UK to take in Gitmo detainees....

[oldsoak]

- according to this link
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article5426064.ece

- Brown is a n*sher of the first water.

[Afro-European]

Britain is preparing to receive foreign terror suspects from Guantánamo Bay so that Barack Obama can shut it down, The Times has learnt.
Government sources say that Britain now supports moves to rehouse the detainees, despite previous refusals to help President Bush.
A Downing Street official said that a process to deal with the detainees was being put in place and that decisions “would be for the Home Secretary to decide on a case-by-case basis”.
The issue is the subject of intense negotiations within Whitehall. The Foreign Office appears much keener on the idea than other departments, which will have to deal with the suspects’ immigration status and whether they will need special housing and cash benefits. Having foreign terror suspects with no links to the UK housed here inevitably will provoke controversy.
“Of course the Foreign Office wants to do it, they want to get off to a good start with Obama,” said a Whitehall source. “This is the sort of thing that will require a Cabinet-level decision.”
Britain accepts that the prison should be closed, according to a diplomatic source, and that the US is going to need help to close it. The Government is supporting a call from Portugal for EU members to resettle detainees. The letter from the Foreign Minister Luis Amado to his EU counterparts follows weeks of internal EU discussions. Germany has said that it is considering taking in detainees. Mr Amado plans to raise the issue at a meeting of EU foreign ministers this month. It is also on the agenda at an EU General Affairs and External Relations Council meeting.
Late last year the Bush Administration sent a number of European allies, including Britain, a list of detainees, cleared for release by the US military, who face persecution in their home countries. The US State Department cabled about 100 countries for help in closing the jail.
The entreaties were met largely with refusals, but there is a desire to help Mr Obama, who has vowed to begin moves to close the prison as soon as he takes office this month. The President-elect has not made any formal request for help, but there have been talks between the US State Department and his transition team and he has made clear that he will exert pressure on Europe to take prisoners no longer deemed a threat.
The US military says that of the 248 prisoners still in Guantánamo Bay, “approximately 60” have been cleared for release. One move being discussed in Washington is for the US to take in 17 Chinese Uighurs, who cannot return to China, as an opening gesture. Mr Obama’s plan is for the most dangerous detainees – between 30 and 80 men – to be taken to the US for formal trials. This presents problems, however, as evidence against inmates such as Khaled Sheikh Mohammed, the self-confessed mastermind of the September 11 attacks, was obtained through duress.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article5426064.ece

Great Britain's becoming a dumping ground for all the [bleep] in the world.
Why should these guys get governement benefits?

[Oneto15]

Tell me you're joking. We have enough of our own nutters here, we don't need any bugger else's. :cantbeli:

[Sweetwater]

they should be shot

[timetraveller]

Does Brown actuall realise the implications of this , Our jail are way over crowded , and where are you going to put them ???

[Afro-European]

Tell me you're joking. We have enough of our own nutters here, we don't need any bugger else's. :cantbeli:
Not i'm not joking.These guys will get immigration status and will be getting paid by your government in benefits.

[Weasel]

they should be shot

For not being proven guilty?

[Oneto15]

Not i'm not joking.These guys will get immigration status and will be getting paid by your government in benefits.

If these bastards turn up here, jailed or otherwise we'll end up being stuck with the sods. The next thing you know is they'll be using our own liberal justice system against us claiming they can't be repatriated because they might be in a spot of bother in their own countries and how unfair life has treated them etc, etc, etc.

I am fully supportive of the GWOT but the USA imprisoned these people and took years to decide they had no charges to answer, so the USA should either repatriate them or give 'em all green cards so they can all live full and useful lives in the Land Of The Free and not expect the rest of us to sort out their mess.


Regards Oneto15.

[Military-G]

Does Brown actuall realise the implications of this , Our jail are way over crowded , and where are you going to put them ???

Dont worry .. he will give them early release for good behaviour and they will probablly get houses and a cushty job "they spent 2 months in our prisons and didnt kill anyone so they deserve a second chance" lol .. fkn pathetic.

[LordKitchener]

This is ****ing disgraceful. Our prisons are already full and the British taxpayer will pick up the bill to keep these animals alive. Why should they enjoy the protection our human rights laws when human rights are so alien to them?

Is this really a PC/human rights bull**** issue or is there some way that the UK gains from having these people in custody? Maybe some of the Gitmo prisoners are influential hajis who the West would rather have in their custody than send back to their homes. I doubt it but maybe there is element of this.




For example, the US said a group of Muslim Uighurs from western China's Xinjiang province could be freed. But the only country willing to take them is China, where the men fear they could face persecution as dissidents.


This is an excerpt from a BBC article. These ****ers MUST be sent back to China and if the Chinese government executes them, so be it.

[boet faas]

This is ****ing disgraceful. Our prisons are already full and the British taxpayer will pick up the bill to keep these animals alive. Why should they enjoy the protection our human rights laws when human rights are so alien to them?

Is this really a PC/human rights bull**** issue or is there some way that the UK gains from having these people in custody? Maybe some of the Gitmo prisoners are influential hajis who the West would rather have in their custody than send back to their homes. I doubt it but maybe there is element of this.



This is an excerpt from a BBC article. These ****ers MUST be sent back to China and if the Chinese government executes them, so be it.

