European BDS

[WildCat]

Only the USA, UK, Australia, Israel and Kanada have such a thing like unlawful combatants.

No, it is well defined under IHL.

when it is so acording to International Humanitarian Law, how come that almost every single Human Rights organisation is protesting that camp?

BDS.

how many have been spoken guilty exactly?

What?

and how do you end up in Gitmo? must there be evidence or is an accusation from someone enough?

When you end up in the custody of the US military in the war authorized by S.J.Res.23 and a tribunal determines you are an illegal combatant of special interest. Then you get to contest your status in civilian court (per the writ of habeus corpus), if you lose you remain a guest of the US military until you are deemed no longer a threat, tried, or the hostilities end.

 

[gtc]

Do you then believe we should imprison people for crimes they might commit? Scary stuff

ETA: sorry. I missed your clear statement that they should be set free now. I do not think they should have been detained for this length of time and they could not have been had they been held under us domestic law: but we seem to be agreed about the current position and I apologise for misinterpreting your stance

We can arrest people for planning to commit a crime because the act of planning a crime can itself be a crime. So, in principle, training to be a terrorist could be enoiugh reason to keep someone locked up.

 

[gtc]

Fiona,

Why do you think that the US should have to take those Uighers?

 

[DC]

What does Hinduism got to do with it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kanada

Boy, you really need to check those typos, the K is nowhere near the C or the A on the keyboard.

its spelled Kanada in German, thats why, i am used to use the K, and when typing fast, it easy can happen you misspell a word that you usually spell diffrent in your own language.

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kanada

 

[Fiona]

So you have no idea?

I repeat:

Art. 42. The internment or placing in assigned residence of protected persons may be ordered only if the security of the Detaining Power makes it absolutely necessary.

So what evidence is there that it is absolutely necessary?

Art. 43. Any protected person who has been interned or placed in assigned residence shall be entitled to have such action reconsidered as soon as possible by an appropriate court or administrative board designated by the Detaining Power for that purpose. If the internment or placing in assigned residence is maintained, the court or administrative board shall periodically, and at least twice yearly, give consideration to his or her case, with a view to the favourable amendment of the initial decision, if circumstances permit.

This provision was not met until 2004: before that the us government held that there was no need to do that because Guantanamo bay is in Cuba: a clear breach of the provisions;

On June 28, 2004, the US Supreme Court handed down two decisions related to the detention of 'enemy combatants' at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. In the first one, 03-6696: Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, the US Supreme Court, held that "although Congress authorized the detention of combatants in the narrow circumstances alleged here, due process demands that a citizen held in the United States as an enemy combatant be given a meaningful opportunity to contest the factual basis for that detention before a neutral decision maker."

In the second case, 03-334: Rasul v. Bush, the Supreme Court held, among other things, that "United States courts have jurisdiction to consider challenges to the legality of the detention of foreign nationals captured abroad in connection with hostilities and incarcerated at Guantanamo Bay." The US Administration had, prior to the decision, held that, though Guantanamo Bay was leased, run, administered, and controlled by the United States, the land was still effectively Cuban, and that therefore US courts should not have jurisdiction over that tract of Cuban territory.

Art. 68. Protected persons who commit an offence which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, but which does not constitute an attempt on the life or limb of members of the occupying forces or administration, nor a grave collective danger, nor seriously damage the property of the occupying forces or administration or the installations used by them, shall be liable to internment or simple imprisonment, provided the duration of such internment or imprisonment is proportionate to the offence committed. Furthermore, internment or imprisonment shall, for such offences, be the only measure adopted for depriving protected persons of liberty. The courts provided for under Article 66 of the present Convention may at their discretion convert a sentence of imprisonment to one of internment for the same period.

Evidence against these people? Evidence that the duration is proportionate to any offence which has been shown to be committed? Evidence that imprisonment is necessary rather than, say,internment?

Art 5....In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present< Convention at the earliest date consistent with security of State or Occupying Power "</P" as case may be.>

On June 29, 2006, the United States Supreme Court handed down a decision on 05-184: Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. The Supreme Court ruled that the current military commissions were illegal under US law and under the Geneva Conventions, and could not continue. U.S officals will now have to figure out another way to try the detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Art 27....However, the Parties to the conflict may take such measures of control and security in regard to protected persons as may be necessary as a result of the war.

