Oz election thread #3 - Rudd's Labour

@msolga,

I doubt it.

From their own countries which will not take them back, I think.

@dlowan,

But China appears willing to take them back & kill or torture them! (According to my reading of the original article I posted from the SMH. That is why Obama wants Australia to take them.)

1 Reply

@msolga,

Well, yes...I meant they won't take them back and play nice with them!

1 Reply

@dlowan,

And neither will the US, after detaining them for 6 years and declaring that they are innocent. If anyone owes these poor folk refuge, it's the US.

1 Reply

@msolga,

Agreed...though, to be fair, Obama had nothing to do with it...and Howard was a shrill supporter of the gulag.

I dunno....we helped make with the ****...I am damned if I know whether it just the current US administration's job to deal with it.

I certainly think it is mainly their job re the illegal detention and torture camps (ain't just Guantanamo...think of the people they gave to people like the Egyptians etc to torture, so they didn't legally dirty their filthy hands, and the not so secret any longer CIA illegal facilities.

1 Reply

@dlowan,

Totally agree ... always have thought that. (And of course I know Obama had nothing to do with creating the Guantanamo mess.) ... And I find myself back where I started, almost. It is unreasonable of the US to pressure its allies (as the Bush Administration did) to provide refuge to to these detainees when the US itself is not willing to do the same. Actually I think the US should do much more. It shouldn't matter that it was the previous US administration that caused these problems. It's a matter of taking responsibility. OK, OK, going around in circles now ...

1 Reply

@msolga,

Thing is, our last administration supported them.

An administration the country voted in...what...four times?

And, there's evidence ******* Howard didn't just go along...that he URGED the invasion etc.

I think we prolly need to share the ****.

(Thinking and changing my mind as I go)

I don't think that being angry about yet more US bullying makes a difference to that.

We were implicated.

I guess I am trying t work out an ethical position...one not swayed by resentment.

2 Replies

@dlowan,

like west papuan fishermen

0 Replies

@dlowan,

Quote:

I think we prolly need to share the ****.

(Sorry, Deb. Repeating myself again.)

Of course we're implicated. BUT the US needs to play its part by taking its share of the Guantanamo detainees that can't go back to their home countries. For the US not do that, while applying pressure to other countries to do so, is completely unreasonable. This is certainly not "sharing the ****". I've already said that we should play our part in treating applications for refugee status sympathetically. (Now I'm wondering how much say these detainees actually have to the countries they could be relocated to.)

1 Reply

@msolga,

Is this correct?:

Quote:

The Congress of the United States will not allow prisoners from GITMO to be resettled in the USA because their constituents are dead set against it.

2 Replies

@msolga,

If so they are morally bankrupt.

0 Replies

@msolga,

Absolutely it's correct - early last week Jon Stewart had a series of grabs of senators of both colours taking the nimby position even about transferring the 'guilty' to mainland prisons. I think they were afraid of the bad influence the gitmo detainees would have on their murderers, rapists and mobsters.

1 Reply

@hingehead,

Thanks, hinge. Should've Googled myself, to learn more, but it was late & I was tired. Gotta protect those imprisoned US murderers, rapists and mobsters! Wink

0 Replies

Similar concerns about Guantanamo detainee reallocations from the EU. NYT article from March of this year.:

Quote:

...... It is not clear exactly what conditions the Obama administration may wish to impose, what the detainees’ immigration status would be or whether any detainees released to Europe would be eligible for complete freedom. “We understand, you have a big problem,” said one European official who said he would speak only if not identified. “And we appreciate what President Obama has said about closing Guantánamo. But that doesn’t automatically mean putting all the remaining inmates on a plane and sending them to Europe.”

Obama administration officials say some 60 of the remaining 241 detainees, those who cannot be sent to their home countries for humanitarian or other reasons, could be resettled in Europe.

A senior State Department official conceded that there were some concerns in Europe about accepting Guantánamo detainees. But the official, speaking on the condition of anonymity because he was not designated to speak publicly on the issue, argued: “It is really just a small effort to help us deal with a legacy of the past. This is something we inherited, too.”

A senior French official said that France was “ready to help,” but that “Guantánamo is an American responsibility.”

“It’s not an absolute condition, but it would be easier if the U.S. administration is willing to take some detainees,” said the French official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, as did several officials in other countries, to avoid antagonizing the Obama administration. ......

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/16/world/16gitmo.html

1 Reply

@msolga,

So...Obama is pressuring other countries to take these US ex-prisoners, while the US will take none?

Is it a possibility which Obama is doing his best to act against, or has Congress made this decision, and has it also the power to enforce such a decision?

Is it a done deal?

If so, it doesn't ameliorate OUR moral obligations, but it means Obama ought to be begging rather than pressuring.

1 Reply

@dlowan,

Quote:

Is it a possibility which Obama is doing his best to act against, or has Congress made this decision, and has it also the power to enforce such a decision?

It sounds (without a lot of Googling I don't have the time for this morning) as though Congress has made this decision. Anyone at A2K whose in the know is most welcome to post here & enlighten us.

I'm not arguing that we shirk our responsibilities, our moral obligations. I'm saying that the US should accept its responsibilities, too. And that it is outrageous if they refuse to. The US should be taking the lead in this dismal state of affairs & accept the relocation of detainees within their own country, as they are asking other countries to do. I have little doubt that Obama is doing his best in difficult circumstances.

1 Reply

@msolga,

... & of course, potential recipient countries have every right to be wary & concerned about the Guantanamo detainees they soon could be relocating. Under the Bush administration these people were painted as the lowest, vilest criminals on the planet. Now under Obama, they are being presented as unfortunate individuals requiring assistance & compassion, some wrongly detained for years. A human rights issue. Possibly the truth lies somewhere in between, or a mixture of both? In any case, I believe that the recipient nations have every right to proceed with caution. Obvious there is a will to do the "right thing", but there are legitimate concerns, too.

1 Reply

@msolga,

Amen.

0 Replies

Now that Congress has denied millions for President Obama to close Gitmo, he will have a problem keeping his campaign promises to close it, since no one wants these “nice” people in their country or state.

Since the District of Columbia is not a state, he should transfer all of them to the White House grounds, since the grounds are very secure and Cheney could not possibly get a chance to waterboard these “nice” people again.

For shelter, he could move some of the thousands of unused FEMA trailers to the White House grounds to house them. To save millions of dollars in dismantling Gitmo, he could just allow Castro to come in and take the cages to house his political prisoners. This would show his goodwill toward Castro and should create dialogue for future talks with this dictator.

1 Reply

@genoves,

genoves

A polite reminder that this is an Australian politics thread. And we have been discussing the pros & cons of Australia responding to your government's request that we relocate a number of Chinese Muslim detaineees from Guantanamo Bay to Australia. That said, anything that you can contribute to this discussion is most welcome.

I am wondering about a couple of things in your post.: On what grounds did Congress deny President Obama "millions" to close down Guantanamo? Why are millions required to close down this facility? Also, I have no idea of what "FEMA" is. Others who post here may know, but I don't.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that no one wants the detainees in their country. I think it's more a case of wanting more information on who exactly these countries might be taking on & what the requirements of the situation might be. A lot more detailed information. And also there's a strong sense of amazement (& other things!) that the US is not willing to to do much, much more to resolve a terrible situation that the US itself created.

1 Reply

Oz election thread #3 - Rudd's Labour

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know