For once I have to agree with you. For some time now I have been observing the influx of foreigners into Europe and especially Britain. Pakistanis, Indians etc etc. England will, and mark my words, Will one day face extraordinary internal unrest and uncontrollable crime. These people want the freedom a democracy provides but almost always end up going back to their tribal roots and use the democratic freedom to stage social and political unrest. That is just the way they are.

[SkyUS]

Any word whether other European countries accepted any? I know that Germany and Poland was a possibility. I think that Poland declined, thankfully, but I don't know anything else besides that.

I feel sorry for you fellas.

[GazB]

If they are all so clearly guilty why doesn't America move them to American prisons and try them in a court of law in the US?

BTW transfering prisoners that can't be held in one country to another country for the purposes of keeping them in jail is actually Illegal. Otherwise everyone could send their prisoners being held on drugs charges to Bangkok.

[kc135cc]

Because of the circumstances in which information has been gathered from these prisoners.. They cannot be lawfully tried in the US court system, at least not with the results that would be satisfactory. Most of the confessions and implicating material was gathered using illegal means, and or under duress.

You can thank the poor decision making on the part of the out-going admin..
They might have thought they were getting justice, but they have screwed any chance of "Real" trials.:cantbeli:

[LineDoggie]

Dont Accept them, Screw Obama, he's in the big boys league now. I can only see this is they were British Citizens in the first place.

[LineDoggie]

Screw Obama, dont take them unless they were British Citizens to begin with.

He's in the big boys leagues now, you shouldnt have them foisted upon you.

[Bro Jangles]

Does Brown actuall realise the implications of this , Our jail are way over crowded , and where are you going to put them ???
Australia?

[B Inman]

Does Brown actuall realise the implications of this , Our jail are way over crowded , and where are you going to put them ???


Rockall


http://www.therockalltimes.co.uk/rockall/picture-gallery.html

[longmarch]

These ****ers MUST be sent back to China and if the Chinese government executes them, so be it.

These same bunch of people are called freedom-fighters when they are against China, and they are called terrorists when they are against the west. :)

[LaoSexMachine]

These same bunch of people are called freedom-fighters when they are against China, and they are called terrorists when they are against the west. :)


Who in the west called them Freedom Fighters?

[longmarch]

Who in the west called them Freedom Fighters?

I guess you can recoginze the host of these "freedom fighers".
http://upload.anti-cnn.com/forum/cn/attachments/day_090101/09010115036bb4ae4f6772a382.jpg

[LineDoggie]

I guess you can recoginze the host of these "freedom fighers".
http://upload.anti-cnn.com/forum/cn/attachments/day_090101/09010115036bb4ae4f6772a382.jpg
Your saying they were in GITMO? How raughabeu.........

Epic Fail

[LaoSexMachine]

I guess you can recoginze the host of these "freedom fighers".
http://upload.anti-cnn.com/forum/cn/attachments/day_090101/09010115036bb4ae4f6772a382.jpg

Asinine . LOL. Anti CNN.

[magtach]

And don't forget cheery Blair will use her human rights lawyer training to get them out in 2-3 years,govt will say cant send them back to there own country in case of torture .so they get to rape murder and claim benefits here.:-(
p.s did you know foreign workers get over £ 1000 towards a car.:cantbeli:

[longmarch]

Your saying they were in GITMO? How raughabeu.........

Epic Fail

They don't have to be in GITMO, they are comrades of those in GITMO. Enough?

If you put a frozen snake on your chest, that is fine, but don't complain when the snake wakes up and bites you.

[LaoSexMachine]

They don't have to be in GITMO, they are comrades of those in GITMO. Enough?

If you put a frozen snake on your chest, that is fine, but don't complain when the snake wakes up and bites you.


How do you know they were?

[longmarch]

How do you know they were?

No clue? Asinine . LOL

[LaoSexMachine]

No clue? Asinine . LOL

And you have info they were?

[longmarch]

I would rather fight a wise man than talk to a moron. Enough said?

[LaoSexMachine]

I would rather fight a wise man than talk to a moron. Enough said?


That's how I feel about Chicom bots who don't provide proof to back up their claims.

[longmarch]

Assmerican's only response to evidence is Asinine.

[LaoSexMachine]

Assmerican's only response to evidence is Asinine.

rofl .

[Dr_ColoSSus]

Australia?

Apparently our government wants to settle some of the ****ers as well. Have no idea why they would agree to something like this. There is certainly no benifet to our country. Even though these people have not been convicted of a crime, they awere taken prisoner in Afghanistan, fighting alongside our enemies and trying to kill our and our allies soldiers.

[GazB]

Even though these people have not been convicted of a crime, they awere taken prisoner in Afghanistan, fighting alongside our enemies and trying to kill our and our allies soldiers.
The irony is that they were fighting against your enemies alongside your allies till America swapped sides.
They were fighting for the Taliban, against the Northern Alliance. The Northern Alliance was supported by the Russians so the wests sympathy basically lay with the Taleban despite their beliefs/methods, which while extreme are basically the same as in Saudi Arabia and Kuwaite.

For many their crime was not changing sides quickly enough, or someone mentioning their name under torture. No wonder they don't want to try them in an open court.

[One?]

The Northern Alliance was supported by the Russians so the wests sympathy basically lay with the Taleban despite their beliefs/methods, which while extreme are basically the same as in Saudi Arabia and Kuwaite.



ummm do you lack historical knowledge on the afghan-russian war ? Up until the taliban took control of afghanistan there was no "Northern Alliance".

