European BDS

[Darth Rotor]

European nations have begun intensive discussions both within and among their governments on whether to resettle detainees from the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, as a significant overture to the incoming Obama administration, according to senior European officials and U.S. diplomats.

The willingness to consider accepting prisoners who cannot be returned to their home countries, because of fears they may be tortured there, represents a major change in attitude on the part of European governments. Repeated requests from the Bush administration that European allies accept some Guantanamo Bay detainees received only refusals.

The Bush administration "produced the problem," Karsten Voigt, coordinator of German-American cooperation at the German Foreign Ministry, said in a telephone interview. "With Obama, the difference is that he tries to solve it."

One group likely to be settled here is 17 Chinese Uighurs who have been held for years at Guantanamo Bay. The Bush administration has acknowledged that the Uighurs are not enemy combatants, and in October a federal judge ordered them released into the United States.

I see. Y'all have issues with W. I don't think you really don't give a crap about the 17 Uighurs.

One might be provoked into calling this hypocrisy. Perish the thought. Whatever it is, the "not return them to home country" problem is only deferred, which IMO is a mistake.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28362264

The Europeans want a clear commitment to close Guantanamo Bay and an acceptance of common legal principles in the fight against terrorism, including those regarding the treatment of suspects, European officials said. A series of meetings between the United States and the European Union on a legal framework for combating terrorism has considerably narrowed differences on the application of human rights law, refugee law and humanitarian law, said Amado and John B. Bellinger III, a legal adviser at the State Department.

Or else, what, they won't play in the anti terrorism match? ??????

Or else they won't take the prisoners off Obama's hands?

Politics is the art of deal making. Watch this deal closely, I think it will be instructive.

DR

 

[drkitten]

I see. Y'all have issues with W. I don't think you really don't give a crap about the 17 Uighurs.

I think it's fairer to say that they have issues with W's policies. Justifiably.

One might be provoked into calling this hypocrisy. Perish the thought

One might, but it would be wrong.

It's the difference between a one-time bailout and enabling. In Realpolitik, the problem of the illegal and unjustified detention of the current Gitmo inmates is a problem, but so is the problem of the illegal and unjustified detention of the next generation of Gitmo inmates. If the EU established the policy of accepting as refugees people whose only crime is that Bush's tea leaves said that they were a national security issue, that opens the door for continued abuses by whoever is in charge of detention policy under whatever administration is in charge.

On the other hand, with a commitment in hand to end the illegal detentions and close the abusive camps, the EU can help out with what amounts to a one-time offer.

And, in fact, that's more or less what your citation says.

The Europeans want a clear commitment to close Guantanamo Bay and an acceptance of common legal principles in the fight against terrorism,

So if nothing else, you can regard this as diplomatic horse-trading. We've been asking them for years to help clean up our mess. They've said "no, it's your mess, you made it, you clean it up." Now we've changed our request to "We've decided to stop making any more messes of this sort, will you help us clean up the current one" and they've said, "yes, we will help, if we get a clear commitment to stop making such messes.

Or else, what, they won't play in the anti terrorism match? ??????

Quite possibly, since there's ample evidence that the "anti terrorism match" is not actually very effective against terrorism. Why is it in the EU's interest to play?

Or else they won't take the prisoners off Obama's hands?

Again, quite possibly. Why is it in the EU's interest to do so?

The answer to both questions, as far as I can tell, is "it isn't." What is in their best interest is friendly relations with the incoming US president and a clear commitment on the US's part to the rule of law, both of which have suffered tremendously over the past six years.

 

[Alt+F4]

I don't think sending any of them to our European allies is the solution. What other real choice is there accept releasing them in the United States under very close supervision for a long time?

 

[Darth Rotor]

I think it's fairer to say that they have issues with W's policies. Justifiably.

One might, but it would be wrong.

It's the difference between a one-time bailout and enabling. In Realpolitik, the problem of the illegal and unjustified detention of the current Gitmo inmates is a problem, but so is the problem of the illegal and unjustified detention of the next generation of Gitmo inmates.

The next generation? Kitten, it's gonna close. Obama and McCain both put that on their list of "stuff to do." What next generation?

I am going to focus on the Uighurs, since they are declared non combatants. Bush has been trying to let them go, and IIRC tends to agree with the EU that they can't send them back to China as China may well smite them mightily, etc. But EU won't take them. I suspect there is fear of China in this, and using the Uighurs as a stick in the eye of Bush.

