Guantanamo Bay

[KayHarker]

One of the things I was hopeful about with Obama being elected was the closure of Gitmo, but over the past few days, I've had some misgivings. Not that I've changed my mind about it, so much as I'm wondering if I've been soundly duped, because they're not really going to make people stand trial or let them go, they're probably just going to shuffle them around to other countries/detention centres.

So all that's really going to happen is a bit of a PR stunt. Did everyone realize this already and you're all looking at me like I'm Noddy? Or have I got the wrong end of the stick entirely?

[SenoraPostrophe]

shuffling them to other countries would still be progress though, kay. the problem with gmo is that it's (purportedly( outside both US law and international law for prisoners of war. at least in other countries most of the prisoners would have the protection of the national law, as the inmates released to UK prisons had.

[DaddyJ]

You are not wrong, it's more complicated than it appeared at first.

There is hardcore of prisoners that are dangerous - particularly now that they have a REAL and personal motive - but there is not enough evidence to 'properly' convict them.

Then there are some from China who cannot be sent back there because their safety could not be assured.

Dick and W have left the next Admin a pretty toxic mess there.

[KayHarker]

Would it really be progress, though? Seems to me it would just dilute the frustration at the injustice of it by removing the main focus point - G-Bay itself. Toxic mess, indeed. Lots of those about at the moment

[SenoraPostrophe]

well yes, because the law in most countries, including the US, requires a trial and evidence. the british prisoners released to UK custody were subsequently released due to lack of evidence.

[Nighbynight]

unfortunately they would probably be moved to detention centres that are just as illegal as Guantanamo, but less well known. So yes, basically just a publicity stunt.

[MaryMarriott]

I don't understand this proposal at all. It's America's responsibility isn't it?

[SenoraPostrophe]

what detention centres would they be then nighbynight? france and germany have said they'll take some prisoners, but neither country is known for torturing inmates or holding prisoners without trial. or should we be contacting amnesty?

marymarriott the US obviously wants not to have all the prisoners on its soil. some countries have agreed to take some prisoners as a way of getting political points with obama's administration or because they feel it's their moral duty, whichever you prefer.

[Nighbynight]

SP, like this for example
www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/bagram-detention-centre-now-twice-the-size-of-guantanamo-76880 3.html

Actually, germany has been implicated in the whole illegal moving around of prisoners. Planes re-fuelling, prisoners from other countries briefly held at military centres.

[SenoraPostrophe]

yes, Germany have been implicated in all that, but allowing a plane carrying a prisoner to refuel is not the same as having prisons which allow torture and jail without trial, even if the destination is dodgy.

As I understand it, most prisoners are to be shipped to other western countries, not afghanistan.

[Nighbynight]

I have also read a couple of accounts by prisoners who believe that they were briefly held (and interogated) at US bases in germany, SP.
As for moving prisoners from guantanamo - last time I read up on the subject (last year), nobody outside the US military really had a clear list of who had been/was still being held at Guantanamo.
It has been clear for some time that G is an embarrassment to teh US - they have had plenty of time to divert people elsewhere.

Sad that they are still insisting that there is a hard core of dangerous terrorists in there, only they don't have any proof

[onager]

I don't understand about the 'other countries taking some'. Why would we want US prisoners? They have a huge country. Plenty of room for a couple of dozen prisoners.

If they mean UK citizens that is still daft since we really will have to release them right away (and still taking the piss since they were not UK citizens when it suited the US to lock them up)

I'm not naive, but not being able to prove someome committed any crime means they might be... what's the technical term... oh yes. Innocent.

The usual thing they say is "oh well yeah, but you can't give terrorists the same rights as decent people" but if you can't even prove they committed a crime how can they be labeled terrorists?