[GazB]

ummm do you lack historical knowledge on the afghan-russian war ? Up until the taliban took control of afghanistan there was no "Northern Alliance".

People talk about what the Russians did during the cold war, yet they mean the Soviets.
The group called the northern alliance didn't exist before they were forced together to fight the Taleban but the people who belong to Northern Alliance didn't just appear out of nowhere. They were more moderate afghans forced to fight together against a mutual enemy. They were supported by the Russians during the 90s. They were not seen as allies of the west till the Taliban became persona non grata because of their customs regarding guests.

[Dr_ColoSSus]

The irony is that they were fighting against your enemies alongside your allies till America swapped sides.What are you talking about? The Soviet invasion? The US supplied the mujahadeen with weapons because they were fighting the Soviets, much like the soviets supported north Vietnam, However the US was never allied to the mujahadeen, and the Taliban rose to power after that war. America never changed sides because it was never on anyones side. It was only interested in thwarting the soviets. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.


the wests sympathy basically lay with the TalebanI would disagree with this statement, I have never read anything to suggest this is the case. (sources?)

However the West didn't care enough to support either side in afghanistan, until the after the September 11 attacks.



For many their crime was not changing sides quickly enough, or someone mentioning their name under torture. No wonder they don't want to try them in an open court. So your saying that they were just at the wrong place at the wrong time? Still I would say that there guilt or innocence is irrelevant. They do not deserve to settle in our country, especially since many of them took up arms against our soldiers. We have no way of knowing that they wouldn't ever try to commit an act of terror on our soil. In my opinion this an absolutely outrageous idea, especially since these prisoners were not held by our government. The US cant try them for anything they should just put them back where they found them. And if something bad happens to them then so be it.

[LineDoggie]

I would rather fight a wise man than talk to a moron. Enough said?
Must be very silent in your house..............

[GazB]

The US supplied the mujahadeen with weapons because they were fighting the Soviets, much like the soviets supported north Vietnam,

US support for the Muj was nothing like the Soviet support for North Vietnam.
Soviet support for Vietnam was ideologically driven. Of course if the Soviets had ignored them trying to get rid of the french the Americans might also have ignored the calls for help from south vietnam.

US support in Afghanistan was all channeled through the Pakistani secret service. The money was American but the control was by a group that probably has closer ties with Al quada than any other group on the planet.

The excellent mobility of the Taleban and the communications they used and the cash they had to bribe those they couldn't defeat in a fight didn't fall from the sky. Most came from Saudi Arabia, but the Pakistanis also supported them with the reduced budget they had.
I agree that when the Soviets withdrew the US largely lost interest. But if push came to shove and the US had to send American troops into Afghanistan in the years before 11/9 they would have sent them to aide the taleban rather than the NA. They had no reason to change stooges in this proxy war. The catalyst was 11/9 to change sides.


The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Which made the Taleban Americas friend till it bit the hand that could have fed.


I would disagree with this statement, I have never read anything to suggest this is the case. (sources?)

My sources is Soldier of Fortune magazine during the 90s. The Taleban were basically treated as the good guys with the Northern Alliance being treated as suspect.
Not surprising, from half a world away it is not easy to pick the good guy from bad. Especially with the tried and true method of the US. Look at the war in Georgia in August. Saakashvili is opposing the Russians therefore he must be the good guy. It also helps if there is a pipeline involved and if the Taleban had completed their conquest they would then be in a position to pipe oil bypassing Russia down from the former Soviet 'stan oil rich nations through afghanistan to Pakistan to the Indian ocean.


The US cant try them for anything they should just put them back where they found them. And if something bad happens to them then so be it.

I totally agree. They have likely fingerprinted them to death so if they try to come back to the west we should be able to spot them.
The reality is that each western country supports the other in dealing with trash. Those two 10 year old boys that killed James Bolger in 1992 will not still be in prison and I would suggest they haven't been in Britain for some time... where do you think they got sent to?

[DaveDash]

FFS GazB.

Is there a single damn thread on this forum that you can't taint with your Russia Strong!!! West Bad!!! BS.

Im over it already.

We're not talking about the Soviets, or Russia, or anything remotely close to that. We're talking about the U.S. transferring Gitmo prisoners to The U.K. ffs.

[SBL]

Those two 10 year old boys that killed James Bolger in 1992 will not still be in prison and I would suggest they haven't been in Britain for some time... where do you think they got sent to?
Are you seriously suggesting they were sent to Gitmo?

[GazB]

Is there a single damn thread on this forum that you can't taint with your Russia Strong!!! West Bad!!! BS.Please quote for any of my posts on this thread where I said the west is bad, or that Russia is good?
I have just stated what happened and put no moral twist on it at all... in either direction.
From what we know many of those a Gitmo were from Afghanistan and were not classed as enemy combatants because they were not fighting for a state.
Some were children. A percentage were simply guilty of being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Now I could easily have gone on a tirade about them not actually being charged with anything yet so to all intents and purposes they are all kidnap victims. therefore the US is evil. I could also have mentioned that US law is clear, its constitution does not give people rights it merely recognises that they exist. From that one could say that everyone has those rights whether they are American citizens or not. If that is the case then there is more evil to point the finger at at the US, but I didn't bother mentioning it because it was not relevant.
It is the west that gets all moral about such things, human rights is always part of the speech when visiting China or Russia.
The reality is that this thread is about moving political potatoes, which is something that has always been done between allies of all sorts and before that it was standard practise to send the problems out of sight to the colonies.