Hypocrites? Yes. And yes, I surely understand the Realpolitik problem of

Thin end of the wedge
Playing to the home audience
Longer term attempts to force the US into a different position (as though Obama won't change without their input. I can be spared the European condescension, thanks. )

And, in fact, that's more or less what your citation says.

Indeed: after five years of harping at Bush, when he offered to let them go they won't do it, unless ... I get it entirely. Cynical as I am, I do indeed get it. It's called politics.

So if nothing else, you can regard this as diplomatic horse-trading.

Yes. Deal making, as I noted.

We've been asking them for years to help clean up our mess.

No. That's an overstatement. Part of what US has asked some of the Europeans to do over the past six years was to "piss off" or words to that effect. (Recall Rummy/Cheney and Old Europe, among other bile offered up?)

"We've decided to stop making any more messes of this sort, will you help us clean up the current one" and they've said, "yes, we will help, if we get a clear commitment to stop making such messes.

And that makes sense.

Quite possibly, since there's ample evidence that the "anti terrorism match" is not actually very effective against terrorism. Why is it in the EU's interest to play?

Madrid, 2004. Did you have to ask?
Rome airporrt, 1986. Did you have to ask?
Locherbie, Scotland? Did you have to ask?
Bombs in London? 7/7 Did you have to ask?
Bali. Did you have to ask?

Whether or not Bush has played the anti terror match well isn't the issue: I for one am not impressed with his game. Obama has to keep playing, one way or another. They aren't going anywhere. If you note how a lax attitude by both Bush and his predecessor turned out after the Kenya and Tanzania embassy bombings turned out, the match is still on. It's a test match. (Cricket term)

Again, quite possibly. Why is it in the EU's interest to do so?

Are you sure you meant to ask that question?

The answer to both questions, as far as I can tell, is "it isn't." What is in their best interest is friendly relations with the incoming US president and a clear commitment on the US's part to the rule of law, both of which have suffered tremendously over the past six years.

My read is: we don't trust you to change anything, Mr Obama. So much for the European honeymoon with the Senator from Illinois. Call me cynical -- wait, I am. No need to waste the keystrokes.

However, I freely admit to being a bit hasty. This is an initial report. The governments will do their usual deliberation before the few who do want to play ball put together a position of substance in order to come to the table and make a deal.

As I suggested: watch this deal making, it will be instructive.

DR

 

[drkitten]

The next generation? Kitten, it's gonna close. Obama and McCain both put that on their list of "stuff to do."

Oh, and that's so convincing. Bush put a manned mission to Mars on his list of "stuff to do." Wanna bet whether or not THAT's going to happen?

The problem is that closing Gitmo is on the list of "stuff to do" -- in the sweet bye-and-bye, while the Uigher's need to be dealt with now.

I am going to focus on the Uighurs, since they are declared non combatants. Bush has been trying to let them go, and IIRC tends to agree with the EU that they can't send them back to China as China may well smite them mightily, etc. But EU won't take them.

And there's no reason they should. Why should the Uighurs become the EU's problem instead of the Americans?

Madrid, 2004. Did you have to ask?
Rome airporrt, 1986. Did you have to ask?
Locherbie, Scotland? Did you have to ask?
Bombs in London? 7/7 Did you have to ask?
Bali. Did you have to ask?

Whether or not Bush has played the anti terror match well isn't the issue:

No, that's exactly the issue.

Bush has been playing a game that he calls "anti-terrorism" that has arguably increased terrorist activity world-wide.

Just because I call a game "football" doesn't mean that you need to buy pads to play.

Obama has to keep playing, one way or another.

Again, wrong. He has to try to do something to stop terrorism, but that doesn't mean he has to play the same game Bush has been.

Are you sure you meant to ask that question?

Absolutely. There are many ways that the EU could try to stop terrorism; there is no reason to believe that following the US lead on policy is in their interests. There is evidence suggesting that US policy is misguided to the point of not merely ineffective, but actively harmful. If this is indeed the case, then it's positively NOT in the EU's interest to cooperate with US policy.

My read is: we don't trust you to change anything, Mr Obama.

So your real problem is that the Europeans don't take American campaign promises at face value?

You're far from a cynic. A cynic would demand action before believing campaign promises.

 

[WildCat]

the illegal and unjustified detention of the next generation of Gitmo inmates.

...On the other hand, with a commitment in hand to end the illegal detentions and close the abusive camps,

What "illegal detentions"? The Uighers, or do you claim everyone in Gitmo is being held illegally? And what difference does it make if they get held in Gitmo or in another facility somewhere else?

