2
   

Protests against Gitmo prison

 
 
Reply Wed 11 Jan, 2012 08:52 pm
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-guantanamo-protests-20120112,0,400199.story

http://www.latimes.com/media/photo/2012-01/67316015.jpg
Protesters wearing orange prison jumpsuits and black hoods march during a protest against holding detainees at the military prison in Guantanamo Bay during a demonstration on Capitol Hill in Washington. (Saul Loeb / AFP/Getty Images / January 11, 2012)

By Emily Seagrave Kennedy
McClatchy-Tribune

January 11, 2012, 5:35 p.m.
Reporting from Washington— Chants of "Guantanamo has got to go" echoed down Pennsylvania Avenue on Wednesday as a crowd of rain-dampened protesters marked the 10th anniversary of the arrival of the first 20 detainees at the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

More than 800 people demonstrated in what they said was solidarity with the 171 inmates who remain in the prison, as well as the unknown numbers detained at the U.S. military prison at Bagram, Afghanistan.

Smaller protests were held elsewhere, including Los Angeles.


[For more, link above]
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Question • Score: 2 • Views: 1,639 • Replies: 17
No top replies

 
Lustig Andrei
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Jan, 2012 11:56 pm
More on story from the Washington post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/protesters-condemn-guantanamo-bay-on-10th-anniversary-with-march-from-white-house/2012/01/11/gIQAVYIDsP_story.html

0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Jan, 2012 03:47 am
What possible arguments could there be for keeping Guantanomo open, 10 years on?
It doesn't make sense at all when you consider these statistics (from this piece in today's Guardian).
Why are people who have been cleared for release still being held?
Why are people still being held when there's insufficient evidence to put them on trial?

Quote:
....The numbers, pulled together by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), speak for themselves. Of 779 detainees imprisoned at Guantánamo over the past decade, only six have been convicted. That's one less than the number of military prosecutors who resigned over the system's unfairness. Some 600 have been released, most under President Bush, raising the question of why they were there in the first place.

The ACLU's Hina Shamsi said: "Guan­tánamo has been a catastrophic failure on every front: legally, ethically, and in terms of our security. There are 171 captives left in the camp, and of those, 89 have been cleared for release but are still stuck there in a Kafkaesque limbo. That comes at an annual cost to the US taxpayer of $800,000 per captive." With 17 soldiers guarding each inmate, Guantánamo isn't cheap.

A further 46 unidentified men were designated under last year's inter-agency review as being "too dangerous to transfer but not feasible for prosecution" – there isn't sufficient evidence to put them on trial, but nor will they be released.


Could someone who knows a lot more about this than I do supply some insight into Congress's thinking ... especially in regard to the December 31 act.
Why would indefinite detention without a trial be considered a desirable state of affairs for the remaining Guantanomo detainees, particularly so late in the piece? And when so many have already been released?

Quote:
...A year ago Congress barred the Pentagon from spending any of its budget on transferring detainees out of Guantánamo. Then, on 31 December, Congress framed another act that for the first time enshrines the right to indefinite detention without charge into US law. That was violation of habeas corpus even Bush lacked the temerity to introduce.

In both these cases Obama expressed his dismay about the new laws, held his nose, and signed on the dotted line.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jan/11/guantanamo-bay-10-years-on

--
Lustig Andrei
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Jan, 2012 02:41 pm
@msolga,
msolga wrote:
What possible arguments could there be for keeping Guantanomo open, 10 years on?


Excellent question, msolga.
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Jan, 2012 05:02 am
@Lustig Andrei,
It seems there's no interest in further discussion here about Guantanamo, Andrew.
Which disappoints me, as no doubt it does you.
It certainly appears there's quite a way for this unfortunate saga to go yet, before it's finally over.
One day.
Lustig Andrei
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Jan, 2012 01:21 pm
@msolga,
Yes, I think for most non-Americans it is -- quite understandably -- a non-issue. And for most Americans it's too touchy an issue to discuss.
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Jan, 2012 03:50 pm
@Lustig Andrei,
I think it's a pretty major issue for many people outside the US.

However, being unable to influence your government, for me, at least, it just makes me uselessly angry to keep condemning it.

But I think it's a massively dark point in your history which will cast a long shadow.
Lustig Andrei
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Jan, 2012 04:47 pm
@dlowan,
Agreed, D.
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Jan, 2012 07:00 pm
@Lustig Andrei,
Quote:
I think for most non-Americans it is -- quite understandably -- a non-issue.

