Guantanamo inmates and the EU

[Winner]

I keep hearing the US wants Europe to accept some of the inmates currently held at Guantanamo.

Can somebody tell me why? I mean, the US locked them there, kept them there and now you can't place few hundred people somewhere? Is the US too crowded or something? Why should Europe take care of US ex-prisoners who might very well be dangerous jihadists, I don't get it at all.

Anyone?

 

[GoodGame]

Sounds like a political stunt. No clue why. The closing of GTMO sounds like a stunt too, since the US is still reviewing what to do with them for like 120 days. And it sounds like the CIA will be allowed to go ship them overseas for some more 'treatment' anyways. No clue what's going on other than maybe to shift culpability.

 

[Gigaz]

Because we'd be hypocrites if one the one hand we'd demand them to close their concentration camp and on the other hand we don't want the inmates. If the prisoner has citizenship in the EU he can't be refused.

Of corse, after all its their problem. Only when inmates have serious ties to europe the option should be considered.

 

[Mowque]

Our local politician (Murtha, D for Pennsylvania ) is TRYING to get the prisoners moved here. And we want them. It will mean jobs, federal spending and all kinds of good things. Prisons can be good for business. I haven't heard anything about moving them to the EU...?

 

[Winner]

Because we'd be hypocrites if one the one hand we'd demand them to close their concentration camp

First, it's not a concentration camp and any allusion to Nazi camps is entirely unfounded.

and on the other hand we don't want the inmates. If the prisoner has citizenship in the EU he can't be refused.

How many of them have it? I guess we're talking about individuals, while the US wants that Europe gives asylum to dozens, perhaps hundreds. I am sking why - why should Europe be obliged to take care of American mess - again? Americans can place these people in the continental US, what are they so scared of?

Of corse, after all its their problem. Only when inmates have serious ties to europe the option should be considered.

Agreed.

 

[Formaldehyde]

I keep hearing the US wants Europe to accept some of the inmates currently held at Guantanamo.

Can somebody tell me why? I mean, the US locked them there, kept them there and now you can't place few hundred people somewhere? Is the US too crowded or something? Why should Europe take care of US ex-prisoners who might very well be dangerous jihadists, I don't get it at all.

Anyone?

First, it doesn't sound like it is the idea of the US as you implied:

France has drafted a plan for EU nations to take in 60 of 245 detainees remaining at the United States' Guantanamo Bay prison camp on Cuba, German news weekly Der Spiegel reported on Saturday, Jan. 24.

Second, they are all captives who were already slated for release because they are not dangerous:

EU nations are divided about whether to admit the detainees, described by US authorities as not dangerous. Portugal and France appear willing while Sweden and the Netherlands have said no.

 

[Formaldehyde]

First, it's not a concentration camp and any allusion to Nazi camps is entirely unfounded..

Technically, you are correct. It isn't a concentration camp because it supposedly didn't intern non-combatants:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentration_camp#Concentration_camps

However, it is not necessarily an allusion to Nazi concentration camps since many such camps existed in both Germany and the US during WWII. And the Vatican even likened the Gaza Strip to a concentration camp.

I have question for you. How do you feel about ex-cons who were actually innocent of committing any crime, but were actually political prisoners? NIMBY?

 

[ArneHD]

Erh, this thread made me search for "European Union" on Youtube. I will not make that mistake again.

Anyway, why not? If France and Portugal really want to take some, why shouldn't they?

 

[Winner]

First, it doesn't sound like it is the idea of the US as you implied:

Uhm, I understand this is just a French response to the US pressure, which has been there for some time now. I believe this was American idea, not European, to move the prisoners to Europe.

Second, they are all captives who were already slated for release because they are not dangerous:

So, they are set to be released because some illegitimate ad hoc US military tribunal couldn't find/extract enough evidence that they actually committed terrorist acts, is that correct?

That no way a proof they're not dangerous. If there wasn't a suspicion, there wouldn't be moved to Guantanamo, right?

I still don't understand why the US won't either move them to prisons in US mainland or grant them asylum if they're so innocent. It's kind of moral obligation, isn't it? Why should European countries take care of them - they have never agreed with Guantanamo so they share no responsibility.

 

[Winner]

Erh, this thread made me search for "European Union" on Youtube. I will not make that mistake again.

Anyway, why not? If France and Portugal really want to take some, why shouldn't they?

Any good finds to share?