 

[Darth Rotor]

Again, wrong. He has to try to do something to stop terrorism, but that doesn't mean he has to play the same game Bush has been.

What the hell? The game has been on since long before Bush ever showed up. How he played is good or badly done, but he had to play. Obama has to play as well. Clinton had to play. Reagan had to play. Obama has no choice not to play. The fight against terrorists and terrorism predates W by some decades.

Hello? What is apparent to me is that whatever was being tried in the 1990's didn't work so well. What Bush has been trying hasn't been brilliant either, beginning with the decision to put the Iraq war under the terrorism political umbrella. Way to lose focus.

Absolutely. There are many ways that the EU could try to stop terrorism; there is no reason to believe that following the US lead on policy is in their interests.

How do you measure their success rate to date?

There is evidence suggesting that US policy is misguided to the point of not merely ineffective, but actively harmful. If this is indeed the case, then it's positively NOT in the EU's interest to cooperate with US policy.

Or suggest a better idea. Like, one that works. I would hope any ally would do that. I heard the US and much of Europe are formally allies. I even have experience.

So your real problem is that the Europeans don't take American campaign promises at face value?

Nope. This press release before the fact is BDS in another form. This is at the moment political posturing. This isn't a report of a deal, it is a report of some folks pissing at Bush. That is all it is.

You're far from a cynic. A cynic would demand action before believing campaign promises.

And eat raisins in my porridge, of course. (I have a kilt on back order.)

This does not think that a change in policy can happen until Bush leaves. One thing he is is stubborn. It is in Obama's interest to change policy, but what isn't clear is just how he will change it, other than a stated goal of his, that is consistent with Bush's already stated goal of closing Gitmo. I don't think Obama is fool enough to have uttered that promise without any intent of following through. It's not politically trivial, internally nor externally.

When? Still to be worked out. Obama is aware that America and the rest of the world is watching. He is almost forced to act, if he is to establish himself as a leader rather than just another effing pol.

The jury is still out on the latter.

As I suggested: watch how this deal goes down. It's a test match.

DR

 

[drkitten]

What the hell? The game has been on since long before Bush ever showed up. How he played is good or badly done, but he had to play.

The metaphor is breaking down here.

Hello? What is apparent to me is that whatever was being tried in the 1990's didn't work so well. What Bush has been trying hasn't been brilliant either, beginning with the decision to put the Iraq war under the terrorism political umbrella. Way to lose focus.

And when the EU called him on this, he basically told them, "my way, or the highway."

He insisted that his was the only way to "play the game" and told them -- and the rest of the world -- that if they didn't play exactly as he dictated, then they were actively on the side of the terrorists.

AND as you pointed out, totally muffed the actual anti-terrorism operations through misfocus.

You're surprised that the EU would refuse to participate in anti-terrorism operations that weren't actually focused on terrorism?

Or suggest a better idea. Like, one that works. I would hope any ally would do that. I heard the US and much of Europe are formally allies.

So had the EU. Evidently they never got the memo that "allies" means "slaves," or something; when they did suggest other ideas, Bush was not particularly happy.

 

[Darth Rotor]

So had the EU. Evidently they never got the memo that "allies" means "slaves," or something; when they did suggest other ideas, Bush was not particularly happy.

So they didn't fight alongside us in Afghanistan, and increase troop levels there more than once --

Oh, wait, I am talking about NATO, not Europe.

Oh, wait, the Italians and Dutch went to Iraq -- but I'm not talking about ...

Never mind. Our allies did indeed play ball in this Bushian War on Terror thing, and still do. (Whether it's smiling or grimacing comes down to cases.)

Your hyperbole didn't work. That Bush took a narrow view and was hard to work with is not something we disagree on. For that, the seventeen I mention are, it seems, to be batted about like a political shuttlecock, despite years of efforts allegedly on the behalf of the folks held in Gitmo by well meaning friends and allies.

See the title of the OP again: what this is, now, is BDS. You can say it's justified if you like, the love was lost. It is a case of BDS to play it via news leak in this form.

Petty sniping. From the article, note "don't want to be quoted" style of "leak" to the media.

Note how easy it is to put it this way: "We look forward to working with President Obama on crafting a mutually workable solution."

Not petty, and most likely what they intended to do anyway. But first, they had to get in a cheap shot. I am sure the Uighurs thank them for that.

DR

 

[drkitten]

What "illegal detentions"?

The detentions that the EU has been claiming are in violation of the Geneva Convention for the past several years.

The Uighers, or do you claim everyone in Gitmo is being held illegally?

