Thanks to the heroic efforts of Dan Fried, and a multi-million dollar payout, we've managed to settle 13 Uighars in Palau and another 4 (at least temporarily) in Bermuda (over which the British are pissed).
So, given that we refuse to bring even the most unlikely to be dangerous here, and given that no other country is likely to step forward with open arms (at least, none that we trust not to immediately torture and/or kill them), where do we think the other 223 detainees will end up (including the other 40 or so who are already cleared for release)? My guess is most of them will be getting Christmas flights to Baghram Detention Facility. Or maybe Obama will take the political blow-back and reverse himself on closing GTMO.
Anyone else care to prognosticate?
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: ... given that no other country is likely to step forward with open arms (at least, none that we trust not to immediately torture (them) ...
You'd think they'd be used to it by now Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: ... given that no other country is likely to step forward with open arms (at least, none that we trust not to immediately torture (them) ...
You'd think they'd be used to it by now
Well, I imagine the Uighars prefer their treatment at GTMO to what the Chinese would like to do to them. Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I dunno. The Chinese haven't had as much practise recently. But I'm sure we can ask for your upgrades (you call them "enhancements" right?) Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's kind of silly. Both Palau and Federated States of Micronesia have relaxed immigration requirements to the US. It's easy for them to move to Guam and obtain citizenship.
Posts: 688 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
What is silly is our reaction to the prosoners at GITMO being transferred to regular US prisons. We incarcerate dangerous criminals all the time. It isn't like these guys have super powers. It isn't like Magneto was driving Osama bin Laden around.
We just act like silly, frightened, sheep way too often.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: I dunno. The Chinese haven't had as much practise recently. But I'm sure we can ask for your upgrades (you call them "enhancements" right?)
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: What is silly is our reaction to the prosoners at GITMO being transferred to regular US prisons. We incarcerate dangerous criminals all the time. It isn't like these guys have super powers. It isn't like Magneto was driving Osama bin Laden around.
We just act like silly, frightened, sheep way too often.
Word. This blogger summed up my reaction to the whole mess pretty perfectly.
Posts: 650 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: "Publishing Date: 1984-08-01" ? Is that the best you can do?
Here's something more recent. I haven't looked up the references to the several articles detailing the practice through the decades. But it seems nothing much has changed since 1984.
<edit>Here's something from 2006, detailing admissions by individuals involved in the process, that several thousand Falun Gong practitioners have had their organs harvested, killing them in the process. But at least China doesn't torture them. </edit>
posted
My point, Kate (and ambyr), is that Obama has (evidently) thrown in the towel on bringing them state-side, which means they won't be coming to a SuperMax near you. You might think that's silly (I tend to agree, although I also think the outrage over GTMO is misplaced), but it raises the more important question of, given that they're not coming here, and given that no other country is stepping forward to take them, where will they go?
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have written my congresswoman and senator to let them know that I am happy to have prisoners held in the nearest secure facility until they can be tried.
I doubt that either of them are giving President Obama much trouble, though.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Right, Kate, but again the question isn't what can we do to bring them here. That seems to be a lost battle (although one I'm glad to have you keep fighting).
The point is, if they don't come here what should happen to them.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: The point is, if they don't come here what should happen to them.
The problem is, I think that bringing them stateside is the only thing that can be done. You think the battle is lost; I think it's a battle we will be fighting for years if not decades to come, because in the end, there is no alternative.
Posts: 650 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
What ambyr wrote. Notify your congresscritters!
ETA: Of course, holding them in any prison without trial is unacceptable. We should try them or let them go. If that is dangerous (and it probably will be) that is our penance for wrongfully imprisoning people in the first place.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ambyr: You think the battle is lost; I think it's a battle we will be fighting for years if not decades to come, because in the end, there is no alternative.
I'll try to rephrase the question. President Obama has called for GTMO to be closed by January 2010. Either <edit to correct incorrect enumeration>(1) the detainees will not be relocated before 2010 or (2) the detainees will be relocated before 2010. </edit> If the detainees are relocated it will either be (2a) to the US, (2b) to other countries, (2c) to another US-controlled foreign detention facility or some combination of these three.
