logic essentially says that US is obligated to treat everyone according to US laws everywhere.

The appropriate logic extension is that all countries are obliged to treat people in their custody in accordance with the same laws in which they would treat them in their own country. I'd expect that kind of mistake from Elrohir who seeks to justify the existence of the camp at all costs (See the hilarious traffic law analogy he makes- it's priceless! ), but how on earth did you miss the distinction I've added in bold?

 

[FredLC]

Don't sound to condescending. I know enough Latin to read that; and as I said, I don't have a problem with trials for most prisoners at Guantanamo. Did you not read that portion of my earlier post?

I honestly apologize, even though I was trying to sound ironic...

(the fact that you said you are not a legal expert, but your father is a judge, and that your knowledge of legal issues - and possibly terms - come from him, as you said in your las post)

...rather than condescending.

I did read that part of your post. well, so, are you willing to let them free until the US is prepared to give them such trial, as "in dubio pro reo" demands?

And members of other nations should not attack US troops or civilians. If they didn't do that, we wouldn't have a problem. The US is merely defending itself by apprehending these people. Would you prefer we simply shot them in the head on the battlefield, and left them? Would that be more acceptable to you?

Certainly, members of other nations should not attack US citzens or troops. This goes both ways.

And by all means, fire at will in self defense. Kill as many as needed to prevvent the loss of life in a shootout. I don't ask you people not to fight for your lifes, what would be insane.

Stop at once when opposition surrenders. I don't approve summary executions.

Whoever you capture, you shall trial or set free.

This procedure quite reasonable to me.

So the USG and USC must obey all US laws, no matter where they go in the world? No exceptions?

American tourists, driving on the right side of the road, will play havoc in London then.

As far as irony goes, you are missing something here.

When US goes to an area that is under foreigner administrative control, your citzens and forces must obey the laws of the foreingner lad; when in foreigner areas under US administrative control - military bases, embassys, international waters - you should obey US laws.

Now without irony, ask your father about the doctrines of personal institute and land institute of public international law. savigny and Hans Kelsen are the names to study in that field.

They are not ignoring the ones that they have to - basic human rights - but they are ignoring the ones they don't have to. If they were torturing them at Guantanamo, I would feel differently. But locking them up in what is a relatively (Compared to most US prisons) a cushy prison doesn't fit under my definition of torture. Even holding them without trial wouldn't count.

Why do you think depriving people of freedom withou a chance to defend themselves before a court of law is something good, or acceptable, is something I'll never understand. There is no human rights that is okay to ignore, the way I see things, elrohir. None at all.

Considering the historical revisionism that seems to be so popular these days, and will likely continue to be in the future, I imagine you're right. I only hope enough people in the future remember the truth, so that it can be known even then that the US did not break any laws in holding prisoners at Guantanamo Bay.

What revision? It's not like these days everybody thing guantanamo is fine and dandy, and in te future people will have to alter what is happening in order to dennounce it.

Prisions without trial are enough to classify Guantanamo as a disgrace, no matter evcen if there is no torure and people there are are given cells of gold and filet mignon with champaigne in every meal.

The US is breaking laws in Guantanamo. There is no way around it. You said it yourself, they are ignoring "the rights it can", though I don't know in what you base the distinction. And pleade do search, and read, the universal declaration of human rights, which I have already mentioned, and try to find a way around the classification of these people as biological human beings, what would take to put them beyond the provisions of that document.

regards .

 

[FredLC]

I don't think the argument that just because G-bay would not be practical on US soil because of US laws, means that it is wrong. Don't get me wrong, G-bay is wrong for any number of reasons, but IMO not this.

This logic essentially says that US is obligated to treat everyone according to US laws everywhere. If that is the case then the people who want to come under (and be treated with all the advantages of) US laws are also obligated to come under a US system (you can't have the advantages and the rights of the laws without the responsibilities of the system). Taken that logic to its limit would mean that US is entirely correct in imposing its system (democracy and all) on whoever wants to be treated with US laws. Now we know where we can take that line of reasoning to. A justified pax-Americana. You sure you want that?

Edit: This post also answers Masquerouge's question below.

Read my post to elhorir, and see that whenever someone is under a US adinistered area, than he/she has the duty to observe US laws, and US has the prerrogative of applying it's penalties, under the scope of such laws.

Indeed, International institutes is the issue in here.

 

[warpus]

Anyway - The EU doesn't get to call the shots for the US. I, and more importantly, the President and SecDef don't care what they think. Guantanamo will be closed when we decide, not when the EU does.

Of course you'll close down the prison whenever you see fit, but not listening to your friends and not even caring what they think is a bad move.

Listen to your friends, they might help you in this 'war on terror' from time to time.

We couldn't hold them indefinitely under US law. So we hold them elsewhere. It doesn't mean we're branding their feet with hot irons, or anything similarly disgusting.

So what good is U.S. law if you're not willing to live by it?