Obama's European trip

deanhills · Apr 25, 2009

curious said:
and somehow this has become Obama's fault?

There is a difference between "fault" and "responsibility", think I used the word responsibility. It became Obama's responsibility to sort out GITMO in January. He signed a declaration to that effect. I have not seen or heard a word of trials for the people in Gitmo whom this is all about. Have you? Whose responsibility is that? At a certain point in time Obama has to take responsibility for the solution to the problem. Not only on paper, but "in action". The action part has been considerably lacking, don't you think, especially considering that these guys have been without legal process for years and years. One would have thought there would have been at least an urgency surrounding their release by now in terms of energy with trials, lawyers, signs of action and urgency to solve the problem. Instead it is still very much the same problem it has been four months ago with no timelines attached to solving it.

DodgeFB · Apr 25, 2009

curious said:
Your attitude is thoroughly immoral. No, make that amoral. You seem to believe it is OK to do anything, no matter how cruel, as long as you feel a little bit threatened. Next you'll be sympathizing with the Nazis, and saying that the US progam to eliminate Native Americans was OK.

The danger in "retaliating in kind" or "going them one better" is that you become the very thing you are fighting.

Do you not believe in the rule of law at all? Do you think that if someone should, for instance, murder a member of my family that I have acquired the right to torture them and drive them to suicide, without benefit of trial or legal representation?

Doesn't it bother you even a bit that a lot of those that were tortured were just people rounded up on the street with no evidence against them at all?

And if waterboarding isn't torture, I think you should offer yourself up as a volunteer for an evaluation of whether it is or not. Get yourself waterboarded 22 times, then come back and tell me it isn't torture.

In short. I believe less " in the rule of law" every time I see those same laws used against us.

I believe if someone murdered a member of "my" family I have the right to do anything I can to them. Including kill them in a very ugly way. See two years ago I held the hand of my oldest daughter in her casket. She was killed on the way to work. The person who crossed over and killed her was dead too. And I would have killed that person no doubt had they lived.

As for water boarding, If I was running with the crowd some of these people were and saying some of the things they were saying in a war zone I would expect bad things to happen to me. And not all of those water boarded were innocent.

And as far as me being water boarded, I have had things much nastier done to me. As a cancer patient I have had chemotherapy burn my veins until I lost 47% of the movement in both arms for over a year. And since that crap can not tell good from bad I have permanent internal damage. My treatments were called MOP. Very nasty stuff I must say.

deanhills · Apr 26, 2009

Think I am worried that some of the GITMO prisoners have been in prison for a number of years without some kind of action to either charge them with something or let them go. Think I understand that it has to be complicated as possibly there is not enough evidence to prove their guilt, and if they are let go off it could either backfire in the sense that they are bound to join some or other cell, or it could prove negligence on the part of the US Government and the Government be liable to be sued. But still, Obama has signed an undertaking to free the prisoners, and one would have thought by now that there would have been at least a frenzy of activity to schedule court hearings. The fact that there is no such frenetic energy may underline the fact that the situation is as complicated as the Republicans have said it was. The Democrats can't get a handle on it either.

DodgeFB · Apr 26, 2009

deanhills said:
Think I am worried that some of the GITMO prisoners have been in prison for a number of years without some kind of action to either charge them with something or let them go. Think I understand that it has to be complicated as possibly there is not enough evidence to prove their guilt, and if they are let go off it could either backfire in the sense that they are bound to join some or other cell, or it could prove negligence on the part of the US Government and the Government be liable to be sued. But still, Obama has signed an undertaking to free the prisoners, and one would have thought by now that there would have been at least a frenzy of activity to schedule court hearings. The fact that there is no such frenetic energy may underline the fact that the situation is as complicated as the Republicans have said it was. The Democrats can't get a handle on it either.

As "amoral" as I might seem, There could always be some terrible "accident" where "unfortunately' many or all prisoners were "lost".

The Parakeet · Apr 26, 2009

Well most of the bunch left awaiting trials will just get quiet military tribunals. They are war criminals or foreign fighters, so they wouldn't have any right to sue.

Technically, our soldiers could have executed them on the battlefield if they were following the Geneva Convention. Saboteurs, Mercenaries, and Foreign Fighters have no rights in combat. It is also illegal to try prisoners of war in civil courts by the Geneva Convention's own laws. That's why we didn't have to give them lawyers or public trials.