Evidence that continued detention is necessary?

On June 12, 2008, the US Supreme Court handed down a decision on 06-1195: Boumediene v. Bush, ruling in a 5-4 vote that "Petitioners have the constitutional privilege of habeas corpus. They are not barred from seeking the writ or invoking the Suspension Clause’s protections because they have been designated as enemy combatants or because of their presence at Guantanamo." Moreover, The Supreme Court rejected the Bush Administration's position that the Suspension Clause affords detainees at Guantanamo Bay "no rights because the United States does not claim sovereignty over the naval station". Instead, it ruled that while the "Court does not question the Government’s position that Cuba maintains sovereignty, in the legal and technical sense, over Guantanamo, but it does not accept the Government’s premise that de jure sovereignty is the touchstone of habeas jurisdiction."

Habeus corpus is a fundamental right going back hundreds of years and it is an essential if the rule of law is to be maintained. The US government attempted to subvert it: a dangerous and illegal action: the claim that the us has no sovreignty over its own military camps is laughable: except it is not funny that any government would stoop so low in trying to undermine basic safeguardds and freedoms.

Art. 31. No physical or moral coercion shall be exercised against protected persons, in particular to obtain information from them or from third parties.

Art. 32. The High Contracting Parties specifically agree that each of them is prohibited from taking any measure of such a character as to cause the physical suffering or extermination of protected persons in their hands. This prohibition applies not only to murder, torture, corporal punishments, mutilation and medical or scientific experiments not necessitated by the medical treatment of a protected person, but also to any other measures of brutality whether applied by civilian or military agents.

Evidence that these rights were protected at Guantanamo bay? Some who have been released say not. And:

US Senate Armed Services Committee releases executive summary of its findings on detainee abuses in the "war on terror". Among them is the conclusion that "senior officials in the United States government solicited information on how to use aggressive techniques, redefined the law to create the appearance of legality, and authorized their use against detainees".

Art. 78. If the Occupying Power considers it necessary, for imperative reasons of security, to take safety measures concerning protected persons, it may, at the most, subject them to assigned residence or to internment.

Decisions regarding such assigned residence or internment shall be made according to a regular procedure to be prescribed by the Occupying Power in accordance with the provisions of the present Convention. This procedure shall include the right of appeal for the parties concerned. Appeals shall be decided with the least possible delay. In the event of the decision being upheld, it shall be subject to periodical review, if possible every six months, by a competent body set up by the said Power.

Protected persons made subject to assigned residence and thus required to leave their homes shall enjoy the full benefit of Article 39 of the present Convention.

Art. 41. Should the Power, in whose hands protected persons may be, consider the measures of control mentioned in the present Convention to be inadequate, it may not have recourse to any other measure of control more severe than that of assigned residence or internment, in accordance with the provisions of Articles 42 and 43.

Art. 42. The internment or placing in assigned residence of protected persons may be ordered only if the security of the Detaining Power makes it absolutely necessary.

Art. 43. Any protected person who has been interned or placed in assigned residence shall be entitled to have such action reconsidered as soon as possible by an appropriate court or administrative board designated by the Detaining Power for that purpose. If the internment or placing in assigned residence is maintained, the court or administrative board shall periodically, and at least twice yearly, give consideration to his or her case, with a view to the favourable amendment of the initial decision, if circumstances permit.

Art 43 Unless the protected persons concerned object, the Detaining Power shall, as rapidly as possible, give the Protecting Power the names of any protected persons who have been interned or subjected to assigned residence, or who have been released from internment or assigned residence. The decisions of the courts or boards mentioned in the first paragraph of the present Article shall also, subject to the same conditions, be notified as rapidly as possible to the Protecting Power.

Again this provision was clearly breached

On February 24, 2006, U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff in New York ordered the Department of Defense to release the names of all the detainees held in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The Department of Defense had until March 3, 2006 to release the identities of the detainees to the Associated Press. The Department of Defense has indicated that they do not plan to appeal and will comply with the ruling.