Are you seriously suggesting they were sent to Gitmo?No. Based on Dr Collossus's location I assumed he was Australian... a fellow colonial. My guess is those little shts were bundled off to the colonies... NZ, Australia, possibly even Canada.

[chooky]

The British Labor Party , just like the Australian Labor Party, used the immigration system to stack their electorates with anti-western muslims.
Now the tail is wagging the dog.
Both these Labor parties will take in these scumbags to appease their Muslim electorates as much as to appease Obama.
Also notice they both donated millions to Gaza(ie Hamas)within 24 hours of each other.

[GazB]

The way they say ready to take in Gitmo prisoners suggests to me they want to take them as prisoners, but that doesn't make sense to me.

If they can't go to America because the evidence was not collected through due process then how can they be sent to any other country with a decent human rights record?

If they just wanted to get rid of them so they could close the base they could simply deport them to the country they were captured in. As that is Afghanistan they could have a word to the Afghans to nab them as they arrive and stick them in an Afghan prison with no problems of civil rights or guilt.

[digrar]

- according to this link
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article5426064.ece

- Brown is a n*sher of the first water.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,24846532-5007133,00.html

Our lefty commo ****bag is looking at taking them too.

[LazerLordz]

Send the buggers back to their nation of origin.

[grendel]

The federal government says it is unlikely to allow any Guantanamo Bay detainees to resettle in Australia.

Acting Prime Minister Julia Gillard on Friday confirmed Australia and other nations were asked last month to consider resettling detainees from the controversial US military prison.

Ms Gillard revealed it was not the first time the Bush administration had made such a request.

"The Bush administration first approached Australia in early 2008 with a request to resettle a small group of detainees from Guantanamo in Australia," Ms Gillard said in a statement.

"After appropriate consideration, Australia declined to allow resettlement of that small group in Australia."

But as a close ally of the US, the government was considering the second request, she said.

"Notwithstanding that it is unlikely Australia would accept these detainees, given the fact that the Bush administration has formally approached Australia with this request, the request demands proper consideration."

The second request comes as incoming US president Barack Obama plans to shut the prison, located at a US sovereign naval base in Cuba, within two years.

The US has cleared about 60 Guantanamo Bay detainees for release, but they cannot be returned to their home nations due to security concerns.

Earlier on Friday, Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull called on Prime Minister Kevin Rudd to resist the US request.

Mr Turnbull said if Australia accepted the inmates, they could not be taken into custody because they had not committed any crime under Australian law, and would therefore enter the community as migrants.

"And that is completely and utterly unacceptable to the Australian people and it's certainly unacceptable to the coalition," he told Macquarie Radio.

The Times of London reported on Thursday that Britain was preparing to take detainees to allow Obama's government to shut the prison.



http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/latest/5233761/govt-unlikely-accept-exgitmo-inmates/

Remains to be seen if the Aussie govt will indeed reject them.
If they were sane when they first went in, I bet these are now West-hating mental cases.

[oldsoak]

Dont normally ask much of the Aussies, but FFS say NO.
Frankly, in this instance I find the US government has a neck like a jockey's b*llocks. They arrested them and we now have to feed, clothe house etc theses effers. Eff that and the horse it rode in on ! :bash:

[grendel]

Australia has refused a request from the United States to take Guantanamo Bay inmates.

Acting Prime Minister Julia Gillard says the federal government had advised the US that Australia would not resettle inmates being held at Guantanamo Bay as terror suspects.

It was the second request made to Australia, along with a number of other countries, to take some of the detainees, around 60 of whom cannot be repatriated in their home countries.

Australia had declined both requests, Ms Gillard said.

"Early in 2008, we received a request from the US government to consider resettlement of a group of detainees," Ms Gillard told reporters in Melbourne on Saturday.

"That request was denied by the Australian government.

"In December 2008, we received a second request.

"We have considered that request and last night Australian time, Friday US time, we advised the US government that we would not be agreeing to those resettlement requests.

"Those resettlement requests were considered on a case by case basis against Australia's stringent national security and immigration criteria.

"Assessing those requests on a case by case basis (they) have not met those stringent national security and immigration criteria and have been rejected.

"(As) for the future, we will consider any future requests on a case by case basis against these stringent criteria for both national security and immigration."

She said both requests had been made by the administration of George W Bush, not of president-elect Barack Obama .

The federal opposition welcomed the government's decision.

Opposition legal affairs spokesman George Brandis said the request should never have been considered.

"We are speaking about people, terrorism suspects captured on the field of battle detained in Guantanamo Bay who are among the most dangerous people among the world," Senator Brandis told reporters in Brisbane on Saturday.

"If the American government were uncomfortable with those people being resettled in the United States under what possible set of circumstances would it be proper for the Australian government to consider settling those people in Australia?"

Senator Brandis condemned former Liberal prime minister Malcolm Fraser for saying it would be acceptable to take some of the detainees who had been assessed as innocent of any terrorist crime.

"I think the best counsel for former prime ministers is to maintain a dignified silence and I think very little of Malcolm Fraser's remarks on the matter," Senator Brandis said.

"This is a backdown by the Australian government on a position it held as early as yesterday when it indicated that the initial request would be considered on a case by case basis.

"It's a backdown the opposition welcomes."