 

[Formaldehyde]

Uhm, I understand this is just a French response to the US pressure, which has been there for some time now. I believe this was American idea, not European, to move the prisoners to Europe.

Well, since it involves only 64 of the 245 completely innocent political prisoners scheduled for release, it's hardly "moving the prisoners to Europe", regardless of whose idea it may have been. I would suspect that they were originally kidnapped from European locations with the complete knowledge of the local government, so why shouldn't they eventually be able to return to Europe and their families?

So, they are set to be released because some illegitimate ad hoc US military tribunal couldn't find/extract enough evidence that they actually committed terrorist acts, is that correct?

No, they are scheduled for release because they have been found to be completely innocent of any illegal activity. Now you could certainly argue that after being tortured and held captive for 3-5 years turned some of them into vengeful terrorists who would likely try to prey on those who did it him, now that's a different story. But I'd see it as poetic justice. Wouldn't you?

 

[ArneHD]

Any good finds to share?

Not really, since there were only three videos: Eu vs. USA, EU ROXORS!!11! and "EU is the antichrist". Sure you get a fair number of actual hits, but you might as well replace them with these.

 

[Labtec600]

Whats the big deal? If they're innocent as they're supposed to be and you want them out, why can they come and live in your country?

I remember hearing about this a while ago, Australia was refusing to allow them into their country. I got quite the kick out of it.

"Let these poor innocent people go! Facist America is holding these people wron-....whoa whoa whoa....come over into our country, hell no! We dont want these people living in our country!"

 

[warpus]

Uhm, I understand this is just a French response to the US pressure, which has been there for some time now. I believe this was American idea, not European, to move the prisoners to Europe.

[citation needed]

So far all the information provided in this thread indicates that it is a European initiative.

 

[scherbchen]

heh, tough one. on the one hand "Europe" (inverted commas because we are not a homogenous mass, some have been part of the coalition of the unwilling after all. Freedom Fries for everybody!) would love to score bonus points for a) getting prisoners out of torture and all that habeas corpus thing b) getting the new POTUS indebted to them c) receive compensation for getting them off US hands and if we are gracious d) to keep them off American soil (retaliation, rescue, etc).

on the other hand it will be a very hard sell. though I should think that those 60-something would be very clear-cut cases. still, not a very PR-efficient move in my book if you are a government seeking re-election. then again I am a European Liberal.

 

[Roller123]

Is the US too crowded or something?

The US has the highest number of imprisoned people in the world. More than in China, more than Stalin sent to work during the purges. Also funny is that China has 4 times more people, but still way less prisoners.

 

[Sofista]

I ca't pretend to be an expert in legal matters, but: wouldn't handing the prisoners to us (the EU) be tantamount to admitting there was no reason for them being in any prison at all?

 

[scherbchen]

oh we are getting all political about it? let me find an American flag to burn (which I actually would do in this regard, just thought it was actually a question regarding practicality and legality).

 

[emzie]

Our local politician (Murtha, D for Pennsylvania ) is TRYING to get the prisoners moved here. And we want them. It will mean jobs, federal spending and all kinds of good things. Prisons can be good for business. I haven't heard anything about moving them to the EU...?

When your voting population consists of soccer moms who are afraid to let their kids ride in a friggin large sedan, that's not a very politically viable option. No matter how unfounded a fear is, a scared voter isn't something a politician wants.

Put the prison camp on Guam or Wake Island or something. Unless that goes back to the "not American soil!!!!111" argument... in which case, how about the Nevada desert or an equally-isolated area.

So, they are set to be released because some illegitimate ad hoc US military tribunal couldn't find/extract enough evidence that they actually committed terrorist acts, is that correct?

That no way a proof they're not dangerous. If there wasn't a suspicion, there wouldn't be moved to Guantanamo, right?

They wouldn't be there if someone didn't suspect they were dangerous.

Wasn't that a line used in communist bloc countries?

They wouldn't've arrested him if he wasn't guilty.

I still don't understand why the US won't either move them to prisons in US mainland or grant them asylum if they're so innocent. It's kind of moral obligation, isn't it? Why should European countries take care of them - they have never agreed with Guantanamo so they share no responsibility.

Why should the US move people cleared of wrong doing to American prisons? As to the asylum... well yeah, America kinda owes them asylum, an education and a big fat cheque... or a plane ticket home if they so choose.

 

[carmen510]

I think that some of the convicts with insufficient evidence or little guilt are being sent back to the EU because they are citizens, not exactly sure though.