I disagree, Andrew.
It remains an important issue outside the US.
Particularly in those countries whose citizens have been detained at Guantanamo, understandably. (my country being just one of them)
I regularly see & read articles from news sources outside the US ... like the Guardian, the BBC, the ABC, Oz news sources like the AGE, SMH, etc ....
So it remains an important issue for quite a few outside your country.
What still bewilders me is the attitude of the US Congress. And the apparent endorsement of that attitude by your president.
I honestly don't get it, given the bad press for the US re human rights & the sheer cost to taxpayers of maintaining the place.
Is it (Guantanamo) one of those "political football" issues between the left & the right where never the twain shall meet? (similar to the issue of asylum seekers in Oz, where we appear to be unable to reach a humane, rational resolution because it is one of those hot "trigger" issues in opinion polls.)



ps .... nice to see you have your avatar back at last. Good to "see" you again! Smile

-
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Jan, 2012 07:43 pm
@msolga,
Interesting article in Slate about Gitmo as a black hole.

It suggested that for non-US people it's a massive blackness, for most people in the US it's an invisible hole.

That's obviously hyperbole, but I do think it's a big deal for the world.

Lustig Andrei
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Jan, 2012 08:36 pm
@dlowan,
Have you got a link for that Slate article, dlowan?
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Jan, 2012 05:58 am
@Lustig Andrei,
Hi Andrew.
I think this might be the article Deb referred to.
(Don't know where she is tonight, but I'm sure she would have posted it herself if she was around.)

The Great Gitmo Blackout:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2012/01/what_we_might_want_to_remember_about_forgetting_on_the_10th_anniversary_of_the_prison_camp_at_guantanamo.html
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Jan, 2012 07:32 am
@msolga,
Quite right msolga!
0 Replies
 
Lustig Andrei
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Jan, 2012 01:28 pm
@msolga,
Thank you both.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Sun 22 Jan, 2012 03:13 am
@msolga,
msolga wrote:
Why are people who have been cleared for release still being held?


Most of them are low-level fighters of Yemeni nationality, and we have no confidence in Yemen's capability to properly detain them if we deported them back to Yemen.

Five(?) of them are Chinese civil rights activists who are only there because China designated them as terrorists, and we accepted that designation in exchange for China's cooperation in the war on terror. We cannot deport them to China because if we did, China would execute them and harvest their organs. We cannot deport them to any other country because China bullies all the other governments into not accepting them.



msolga wrote:
Why are people still being held when there's insufficient evidence to put them on trial?


Because they are considered enemy fighters that are too dangerous to deport, and will be held as POWs until the end of the war or until they convince a federal judge that they aren't actually an enemy fighter.

Perhaps there'll be further legal wrangling as to whether judges are using the proper legal standards when deciding whether or not these guys are enemy fighters.



msolga wrote:
Could someone who knows a lot more about this than I do supply some insight into Congress's thinking ... especially in regard to the December 31 act.


Election year politics. The point of the bill was to give politicians who want to emphasize their support for the war on terror something to vote for, and politicians who want to emphasize their opposition to the war on terror something to vote against.

Now that the politicians have all cast the votes they wanted, they're all happily incorporating it into their political ads.
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Jan, 2012 03:39 am
There's a lot of publicity over here about the illegal detention of Shaker Aamer, not to mention outrage about the possible extradition of Gary McKinnon.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/dec/31/last-briton-guantanamo-bay-captivity
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-16045737
Lustig Andrei
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Jan, 2012 03:09 pm
@izzythepush,
Thanx for those links, izzy.
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Jan, 2012 03:39 pm
@Lustig Andrei,
That's fine. The general impression over here about Obama is that he's doing the best he ca. We have a right wing over here, but nothing like the Tea Party.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

T'Pring is Dead - Discussion by Brandon9000
Another Calif. shooting spree: 4 dead - Discussion by Lustig Andrei
Friends don't let friends fat-talk - Discussion by hawkeye10
Before you criticize the media - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fatal Baloon Accident - Discussion by 33export
The Day Ferguson Cops Were Caught in a Bloody Lie - Discussion by bobsal u1553115
Robin Williams is dead - Discussion by Butrflynet
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Protests against Gitmo prison
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 03/26/2019 at 12:49:00