About 250 detainees remain at Guantanamo Bay, including 16 so-called "high value detainees", such as Khalid Shaikh Mohammed the mastermind behind the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks against the US, and Hambali, thought to have been behind the Bali bombings in 2002.


http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/latest/5242302/australia-guantanamo-inmates/

Thank **** for that!

Why didn't the US ask other Muslim countries to take these filth in the first place, I wonder?

[LineDoggie]

http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/latest/5242302/australia-guantanamo-inmates/

Thank **** for that!

Why didn't the US ask other Muslim countries to take these filth in the first place, I wonder?
Damn glad they said no

[egg taco]

Tell me you're joking. We have enough of our own nutters here, we don't need any bugger else's. :cantbeli:

BBC was in the foreground beatin' us up for keepin' em'. Welcome to the club. Pay for your "tolerance" along w/the rest of us.

[Walter Sobchak]

BBC was in the foreground beatin' us up for keepin' em'. Welcome to the club. Pay for your "tolerance" along w/the rest of us.

If we'd just given to the Northern Alliance boys on day one, they would have never been our problem.

I'll make a prediction right now. No matter where they get sent, they won't be treated as good as they were at GITMO. And, they will whine about it!

[Oneto15]

BBC was in the foreground beatin' us up for keepin' em'. Welcome to the club. Pay for your "tolerance" along w/the rest of us.


Don't lump me in with those liberal tossers at the BBC!. The BBC is not a representative organ of the British people, nor of the British Gov't. It is however, editorially independent and if not always successful at least attempts to air both sides of any story, which is more than can be said for some of their US colleagues.

If Obama wants shut of Gitmo then either transfer the prisoners to federal custody on CONUS (Oh, hang on, you can't 'cause they haven't been charged as both US Intelligence & the FBI are somewhat short of evidence), send them back home or, If the US Gov't is concerned for the detainees wellbeing if they're repatriated; apologise for their illegal detention and let 'em stay in the US.

Bottom line... they're a US problem, so the US can sort out their own mess.


Regards Oneto15.

[oldsoak]

BBC was in the foreground beatin' us up for keepin' em'. Welcome to the club. Pay for your "tolerance" along w/the rest of us.

Wowowowowo....if you think most of us had any sympathies with Gitmo detainees, you are mistaken. Lots of us reckoned it was a bad idea on account of not being able to wash your hands of them later or hand them back to the Afghans. It was a can of worms that we could see being opened. Thats why we dont see why we should have them - well, everyone except this government.

[Mackie]

Hope they become social workers.
British teens FTW
http://www.satanspace.com/m_pictures/knife-girl.jpg

[Atlantic Friend]

BBC was in the foreground beatin' us up for keepin' em'. Welcome to the club. Pay for your "tolerance" along w/the rest of us.

Also know as the "We f***d up, so it's someone else's duty to take care of our mess" exit strategy.

But well, there shouldn't be any problem, for the detainees are detained for solid reasons that can withstand scrutiny from European Justice Ministries, aren't they ? p-)

[LineDoggie]

Also know as the "We f***d up, so it's someone else's duty to take care of our mess" exit strategy.

But well, there shouldn't be any problem, for the detainees are detained for solid reasons that can withstand scrutiny from European Justice Ministries, aren't they ? p-)

Of Course, they were all just out Airsofting when apprehended, this has all been a big misunderstanding.

Those werent riots in Paris, Cigarette Lighters in the Automobiles were defective, and the Youths were just all exhuberantly leaving the area during the firesp-)

[GazB]

I really don't understand what the problem is.

The US has plenty of dubious new allies in new Europe happy to cooperate in Rendition flights. If they accept aiding the US in torture and other similar practises then there should be no problem sending them there to evade US laws that might actually recognise these people as human.

A great accusation, terror suspect. It means guilty. I guess the Chinese and Soviets have a perfectly clean human rights record now, they can simply revise their history records and clearly put that all those that Stalin and Mao killed or interred were suspected terrorists and everything is fine.

[oldsoak]

New Zealand ?

[Jobu]

After a year you won't be able to tell them from any other Liverpool fan.

[timetraveller]

Dont normally ask much of the Aussies, but FFS say NO.
Frankly, in this instance I find the US government has a neck like a jockey's b*llocks. They arrested them and we now have to feed, clothe house etc theses effers. Eff that and the horse it rode in on ! :bash:


Sad thing is The Media within the UK aren't making much of an issue about this nethier is any of the Other Parties ..

Surely we the Tax Payer must have say !

[oldsoak]

Sad thing is The Media within the UK aren't making much of an issue about this nethier is any of the Other Parties ..

Surely we the Tax Payer must have say !

Which begs the question why. Were I David Cameron, this would be a gift on a plate with champagne thrown in. WTF is he or the other nobs ?

[Atlantic Friend]

Of Course, they were all just out Airsofting when apprehended, this has all been a big misunderstanding.

LD, it basically comes down to that :

Either these individuals ARE terrorists who NEED to be jailed in special facilities, meaning they did more than firing an Ak-47 at Coalitions forces. But then...why hand them to anyone ? Why can't they be charged, investigated, put on trial ? Last time I checked terrorists were investigated in every other country using such strange things as the Penal Code and law-enforcement techniques. And oh my God, it seems these DO work.

Or there is no conclusive evidence of anything - and by that I mean nothing that would stand during a normal investigation on grounds of terrorism - and then why can't they be transferred to the Afghan justice, probably the only place where they might face charges ?