On June 4, 2007, the judge in the military commission case of Omar Khadr dismissed all charges against him and adjourned the hearing. The judge argued that the Military Commissions Act of 2006 requires that, in order to be tried by commission, a detainee be an unlawful enemy combatant; with the law differentiating between unlawful enemy combatants and enemy combatants, who fight for a legitimate armed forces. As Omar Khadr had been designated an "enemy combatant" and not an "unlawful enemy combatant", resulting in the dismissed charges. The ruling pointed out an apparent discrepancy created by the Military Commissions Act’s new requirement that detainees be designated as “unlawful” enemy combatants to be tried by commissions, because it was signed into law after the majority of Combatant Status Review Tribunals had been completed at Guantanamo. As a result, and since none of the detainees who have gone through the CSRT process at Guantanamo were designated as unlawful enemy combatants, but rather "enemy combatants" or "no longer enemy combatants," the ruling was seen as having the potential to affect all the current and potential charges against detainees at Guantanamo Bay.

If they were enemy combatants they were POW's: if not they were protected persons. There are no other options. Till this point many were POW's and the rights pertaining to that status were wholly breached. It seems perfectly clear that the rule of law was in no way respected: rather the government decided that its power was supreme and that the safeguards built in as "checks and balances" were a great annoyance. It is fortunate that the system did in the end put some limits on this arbitrary abuse: but there is no evidence that the government itself had any respect for, or even belief in, any such check on its power. Sadly the supreme court has not proved to be a particularly strong shield against the "divine right of government"

The court upheld the government's argument that the Geneva Convention of 1949 does not apply to members of al Qaeda. They ruled that the Geneva Conventions only applies to two types of conflicts, those between states and "High Contracting Parties" of the Geneva Convention or civil war. Randolph went on to say that "al Qaeda is not a state, and it was not a 'High Contracting Party.'" He also said that the war against terrorism and against al Qaeda cannot be considered a civil war because it is international in scope.

There is no evidence at all that the detainees were "members of al Quaeda" for the most part: so it is hardly a respectable ruling: again, mere sophistry

"The right to challenge legality of detention before a judicial body. 27. The Chairperson of the Working Group and the Special Rapporteur recall that detainees at Guantánamo Bay were deprived of their right to challenge the lawfulness of their detention and of their right to legal counsel for several years, until a United States Supreme Court decision granted detainees access to federal courts. In June 2004, the Supreme Court, in Rasul v. Bush,25 held that United States courts have the jurisdiction to consider challenges to the legality of the detention of foreign nationals detained at the Guantánamo Bay Naval Base. However, at the time of writing (i.e. more than four years after detention at Guantánamo Bay started), not a single habeas corpus petition has been decided on the merits by a United States Federal Court. 28. In light of the Rasul judgement, the Government, on 7 July 2004, created the Combatant Status Review Tribunal (CSRT), a body composed of three noncommissioned officers, to examine the legality of detentions. Thereafter, the United States District Court dealing with the habeas corpus petitions of the Guantánamo detainees ruled that the CSRT proceedings “deny [the detainees] a fair opportunity to challenge their incarceration” and thus fail to comply with the terms of the Supreme Court’s ruling26. According to information received from the Government, all persons currently held at Guantánamo Bay had their status reviewed by the CSRT.27 The United States further established, on 11 May 2004, Administrative Review Boards (ARBs) to provide an annual review of the detention of each detainee. These institutions do not satisfy the requirement in article 9 (3) of ICCPR that “[a]nyone … detained on a criminal charge shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release”: the requirement in article 9 (4) of ICCPR that “[a]nyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings before a court, in order that that court may decide without delay on the lawfulness of his detention and order his release if the detention is not lawful”, or the requirements of article 14 of ICCPR, as:"[...]

Rights are not rights if you cannot exercise them

http://www.amnestyusa.org/document.php?id=ENGAMR511482008&lang=e

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/guantanamo-bay_legal.htm

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/Human_Rights/geneva1.html

 

[Fiona]

Fiona,

Why do you think that the US should have to take those Uighers?