These are the options for January 2010. Given that the President has said he's not going to push the Congress, (2a) seems unlikely. (2b) is only an option inasmuch as we're willing to release detainees without trials back into their native countries (since no non-native countries are going to be willing to hold them), which seems like a non-starter.
So I see (1) or (2c) as being what will happen. Absent political considerations I would choose (1); GTMO is better situated to handle the detainees than any other detention facility. But given GTMO's PR problem, and given Obama's public promise to shut it down, I think (2c) is what will happen.
posted
I don't have much faith in President Obama's public promises any more. I'm betting on 1, with the modification that some of the prisoners will get more open to scrutiny trials.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that (no suprise) that pressure needs to be put on Congress. Even if he does want to, President Obama can't just wave a wand. Presidents have less real power than we think.
You want stuff? Pester your senators.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Thats better, I'll grant you that. However, the first two articles are still pretty dubious. The Kilgour Investigation was done by a Canadian, and I recall that when it came out that there was precious little independent corroboration by third parties. IIRC, both the US government and Amnesty International were unable to verify the claims.
The third one is credible. UN special envoy Manfred Nowak. But like I said, I never denied that China tortures, merely that they do so in such a fashion that the Uighers would feel right at home after being released from the US torture
You may, however, be curious as to what the UN investigator Manfred Nowak, has been doing afterwards.
quote: NOWAK: Yes. That's the responsibility of the United States of America, who has denied us access to the detainees at Guantanamo detention facilities. We have been asking for many years. We received an invitation to go to Guantanamo Bay. We accepted it. We fixed the 6th of December as the date. The U.S. government didn't give us the assurances our fact-finding would be in accordance with our terms of reference, which are the minimum standards of a no check fact finding. I can't go to a country and only speak to the prison officials, but being denied the possibility to talk to detainees. This is not an objective and fair means (AUDIO GAP) we unfortunately had to cancel the visit. But it is the responsibility of the U.S. government, not of us.
quote:"The evidence is there," Nowak told the German TV news magazine Frontal21 in a report broadcast Tuesday evening, Jan. 20. "We have seen the documents that show that these interrogation methods were expressly ordered by Rumsfeld, but of course with the knowledge of the highest levels in the United States."
The new US President Barack Obama was obligated to pursue criminal prosecutions against Bush and Rumsfeld, Nowak said.
"There shouldn't be any beating around the bush here," he said. "This was torture."
So in other words, while the UN was allowed to go to China and visit these prisons and talk not just to officials but prisoners as well, they couldn't even get into the US ones and get the same conditions.
The US places more conditions in order to hide torture from the UN than China does. Thats hefty.
And while China at least has an official ban on torture, admittedly a ban that is ignored by local officials, the US actually explicitly gave instructions to allow torture up to the level of the President.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: Nowak has personally visited a dozen countries, from Mongolia to Paraguay. He has inspected many dungeons and jails and spoken to hundreds of prisoners. So he is all the more annoyed when he is denied access to prisons. To this day, he has not been allowed to visit the US military base in Guantanamo, for example -- at least not in order to conduct private, unsupervised interviews with detainees. The US government would not give him permission. But an essential prerequisite for Nowak's investigative missions is the right to decide himself what he wants to see or who he wants to speak to -- including without any prior appointment.
Ever since former US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld authorized the use of so-called "enhanced interrogation" techniques in Abu Ghraib, "the United States has lost its moral leadership and authority," Nowak believes. "Today, when the Bush administration criticizes other countries for their human rights abuses, no one takes them seriously anymore."
...
That makes it all the more astonishing that China, of all countries, allowed the UN rapporteur into the country. His predecessors had tried in vain for 10 years to be granted permission for such a visit.
posted
18April2006 "Admittedly, Dubya brought most of this headache on himself. But there is a real conundrum here. And even if your favorite politician became the President tomorrow, s/he'd be stuck with the same problem."
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