You want to go by the logic that their being in Guantanamo is in itself a proof that they are terrorists ? Fine. But what about the many detainees who were released then ? If I follow your sarcastic logic : I guess these WERE simply airsofting, then, and that it WAS a misunderstanding after all ?

Guantanamo was a can of worms. And now the exit strategy is to hand it to someone else.

If the guys in there ARE terrorists against whom a case can be brought to court, I don't think there'd be much trouble in transferring them to any western country. What sense it does make to move them from point A to point B, and how exactly they can't be jailed in the US, but could be in Europe you'll have to explain to me, though.

If there's not enough in these guys' file to warrant detention under the US Code of Justice, then I equally wonder : what's the point in handing them ? So the US Administration doesn't have to release them itself, and doesn't have to mumble something about how it all was a pretty bad idea after all ?


Those werent riots in Paris, Cigarette Lighters in the Automobiles were defective, and the Youths were just all exhuberantly leaving the area during the firesp-)

Exactly what does this has to do with the price of beef in China ?

[Jobu]

Last time I checked terrorists were investigated in every other country using such strange things as the Penal Code and law-enforcement techniques. And oh my God, it seems these DO work.



Actually we tried that in the 1990's. It did not work.

Next suggestion?

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

Which begs the question why. Were I David Cameron, this would be a gift on a plate with champagne thrown in. WTF is he or the other nobs ?Dave will play along with just about anything the US decrees, its all about our special relationship apparently.

[Atlantic Friend]

Actually we tried that in the 1990's. It did not work.

Next suggestion?

It DOES work. Terrorist cells have been investigated all over the world, including Israel, by police forces, leading to arrests, foiling terror attacks, putting terrorists on trial, sending them in prison.

Don't pretend you don't know it, Jobu.

Next rebuttal ?

[oldsoak]

Dave will play along with just about anything the US decrees, its all about our special relationship apparently.

Which makes him no better than Brown IMHO. Even the Lib-Dems are silent. Considering we take trash in from other countries I shouldnt be surptised. Hang on, I'm not surprised, I'm effing angry. Considering the saffies, canucks and anzacs who like us and want to stay and get the kiss-off....:bash:

[Jobu]

It DOES work. Terrorist cells have been investigated all over the world, including Israel, by police forces, leading to arrests, foiling terror attacks, putting terrorists on trial, sending them in prison.

Don't pretend you don't know it, Jobu.

Next rebuttal ?



Did law enforcement prevent 9/11?
Madrid?
London?
The Cole?
Khobar?
Kenya and Tanzania?
etc.

Did Israeli law enforcement prevent the bulldozer attack? The border crossing attack? Merkaz HaRav Yeshiva? The Dimona shopping mall? The bakery in Eilat? The hundreds of other attacks over the past how many years?

Did law enforcement prevent the Mumbai mass murder? The Indian parliament attack?

Did law enforcement prevent the mass murders in Bali? Istanbul, Setiabudi, Casablanca? Beslan? The Australian embassy in Jakarta?

and on, and on, and on.




Is that how you fight terrorism? Do you wait until they fulfill their pledge of war and commit mass murder and then hope to prosecute them as if they were common criminals?

Law enforcement as a way to combat terrorism has been a dismal failure. And it continues to be a failure all around the world. We can't go back to that kind of thinking, it's suicidal.

[LazerLordz]

Why the hell should these detainees be allowed in when most decent young graduate professionals from the Commonwealth can't even qualify for a Tier 1 or Tier 2 visa these days..

[oldsoak]

Why the hell should these detainees be allowed in when most decent young graduate professionals from the Commonwealth can't even qualify for a Tier 1 or Tier 2 visa these days..

Agreed. Take a Singaporean with a first class or even a doctorate from a reputable university. This guy/gal will be definately be clean as far as criminality goes - professional, hard working , good bet as decent citizen etc - and they will have to jump through hoops to get in. Yet we have these guys who have been found in dubious circumstances, really dont like us and we give 'em a free ride. Incredible.

[Atlantic Friend]

Did law enforcement prevent 9/11?
Madrid?
London?
The Cole?
Khobar?
Kenya and Tanzania?
etc.

It's like saying the IDF didn't work because it couldn't prevent the Yom Kippur war or the Intifada, seriously. I suppose the US Navy should have been scrapped for not preventing Pearl Harbour.


Did Israeli law enforcement prevent the bulldozer attack? The border crossing attack? Merkaz HaRav Yeshiva? The Dimona shopping mall? The bakery in Eilat? The hundreds of other attacks over the past how many years?

Did Israeli law enforcement make assassination disappear in Israel ? Or theft ? Burglary maybe ? Obviously not, so I guess we should ditch the whole penal code and the police force as well. After all, it does not work, obviously. It does not pass the Jobu test.

Rape has been punished harshly for centuries, and yet there are still men who assault women. Maybe we should be proactive and mutilate all men because obviously normal police and justice aren't up to the task ?


Did law enforcement prevent the Mumbai mass murder? The Indian parliament attack?Did law enforcement prevent the mass murders in Bali? Istanbul, Setiabudi, Casablanca? Beslan? The Australian embassy in Jakarta?and on, and on, and on.

Terror attacks were stopped in Paris, Israel, the USA, Britain, Spain, and countless other countries (and on, and on, and on) by POLICE work. Investigation. Intelligence.