Thought I had explained that. They are protected persons: the court has ordered their release. The geneva conventions provides

Art 45.....In no circumstances shall a protected person be transferred to a country where he or she may have reason to fear persecution for his or her political opinions or religious beliefs.

Once they are released they are no longer protected persons but they then meet the definition of asylum seekers because they are on US soil. They are refugees and their "well founded fear of persecution" has already been established. Thus they are entitled to stay in the US and to apply for citizenship there: no other country has any responsibility to them at all

 

[ddt]

Once they are released they are no longer protected persons but they then meet the definition of asylum seekers because they are on US soil. They are refugees and their "well founded fear of persecution" has already been established. Thus they are entitled to stay in the US and to apply for citizenship there: no other country has any responsibility to them at all

I may have missed something - but does asylum seeking in the US entitle to citizenship, or just to residency?

For the rest, I agree with you full-heartedly. European (or other) countries may of course "help out" the US with such cases, but I'd fully expect them to ask for a quid pro quo.

 

[Fiona]

As I understand it it entitles them to stay in the US and after one year to apply for citizenship

 

[ddt]

As I understand it it entitles them to stay in the US and after one year to apply for citizenship

Thanks. That's quite generous. I don't think over here residency on grounds of political asylum gives you more rights than other residents.

 

[gtc]

Once they are released they are no longer protected persons but they then meet the definition of asylum seekers because they are on US soil. They are refugees and their "well founded fear of persecution" has already been established. Thus they are entitled to stay in the US and to apply for citizenship there: no other country has any responsibility to them at all

The problem is that Guantanamo Bay isn't actually American soil (it's on Cuba).

 

[Fiona]

While literally true that is frankly ridiculous, gtc.

 

[WildCat]

I repeat:



So what evidence is there that it is absolutely necessary?

The detaining power decides. There is no GC provision for making their reasons public. But since the vast majority of those held have already been released it doesn't appear they are holding people simply to be big meanies. And the fact that many of those released went right back to fighting again shows that, if anything, they have erred on the side of the detainee quite often.

This provision was not met until 2004: before that the us government held that there was no need to do that because Guantanamo bay is in Cuba: a clear breach of the provisions;

They were given a military tribunal status hearing, which until 2004 was all that was ever required. The SCOTUS then ruled that they were also entitled to challenge their status in civilian court, which was a requirement unprecedented in the entire history of the US wrt captured wartime enemies. They have ever since been given the habeus corpus hearing the SCOTUS asked for. So there is no violation of this provision.

Evidence against these people? Evidence that the duration is proportionate to any offence which has been shown to be committed? Evidence that imprisonment is necessary rather than, say,internment?

The evidence was presented to the military tribunal which determined their status upon capture, and also to the civilian court judge in the habeus corpus hearing.

Evidence that continued detention is necessary?

You're now mixing up court cases. The SCOTUS ruling mentioned dealt with the then procedures of the military commissions prosecuting war crimes. Those have since been altered to the court's satisfaction, and affects only those detainees to be prosecuted for war crimes. Your "continued detention" question was already answered earlier in this post.

Habeus corpus is a fundamental right going back hundreds of years and it is an essential if the rule of law is to be maintained. The US government attempted to subvert it: a dangerous and illegal action: the claim that the us has no sovreignty over its own military camps is laughable: except it is not funny that any government would stoop so low in trying to undermine basic safeguardds and freedoms.

Thanks to the SCOTUS ruling captured enemies in wartime now have the right to a habeus corpus hearing in civilian courts for the first time in the entire history of the USA. This is an expansion of rights, not a reduction of them. If you disagree feel free to show any other time in US history where captured enemies in wartime were given habeus corpus hearings.

Evidence that these rights were protected at Guantanamo bay? Some who have been released say not. And:

The onus is on you to show that they were abused. Funny, drkitten made the same claim and disappeared when asked for evidence. Maybe you can provide the evidence drkitten couldn't?

Again this provision was clearly breached

How so? Cases have made it all the way to the SCOTUS, so your claim that appeals were denied is laughable on its face. And the ICRC has been visiting detainees not only in Gitmo but also in bases and detention centers in Afghanistan. So once again, you make claims while offering no evidence other than an assertion the rules are being violated.

