• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

European BDS

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

The fact that a US court of competent jurisdiction has so ruled. Check FindLaw if you want the case.

Was there someone advocating holding prisoners illegally and torturing them?

Yes, the US Attorney in the case mentioned above, where the court found that they were being illegally held.

You're a few months too late to be playing this game -- a court has already issued the ruling that the detentions are and were illegal and that the prisoners must be released.
 
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?
Are you talking only about the Uighers?
 
The fact that a US court of competent jurisdiction has so ruled. Check FindLaw if you want the case.
Was that court overuled by a higher court? Where is the evidence of the torture you claimed?

Yes, the US Attorney in the case mentioned above, where the court found that they were being illegally held.
Are you talking about only the Uighers? And where is the evidence of torture?

You're a few months too late to be playing this game -- a court has already issued the ruling that the detentions are and were illegal and that the prisoners must be released.
The question you keep punting on: Are you talking only of the Uighers?
 
No I am talking about what has been posted here, and Darth (I think) singled them out. But it is not only them because the article says that many others are also ordered to be released, does it not?
 
No I am talking about what has been posted here, and Darth (I think) singled them out. But it is not only them because the article says that many others are also ordered to be released, does it not?
No, it does not. Of the 250 or so held at Gitmo only the Uighers have been ordered released by a court. Including the Uighers, there are a total of 60 the US has tried to release but their home countries won't accept them or they are the Uighers in question.

Is there anyone claiming the other 190 or so are being illegally detained?
 
No I am talking about what has been posted here, and Darth (I think) singled them out. But it is not only them because the article says that many others are also ordered to be released, does it not?

I believe the Uighurs are the only ones who have been determined to be illegally held; there are many others who have not been determined to be illegally held (because they have not yet had a chance to have such a determination made, or because the determination has been made but does not meet the standards that the EU is willing to take judicial notice of), but whom the EU considers to be illegally held.

The EU is not under any obligation to respect a judgment made by an American court, let alone an American military tribunal of questionable legal standing.

It would be stupid to negotiate an expatriation treaty that just covered only the Uighurs and didn't cover others similarly situated --- and the EU is simply pointing out that it considers all Gitmo detainees to be "similarly situated" and demands the closure of Gitmo as part of any such treaty.
 
Is there anyone claiming the 60 are being legally detained in the teeth of a court order to the contrary?
There is no court order for the release of 60 detainees. Only the 16 or 17 Uighers have such an order.

Which is why I keep asking you to whom you are referring...
 
Well before we get to that question how about you tell me what the problem with the Uighurs is? I read:

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.

and then

The Justice Department has appealed the judge's order that the Uighurs be released.

If they are not guilty of any crime how can they be held?

For the others of the 60 why won't their home countries accept them? there are many countries mentioned so what is the range of reasons for refusal?

And what has any of this got to do with europe?
 
If they are not guilty of any crime how can they be held?
Because there are legal procedures and laws regarding immigration that the judge's order in question doesn't have the legal weight to overturn or ignore.

For the others of the 60 why won't their home countries accept them? there are many countries mentioned so what is the range of reasons for refusal?
Some of the countries don't take our word for it taht they are no longer a threat, others we can't legally send back because they might be tortured by those other governments.

And what has any of this got to do with europe?
Some European countries have agreed to take some of the detainees.

It really has nothing to do with Europe other than the US is asking pretty much anyone if they're willing to take the guys we don't want either.
 
It really has nothing to do with Europe other than the US is asking pretty much anyone if they're willing to take the guys we don't want either.

... and some countries in Europe have said "yes, but only if you give us a clear commitment to close Guantanamo Bay and an acceptance of common legal principles in the fight against terrorism," something they have been pressuring the Bush administration to do for years and have been refused.

Somehow, it becomes "Bush Derangement Syndrome" when you make the same offer to the next president to follow Bush.
 
At the time of the US military intervention in Afghanistan, the men were living in camps allegedly run by the East Turkistan Islamic Movement, which the Chinese government says is an Islamic terror group.

The 2001 bombing raids forced them to flee to Pakistan, where local villagers turned them over to the US military for a $5,000 bounty for each.

Lawyers for the Uighurs say they never took hostile action against the US, though they received weapons training at the camps.

Some people have a problem with men trained in terrorist tactics being set free, even though they technically never did anything. It's really a no-win situation. They should be set free, but unfortunately they have the potential to use that training.
 
Because there are legal procedures and laws regarding immigration that the judge's order in question doesn't have the legal weight to overturn or ignore.

Dead wrong. Because the order has been stayed pending appeal to determine if there are legal procedures that the judge's order in question can't overturn or ignore.
 
Some people have a problem with men trained in terrorist tactics being set free, even though they technically never did anything. It's really a no-win situation. They should be set free, but unfortunately they have the potential to use that training.

Is it Bush Derangement Syndrome to point out that they now have a much stronger motive as well?
 
... and some countries in Europe have said "yes, but only if you give us a clear commitment to close Guantanamo Bay and an acceptance of common legal principles in the fight against terrorism," something they have been pressuring the Bush administration to do for years and have been refused.
Which "common legal principle"? Which fight against terrorism?

You love to be vague, don't you? Reminds me of the truthers who never make an actual claim so they can't ever be shown wrong.
 
Dead wrong. Because the order has been stayed pending appeal to determine if there are legal procedures that the judge's order in question can't overturn or ignore.
And yet, they remain in custody.

Can this judge likewise order the tide not to come in?
 
Well I have re-read some of the stuff I looked at before about guantanamo and it seems clear that these people are all being held illegally. They have not been accepted as POW's nor as civilian prisoners.There is no legal third alternative, whatever the US government might say. It is neither legal nor moral to hold people indefinitely without properly constituted trial: and specially convened military tribunals are no substitute for courts. I do not expect Wildcat and others to accept this and I have the impression they are eager to move the conversation on to this ground because they are comfortable there: I am not so well versed in the background though I do have some previous knowledge of the issues from general reading. But the question in the OP is about resettling those people in Europe, whatever the position taken on the legality of their detention.

Immigration does not come into this, so far as I can see. Having shown that there is a well founded fear of persecution if returned to their own countries they are asylum seekers. The obligations towards asylum seekers are quite separate from the immigration arrangements in most countries, and the us is no exception. As here the terms for seeking asylum have been tightened, I gather: but they do not alter the case here. So far as I can see the government has accepted the fear of persecution is real in at least some of these cases. So they are through the first hurdle. That is they are refugees as defined in the Geneva convention

"owing to a well founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it."

and asylum seekers by virtue of the fact that they are in the united states (assuming that gitmo is on united states territory)

As such the US Asylum program provides that "If you are granted asylum, you will be allowed to live and work in the United States. You also will be able to apply for permanent resident status one year after you are granted asylum."

Refugees are also given these benefits

"The US government provides the following for refugees:
no interest travel loan to the US
8 months Refugee Cash Assistance (RCA) and Refugee Medical Assistance (RMA)
food stamps
housing assistance, furnishings, food, and clothing
social security card
school registration for children
referrals for medical appointments and other support services
employment services
case management through community based non-profit organizations
adjustment of status from refugee to legal permanent resident"

Again I ask, what is the problem here?
 

Back
Top Bottom