Did Guantanamo stop Mumbai ? Uh-ho, no it didn't. Did it stop AQ attacks in Iraq ? Damn, it didn't either. Did it stop Hamas firing rockets unto Israeli cities. You know it didn't.



Is that how you fight terrorism? Do you wait until they fulfill their pledge of war and commit mass murder and then hope to prosecute them as if they were common criminals?

You fight it with good intel, good police.


Law enforcement as a way to combat terrorism has been a dismal failure. And it continues to be a failure all around the world. We can't go back to that kind of thinking, it's suicidal.

What kind of weapon do you propose then, Jobu ? The Military ? Medieval torture ? The Spanish Inquisition ?

[jetsetter]

I really have no problem with the detention facility at Gitmo, it provides a necessary function. You can't try someone picked up on a battlefield out in the desert in the same way you try a criminal from a city. Gathering evidence in a war zone is difficult and dangerous.

It has been the Europeans who have been the most vocal in their desire for the US to shut down the facility. Those calls have consequences and this is one of them.

[Jobu]

It's like saying the IDF didn't work because it couldn't prevent the Yom Kippur war or the Intifada, seriously. I suppose the US Navy should have been scrapped for not preventing Pearl Harbour.

Bad analogies. Military forces are made to fight wars and project force. They are not police forces. If you want to blame someone for not preventing a war, blame the politicians.


Did Israeli law enforcement make assassination disappear in Israel ? Or theft ? Burglary maybe ? Obviously not, so I guess we should ditch the whole penal code and the police force as well. After all, it does not work, obviously. It does not pass the Jobu test.

Rape has been punished harshly for centuries, and yet there are still men who assault women. Maybe we should be proactive and mutilate all men because obviously normal police and justice aren't up to the task ?

Theft, burglary, rape, etc. are all common crimes. You cannot compare that to the war that has been declared on us by Islamist jihadis.


Terror attacks were stopped in Paris, Israel, the USA, Britain, Spain, and countless other countries (and on, and on, and on) by POLICE work. Investigation. Intelligence.

And many other attacks were not stopped. And when they are not stopped we get mass casualty events. Policework therefore is obviously an inadequate way to handle the problem.


Did Guantanamo stop Mumbai ? Uh-ho, no it didn't. Did it stop AQ attacks in Iraq ? Damn, it didn't either. Did it stop Hamas firing rockets unto Israeli cities. You know it didn't.

Gitmo is about protecting the United States. Perhaps if India had locked up the LeT terrorists in their own version of Gitmo, they could very well have prevented the Mumbai attacks. It's up to each country to determine how to defend themselves. Gitmo is about protecting America.


You fight it with good intel, good police.

What kind of weapon do you propose then, Jobu ? The Military ? Medieval torture ? The Spanish Inquisition ?

Good intel/police is nice but it is insufficient. You need to go after the enemy and keep on the offensive. Our countries are way too open and full of easy targets for the enemy to attack. No matter how hard our police and intel agencies try to defend, they will never be able to stop a determined, suicidal enemy from inflicting mass casualties. Only a police state like Saddam's Iraq can achieve that level of security.

So my proposed weapon is offense. We press the enemy wherever they are and we keep pressing. Extraordinary renditions, military actions, etc. If the enemy is spending his time trying to evade capture or death, he's too busy to come here and murder my neighbors.

[GazB]

So my proposed weapon is offense. We press the enemy wherever they are and we keep pressing. Extraordinary renditions, military actions, etc. If the enemy is spending his time trying to evade capture or death, he's too busy to come here and murder my neighbors.But how can you trust your neighbours?

Nice word rendition. Rest of the world calls it kidnapping and torture.
Just say terrorist suspect and it seems you can pretty much ignore international law and do what you like.
Handy till it is used against you.
When you treat international law as red tape then no one is safe.

[Jobu]

But how can you trust your neighbours?

Nice word rendition. Rest of the world calls it kidnapping and torture.
Just say terrorist suspect and it seems you can pretty much ignore international law and do what you like.
Handy till it is used against you.
When you treat international law as red tape then no one is safe.



Kidnapping your enemy in a war?

LOL

[GazB]

Kidnapping your enemy in a war?

LOL

There is no evidence the people in Guantanimo were enemy combatants. Some of those held were children when they were taken.

The west is supposed to be based on a shared moral standard. This is a case of the gloves coming off and the west showing its teeth. It is just as immoral as any other regime on the planet. In other words it is like the church... do as I say, not as I do.
The Pope hates gay people but protects priests that molest boys in their care.

[Jobu]

There is no evidence the people in Guantanimo were enemy combatants.

Says who?


The west is supposed to be based on a shared moral standard.

Really? That's news to me. I never agreed to that standard.


It is just as immoral as any other regime on the planet.

Baloney. War was declared on us. We're capturing and detaining some of the enemy. That's not immoral, it's a necessary and prudent action to take.

[GazB]

Baloney. War was declared on us. We're capturing and detaining some of the enemy. That's not immoral, it's a necessary and prudent action to take.If any state did what the US is currently doing to these people the US would probably invade it. In fact the west a little while back created something called the universal declaration of human rights to recognise that all people everywhere no matter what religion, nationality, gender, etc etc have certain basic rights.
You might say it is necessary and prudent, but when the west goes to China or North Korea and whines about the human rights of those that are detained for political reasons I am sure you will understand when those governments simply state that they are terrorist suspects and it is necessary to keep the locked up without charge for as long as the government deems necessary.