If they were enemy combatants they were POW's: if not they were protected persons. There are no other options. Till this point many were POW's and the rights pertaining to that status were wholly breached. It seems perfectly clear that the rule of law was in no way respected: rather the government decided that its power was supreme and that the safeguards built in as "checks and balances" were a great annoyance. It is fortunate that the system did in the end put some limits on this arbitrary abuse: but there is no evidence that the government itself had any respect for, or even belief in, any such check on its power. Sadly the supreme court has not proved to be a particularly strong shield against the "divine right of government"

They were POWs until a tribunal determined their status, which happens as soon as possible after their capture. They were found not to meet the requirements necessary for POW status because they had no proper chain of command, did not carry arms openly, did not wear insignia or symbol recognizable from a distance, did not conduct themselves according to the Laws of Armed Conflict, etc etc. The court case you cited was based not on the GC, but on the requirements of the Military Commissions Act of 2006. This is a seperate issue of POW status required by the GC, and instead related to the jurisdiction of the military tribunals. The detainees were subsequently given new status hearings in accordance to the Military Commissions Act of 2006 where it was determined they were indeed unlawful enemy combatants.

IOW, you are confusing the POW status requirements of the GC with the requirements of US law to determine jurisdiction under the Military Commissions Act of 2006. There was no illegal detention, nor did the judge rule that there was an illegal detention. Nor is there any evidence that any of the detainees qualified for POW status under the GC.

There is no evidence at all that the detainees were "members of al Quaeda" for the most part: so it is hardly a respectable ruling: again, mere sophistry

They don't have to be members of al Qaeda, the AUMF covers "those nations, organizations, or persons [the POTUS] determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons".

Rights are not rights if you cannot exercise them

http://www.amnestyusa.org/document.php?id=ENGAMR511482008&lang=e

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/guantanamo-bay_legal.htm

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/Human_Rights/geneva1.html

I guess that's why we have had so many court cases relating to this! It's astonishing how people you claim were given no rights managed to argue their cases all the way up the the SCOTUS. Not a bad trick for someone with "no rights"!

 

[Fiona]

The fact remains that none of the rights were granted: they were resisted at every step and at each point the concession was wrung from the government through hard fought legal cases. It is no defence at all to the charge of illegal detention to claim that the illegal actions were reversed through court proceedings no originally granted. As I said, the separation of power did eventually win out: yet even those agreed to be not enemies are not released. Really Wildcat, your position is untenable. But I see from ddt's link that you have already been shown this so I will say no more

 

[WildCat]

The fact remains that none of the rights were granted: they were resisted at every step and at each point the concession was wrung from the government through hard fought legal cases. It is no defence at all to the charge of illegal detention to claim that the illegal actions were reversed through court proceedings no originally granted. As I said, the separation of power did eventually win out: yet even those agreed to be not enemies are not released. Really Wildcat, your position is untenable. But I see from ddt's link that you have already been shown this so I will say no more

There was never a court ruling that the detentions were illegal! And in fact these detainees have more rights (such as a habeus corpus hearing in civilian courts) than any other captured war enemies in US history, if not the history of the world, who don't qualify for POW status.

And it funny you said "yet even those agreed to be not enemies are not released", particularly after it was shown in this thread that even the Netherlands hold people in detention facilities indefinitely when they have no place to put them, and they weren't even terrorists. Yet nobody starts threads here about that! How else can it be explained other than BDS?

 

[Darth Rotor]

There was never a court ruling that the detentions were illegal! And in fact these detainees have more rights (such as a habeus corpus hearing in civilian courts) than any other captured war enemies in US history, if not the history of the world, who don't qualify for POW status.

And it funny you said "yet even those agreed to be not enemies are not released", particularly after it was shown in this thread that even the Netherlands hold people in detention facilities indefinitely when they have no place to put them, and they weren't even terrorists. Yet nobody starts threads here about that! How else can it be explained other than BDS?

It's curious, since I am dead certain that Fiona does not hate America. The problems all stem, IMO, in rules meant for condition A being shoehorned into condition B. The fit is no good.