Ask the EU; it's their claim, and they're the ones holding the cards at the moment.

And what difference does it make if they get held in Gitmo or in another facility somewhere else?

Very little, which is why they're waiting for "commitment" and seeing whether or not some sort of silly shell-game is played.

You see, you, and apparently most of the current adminstration, have been caught in a false dilemma. There is in fact a third alternative between "holding and torturing prisoners illegally in a camp outside of US soil" and "holding and torturing prisoners illegally in a camp inside the US."

I suggest --- and I recognize that this violates long-standing traditions among both the government and the military, and in fact will almost certainly involve a major revision in the UCMJ, and for that reason, I suspect that no serving or former military personnel would possibly agree with me on this, but I nevertheless persist,.... I suggest that the United States should neither torture prisoners nor hold them illegally, regardless of location.

I would even go so far as to suggest that military personnel involved in the torture and illegal detention of prisoners should be subject to court-martial.

I further suggest that civilian administrators who authorized the torture and illegal detention of prisoners should be subject to criminal prosecution.

But it's precisely because of the radical nature of these changes that the EU is resorting to underhanded diplomatic techniques such as refusing to accept responsibility for cleaning up the mess that the United States put itself into.

 

[drkitten]

That Bush took a narrow view and was hard to work with is not something we disagree on.

So why is it BDS to point out that "we couldn't work with Bush, but are willing to work with you"?

For that, the seventeen I mention are, it seems, to be batted about like a political shuttlecock, despite years of efforts allegedly on the behalf of the folks held in Gitmo

The EU has no responsibility to the seventeen held in Gitmo. Why should the EU be holding our hands in this matter?

Is it Bush Derangement Syndrome to refuse to do a special favor for a person who, by all accounts, is "hard to work with"?

That's what it is,... a special favor. Judge Urbina said that the Uighurs should be released, into the United States. If the EU does nothing, then unless the appeal reverses the case, the Uighurs must in fact be released into the United States. The fact that "we" don't want to do that means little if the rule of law is to be respected.

But the EU has no obligation to step in, and probably doesn't want the refugees any more than we did. The difference is that they're not under a court order to accept them....

 

[Darth Rotor]

I suggest --- and I recognize that this violates long-standing traditions among both the government and the military, and in fact will almost certainly involve a major revision in the UCMJ

UCMJ isn't about POW treatment. I think you knew that. And as far as the FM, there is still some fact finding to unearth on two items, some of which has been bubbling up here and there for about five years.

1. Who other than military were involved at military detention centers? (Some contractors are also involved, and other agencies, it appears.)

2. What rules were in place for interagency operations?

3. Most critically for your third bolded point, on whose authority were those interagency operations conducted, and with what guiding rules and constraints?

4. If the past has any predicive power, see how low on the chain of command the hammer fell in the Abu Ghraib case, the ones you want hammered won't be. General Sanchez had it happen on his watch under his command. Likewise others at that and higher levels. What orders/guidance was he given, and what stovepipes implaced from higher, that absolves him, for example, of accountability on that matter? IMO, it will take declassification and FOIA requests to get those answers.

We risk a derail here.

DR

 

[Darth Rotor]

So why is it BDS to point out that "we couldn't work with Bush, but are willing to work with you"?

The EU has no responsibility to the seventeen held in Gitmo. Why should the EU be holding our hands in this matter?

Then why are they even involved in the first place?

Is it Bush Derangement Syndrome to refuse to do a special favor for a person who, by all accounts, is "hard to work with"?

See my remark on petty sniping.

Judge Urbina said that the Uighurs should be released, into the United States. If the EU does nothing, then unless the appeal reverses the case, the Uighurs must in fact be released into the United States.

Yes.

But the EU has no obligation to step in, and probably doesn't want the refugees any more than we did. The difference is that they're not under a court order to accept them....

Yes. So, back to the petty sniping via news leak ...

 

[Policenaut]

Cry more basically.

 

[Fiona]

Um I don't really know anything about this so may I interrupt to ask a few questions?

How did the uighur chinese get to guantanamo bay? Where did they come from and why are they there?

Why are those prisoners particularly singled out for release?

What is this to do with the EU?

What is BDS?

 

[drkitten]

Then why are they even involved in the first place?

Um, because we asked them to be? Repeatedly?

Would you prefer that they simply pretended never to have received that particular message? ("Whups, I guess Condi must not have dropped if off at the right embassy.")

We asked them to step in, they responded that they would, given a certain set of conditions. This is actually a hell of a lot nicer than either we deserve or than international law demands,.... but they are trying to establish a working relationship with the incoming president.