Says who?If they were enemy combatants then they would be POWs and there would be clear rules on how they could or could not be treated.

Personally I think Americas problem is that they have so many military lawyers to tell them what they can or cannot do. The problem there of course is that a lawyers job is not to ensure the law is followed. That job goes to the Judge and the Jury. The Lawyers job is to try to get around the law or to bend it to make it useful... for example to get a client out of punnishment whether they commited the crime or not.
Hense these lawyers have correctly pointed out that most treaties regarding the treatment of prisoners is for conflicts between states. Al Quada is not a state entity so they thought they could get away with ignoring the accepted norms of war as practised for the last half century by the west.


Really? That's news to me. I never agreed to that standard.You probably have. It is the freedom of speech, freedom of religion etc etc spread democracy etc. It is basically a moderate christian model. Marry one man and one woman together. Polygamy is not accepted.

[Jobu]

If they were enemy combatants then they would be POWs and there would be clear rules on how they could or could not be treated.


Not all enemy combatants meet the standard of being classified as POW's when captured. I believe that's why we have 'em locked up at Gitmo in the first place.

I'm not about to lose any sleep over whether some jihadi stays locked up indefinitely. He's an enemy in this war, not a criminal case defendant. We tried to treat them as mere criminals in the 1990's. It didn't work.

[GazB]

Not all enemy combatants meet the standard of being classified as POW's when captured.

If they are enemy combatants then they are POWs when captured. There are no forms to fill out... they don't need a CV.


I believe that's why we have 'em locked up at Gitmo in the first place.

No the reason you have them locked up at Gitmo is so you can ignore international law and also the various international conventions the US signed regarding the treatment of enemy combatants.


I'm not about to lose any sleep over whether some jihadi stays locked up indefinitely. He's an enemy in this war, not a criminal case defendant.

So if he is an enemy then he as no rights.
Interesting.
Wonder about your reaction when other countries do the same to the citizens of your country perhaps?


We tried to treat them as mere criminals in the 1990's. It didn't work.

What are you talking about. With such an attitude... so much crime and corruption... the laws of society haven't worked... lets just ignore them?

[Jobu]

If they are enemy combatants then they are POWs when captured.

I don't think so.



No the reason you have them locked up at Gitmo is so you can ignore international law and also the various international conventions the US signed regarding the treatment of enemy combatants.

Yea, we just go around looking for ways to ignore international law. It's a sport for us. Sadly, as far as I can tell, nobody really cares. Our courts are a bit blase about it and are willing to let the military handle these matters of war for the most part. Takes the fun right out of it.


So if he is an enemy then he as no rights.
Interesting.
Wonder about your reaction when other countries do the same to the citizens of your country perhaps?

The enemy combatant has the rights that our military justice system extends to him. He should not have the rights of an ordinary civilian criminal as if he just stole your bicycle.


What are you talking about. With such an attitude... so much crime and corruption... the laws of society haven't worked... lets just ignore them?

The laws of society are for civilians. Enemy combatants should be treated according to the laws of the military in times of war.

[GazB]

I don't think so.

Why not? Bush declared war on terror. Hitler never actually declared war on the Soviet Union.


Yea, we just go around looking for ways to ignore international law. It's a sport for us. Sadly, as far as I can tell, nobody really cares. Our courts are a bit blase about it and are willing to let the military handle these matters of war for the most part. Takes the fun right out of it.

Bush said the UN was of no use when it didn't rubber stamp his little invasion of Iraq.

This kinda makes it clear who made it useless.

Still, what goes around comes around.


The enemy combatant has the rights that our military justice system extends to him. He should not have the rights of an ordinary civilian criminal as if he just stole your bicycle.

The only military that treats their enemy that way wore swastikas. What happened to freedom and democracy and civil rights?

The main reason POWs are treated with respect is so your prisoners of war will get the same consideration.


The laws of society are for civilians. Enemy combatants should be treated according to the laws of the military in times of war.

So when push comes to shove America is no better than Pol Pot. He didn't think people had rights either.

[Dr_ColoSSus]

The only military that treats their enemy that way wore swastikas. What happened to freedom and democracy and civil rights?Last time I checked no country in any war in history has tried every POW captured with a crime and then sentenced them to prison. This was not a war against a country or government, rather one that was against a terrorist group and it's patrons. Neither of which were recognised as the legimitate authorities by any country who's opinion matters.

The reason the Taliban do not qualify as prisoners of war is that:

A) they do not have a uniform that defines them as the armed forces of a sovereign nation.

B) They weren't the government of a country. They were in fact a fundamentalist muslim drug cartel that occupied a large cunk of the former nation of Afghanistan. They also provided sanctuary for terrorists.

Under the terms of the geneva convention they would not qualify as prisoners of war. Hence the term 'enemy combatants'.What the US should have done is turned these people over to the northern alliance and let them deal with it.

Back on topic, though. I'm glad Mr sheen told the US to clean up this mess themselves. Not that I have anything against the Yanks, its just that that I don't believe Australia should be taking these people, seeing as gitmo was an American show.

[Dr_ColoSSus]

So when push comes to shove America is no better than Pol Pot. He didn't think people had rights either.

In all fairness the guy killed about 25% of his country and brought it back to the stone Age within a decade. When has the US, or any other country for that matter manged something like that?