DR

 

[WildCat]

It's curious, since I am dead certain that Fiona does not hate America. The problems all stem, IMO, in rules meant for condition A being shoehorned into condition B. The fit is no good.

DR

This is true, and that's why it has taken years of court challenges and rulings for everything to be hammered out and the laws clarified. What's that saying about law and sausages?

 

[ddt]

And it funny you said "yet even those agreed to be not enemies are not released", particularly after it was shown in this thread that even the Netherlands hold people in detention facilities indefinitely when they have no place to put them, and they weren't even terrorists. Yet nobody starts threads here about that! How else can it be explained other than BDS?

What kind of to quoque fallacy is this? When you're not able to win a debate about Gitmo, you resort to name calling others by saying "look there; they're being bad there too".

The Dutch asylum policy has nothing, but then nothing, to do with the US policy of capture, "extrajudicial rendition", and detaining scores of people whom the US administration thinks might be terrorist or such. The 750 or so people that have passed through Gitmo are the tip of the iceberg of a global operation in which over 100,000 people have been "processed" - mostly in secrecy -, and an unknown number are still held.

I don't see how that policy has anything to do with the maltreatment of asylum seekers by the Dutch government.

You're free to start a thread on the latter, but don't expect much of a discussion from me if you're using the Amnesty report as your baseline. I have no problem with criticizing my own government, and as an Amnesty supporter myself, I'm inclined to take their word as a baseline for my opinion too.

 

[WildCat]

What kind of to quoque fallacy is this? When you're not able to win a debate about Gitmo, you resort to name calling others by saying "look there; they're being bad there too".

The topic of this thread is "European BDS", and the Dutch example illustrates it quite nicely. 2,000 currently being detained indefinitely in a country with a small fraction the population of the US, and they're not even accused of being terrorists or war criminals or enemy combatants! Don't point at the speck in my eye when there's a log in yours. And I think I've done quite well as far as Gitmo, thank you very much.

The Dutch asylum policy has nothing, but then nothing, to do with the US policy of capture, "extrajudicial rendition", and detaining scores of people whom the US administration thinks might be terrorist or such. The 750 or so people that have passed through Gitmo are the tip of the iceberg of a global operation in which over 100,000 people have been "processed" - mostly in secrecy -, and an unknown number are still held.

100,000? And of course, you can't prove it... because it's secret! Hey, I hear the Dutch have detained 1,000,000 people and tortured them, all in secret so I can't show you evidence! Sweet.

I don't see how that policy has anything to do with the maltreatment of asylum seekers by the Dutch government.

It's about BDS. If Bush did what the Dutch are doing you and the rest of the BDS-stricken populace of Europe would be demanding he be charged in The Hague for crimes against humanity. But it's OK when the Dutch do it...

You're free to start a thread on the latter, but don't expect much of a discussion from me if you're using the Amnesty report as your baseline. I have no problem with criticizing my own government, and as an Amnesty supporter myself, I'm inclined to take their word as a baseline for my opinion too.

Actually I'm free to talk about it here, since this thread is about European BDS. The situation in The Netherlands is a perfect example of the double-standard emplyed by arrogant Europeans so blinded by hatred of Bush they can't see the parallels in their own governments.

And it doesn't have to stop there either. Want to talk about freedom of speech (such as the Bridget Bardot fiasco)? Freedom of association? The practice common in Europe of outlawing political parties and ideologies? The European preference to look the other way when a genocide is taking place in their own yard (Bosnia)? Swiss banks only recently being forced to find and return assets gained from the Nazi theft of Jewish property? Swiss banks allowing dictators the world over to deposit monies from foreign aid into their own personal bank accounts so millions can starve to death?

Arrogant European hypocrisy at it's finest. If not BDS, what is it?

 

[ddt]

The topic of this thread is "European BDS", and the Dutch example illustrates it quite nicely. 2,000 currently being detained indefinitely in a country with a small fraction the population of the US, and they're not even accused of being terrorists or war criminals or enemy combatants! Don't point at the speck in my eye when there's a log in yours. And I think I've done quite well as far as Gitmo, thank you very much.