 

[drkitten]

Um I don't really know anything about this so may I interrupt to ask a few questions?

How did the uighur chinese get to guantanamo bay?

Blindfolded and in handcuffs, on a US. military transport.

Where did they come from and why are they there?

Picked up by the US military for being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Why are those prisoners particularly singled out for release?

They're acknowledged noncombatants, which makes holding them as "enemy combatants" legally problematic. That wasn't a problem as long as Bush was (illegally) refusing to hold the status hearings that international law mandates, and as long as he was (illegally) refusing to allow habeas corpus hearings.

But when the SCOTUS insisted that the Gitmo prisoners were entitled to habeas corpus, and they were finally allowed their day in court, a judge took judicial notice of the fact that they were being illegally held and ordered their release.

The problem is that they can't be released back to China; as members of an oppressed minority, they would be subject to torture. Bush doesn't want them here, so the only option left is to farm them out on someone else.

What is this to do with the EU?

The EU is a good candidate for "someone else" if anyone can be persuaded to accept them.

So far, the EU has said (justifiably) "bite me." [In the interests of technical accuracy, this isn't an EU decision, but a decision of the individual states, I believe. But since the states have unanimously said "bite me," the effect is the same. Just think of a Greek chorus all saying "bite me" in unison, as a single character.]

What is BDS?

Bush Derangement Syndrome. A term used among some right-wing Bush apologists to attribute well-founded criticism of his policies to personal failings on the part of the critics, thereby allowing them to continue their unthinking support of his illegal policies no matter how badly conceived or performed.

 

[WildCat]

You see, you, and apparently most of the current adminstration, have been caught in a false dilemma. There is in fact a third alternative between "holding and torturing prisoners illegally in a camp outside of US soil" and "holding and torturing prisoners illegally in a camp inside the US."

Having punted on defining what you mean by "illegal detentions" you now claim that the detainees in Gitmo are being tortured, and failed to support the claim at all.

So what is your evidence that anyone is being illegally detained and/or tortured in Gitmo?

I suggest --- and I recognize that this violates long-standing traditions among both the government and the military, and in fact will almost certainly involve a major revision in the UCMJ, and for that reason, I suspect that no serving or former military personnel would possibly agree with me on this, but I nevertheless persist,.... I suggest that the United States should neither torture prisoners nor hold them illegally, regardless of location.

Holy strawman Batman! Was there someone advocating holding prisoners illegally and torturing them?

I would even go so far as to suggest that military personnel involved in the torture and illegal detention of prisoners should be subject to court-martial.

What torture? What "illegal detentions"? You are all accusations, and no evidence.

I further suggest that civilian administrators who authorized the torture and illegal detention of prisoners should be subject to criminal prosecution.

Once again, evidence?

But it's precisely because of the radical nature of these changes that the EU is resorting to underhanded diplomatic techniques such as refusing to accept responsibility for cleaning up the mess that the United States put itself into.

If they don't want the Uighers nobody is forcing them on them.

 

[Fiona]

So these people were detained somewhere and then were transported to Guantanamo bay, where they were held without trial for a very long time. When they finally were heard in court the court ruled that they were not guilty of anything and ordered their release. They have not been released. So they are being held illegally. They have rights under international law not to be returned to a place where they have a well founded fear of persecution. They are in america and they are there because the american brought them there? It seems to me that america has an obligation to give them citizenship and also to compensate them for the years they have spent in jail. They have absolutely no connection with any european state at all. There is no reason whatsover that europe should accept them, therefore. Europe didn't. But as a big favour they might consider doing so if certain conditions are met. I think that is quite nice of europe but I do not see any reason for it at all. What is the problem here?

 

[drkitten]

So these people were detained somewhere and then were transported to Guantanamo bay, where they were held without trial for a very long time. When they finally were heard in court the court ruled that they were not guilty of anything and ordered their release. They have not been released. So they are being held illegally. They have rights under international law not to be returned to a place where they have a well founded fear of persecution. They are in america and they are there because the american brought them there? It seems to me that america has an obligation to give them citizenship and also to compensate them for the years they have spent in jail. They have absolutely no connection with any european state at all. There is no reason whatsover that europe should accept them, therefore. Europe didn't. But as a big favour they might consider doing so if certain conditions are met. I think that is quite nice of europe but I do not see any reason for it at all. What is the problem here?

To a rational person, none at all.

I suggest you ask WildCat and Darth for the opinion from the other side.