No you failed w.r.t. Gitmo. And as to the topic of this thread: Darth said in the OP, and asked me again in another post, to restrict discussion to the Uighurs. I'll respect his wishes until he says otherwise.

100,000? And of course, you can't prove it... because it's secret! Hey, I hear the Dutch have detained 1,000,000 people and tortured them, all in secret so I can't show you evidence! Sweet.

I can back it up. Well, the number was from memory - it's actually 80,000. Here are links to articles in the Guardian:
More than 80,000 held by US since 9/11 attacks
US accused of holding terror suspects on prison ships
Prison ships, torture claims, and missing detainees
Now you go read the Congress reports that are mentioned.

It's about BDS. If Bush did what the Dutch are doing you and the rest of the BDS-stricken populace of Europe would be demanding he be charged in The Hague for crimes against humanity. But it's OK when the Dutch do it...

This is a case of severe reading miscomprehension. Go read back my previous post.

Actually I'm free to talk about it here, since this thread is about European BDS. The situation in The Netherlands is a perfect example of the double-standard emplyed by arrogant Europeans so blinded by hatred of Bush they can't see the parallels in their own governments.

********. Just because the Dutch policy on asylum seekers doesn't make the world headlines doesn't mean it isn't being discussed. You can read various Dutch newspapers that are online, Dutch TV news shows are viewable online, and you're of course welcome to join Dutch (political) discussion forums.

It's obvious from your comments that you haven't followed Dutch politics for the last couple of years, and from your "indefinite" comment above I doubt you even read the Amnesty report from front to back.

And lastly, you're of course welcome to bring up the topic on this forum. But in another thread. And be prepared there'll be a fair amount of Dutch-language material brought into the discussion.

 

[WildCat]

No you failed w.r.t. Gitmo. And as to the topic of this thread: Darth said in the OP, and asked me again in another post, to restrict discussion to the Uighurs. I'll respect his wishes until he says otherwise.

Right, the Uighers. It takes quite a pair of blinders to get hysterical over 17 Uighers while 2,000 people are held in your own country who haven't ever even attended a terrorist training camp. Why don't you bump a Gitmo thread if you want to talk about Gitmo in general? Maybe it's because the facts don't support you?

I can back it up. Well, the number was from memory - it's actually 80,000. Here are links to articles in the Guardian:
More than 80,000 held by US since 9/11 attacks

Ah, I see. So everyone captured in a war is included in this figure. Is the capture of enemies in a war some kind of GC violation now? Did you have a point?

US accused of holding terror suspects on prison ships
Prison ships, torture claims, and missing detainees
Now you go read the Congress reports that are mentioned.

Rear Admiral John Stufflebeem, spokesman for the US joint chiefs of staff, replied: "I don't know the specifics. Central command determines for either medical considerations, for the protection of those individuals, for the isolation in the sense of not having forces that would try to come get somebody out of a detention centre, for a security aspect, and obviously an interest to continue interrogation."

I don't see a problem here. There is no evidence at all that anyone is held on ships long-term or for reasons other than medical, security (they may be informers getting out of Dodge), or other legitimate reasons.

This is a case of severe reading miscomprehension. Go read back my previous post.


********. Just because the Dutch policy on asylum seekers doesn't make the world headlines doesn't mean it isn't being discussed. You can read various Dutch newspapers that are online, Dutch TV news shows are viewable online, and you're of course welcome to join Dutch (political) discussion forums.

And the population of Dutch detainees continues to grow! Meanwhile, the population of Gitmo is continually decreasing, down 70% from it's high water mark. Worry about your own business first.

It's obvious from your comments that you haven't followed Dutch politics for the last couple of years, and from your "indefinite" comment above I doubt you even read the Amnesty report from front to back.

What's there to know? The Dutch are holding 2,000 people indefinitely without charges, and they aren't even wartime enemies! Scaled up for population differences this would be like the US holding 35,000.

And lastly, you're of course welcome to bring up the topic on this forum. But in another thread. And be prepared there'll be a fair amount of Dutch-language material brought into the discussion.

BDS blinders.