The ones we are letting go aren't too big of threat. There was a report that one of the ones released early rejoined his cell in Yemen and was killed in another operation. We don't have a right to hold them though.

deanhills · Apr 27, 2009

The Parakeet said:
Well most of the bunch left awaiting trials will just get quiet military tribunals. They are war criminals or foreign fighters, so they wouldn't have any right to sue.

Technically, our soldiers could have executed them on the battlefield if they were following the Geneva Convention. Saboteurs, Mercenaries, and Foreign Fighters have no rights in combat. It is also illegal to try prisoners of war in civil courts by the Geneva Convention's own laws. That's why we didn't have to give them lawyers or public trials.

The ones we are letting go aren't too big of threat. There was a report that one of the ones released early rejoined his cell in Yemen and was killed in another operation. We don't have a right to hold them though.

Thanks for all the info Parakeet, it is really educational and of interest to me. Do you know of a Website that gives unbiased info on the Gitmo or ex Gitmo prisoners?

The Parakeet · Apr 27, 2009

Unfortunately no, not off of the top of my head. Most of this is just stuff I remember from other discussions and spare newspaper articles.

deanhills · Apr 28, 2009

The Parakeet said:
Unfortunately no, not off of the top of my head. Most of this is just stuff I remember from other discussions and spare newspaper articles.

I did some searches of my own, and I must say I had to put lots of effort in it to find something meaningful after the January/February ones just after Obama had signed off on closing Gitmo. I learned the following:
1. There are about 245 prisoners left in Gitmo (the same number as in January) from the original 800. The movement of the 800 is not one group of 800 at one time, but the prisoners were admitted and released continuously. There is list of these at the Website below:
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/02/23/q-resettlement-guantanamo-bay-detainees

There is also a Website by a guy in the UK - Andy Worthington - that contains quite a bit of up to date information, factual comments etc. This article is quite recent:
http://www.andyworthington.co.uk/2009/04/23/ten-terrible-truths-about-the-cia-torture-memos-part-two/

Contrary to the perception that the detainees were kept indefinitely, they were released, and quite a number were released when Bush was still President. Obama has scheduled release of one prisoner, but he is still at Gitmo. Also Obama issued a report that the Gitmo prison was in good shape except for the fact that prisoners were not allowed to communicated with one another and were isolated. The prison is nonetheless planned to be closed within the year that he signed off on, i.e. January 2010 is D month. Major focus is trying to find a home for the prisoners. Obama has been trying to get European countries, UK and Australia to take some of the prisoners. The European Union said OK in principle, but when Austria was contacted, it gave a very public "NO". Australia said OK in principle, subject to screening in terms of their immigration laws, and then when they were presented with files, rejected all of them as not meeting their immigration laws. UK will take one. There are a bunch of Chinese prisoners who can't go back to China. Then there are a few prisoners that are local to the 9/11 Terrorist Attacks and will need to be housed in US prisons. That is a dilemma, as people find now that the prisoners have more rights in Gitmo than the prisoners in US jails. Sort of a real irony in contrast.

Andy Worthington's Website (shortcut above) is well worth browsing through. It is a bit biased, but for the better part lots of factual information.

The Parakeet · Apr 28, 2009

That sounds about right. I didn't think it was up to 245 in January, but that's not much higher than the ballpark figure I heard at the time.

The European thing is incredibly frustrating. They promised to take the prisoners back if we closed the prison. They then included a weasel word clause that said that each country would take them back if all of the other countries did. Well...a few (like Austria) said no right off the bat and freed all of the other countries from their obligation. Really annoying and two-faced from our the "holier than thou" allies in Europe. I believe a few said that they'd take them all, but we're working out the details.

curious · Apr 30, 2009

DodgeFB - I'm truly sorry about the tragedy in your life, but I still believe that everybody taking things into their own hands is wrong and totally detrimental to having a decent and functioning society.

Parakeet - I'll go along with the assessment of European hypocrisy. I spend a lot of time in my travels talking to Europeans, and in general they seem to subscribe to the theory that everything they do is right and that all problems are caused by the US. I've even had Germans come down on me for the attemepts to eradicate the Indians after the Civil War, but when I countered with Hitler, I was told that was long ago and didn't matter any more! Apparently time is different in Europe.

deanhills · Apr 30, 2009

curious said:
Parakeet - I'll go along with the assessment of European hypocrisy. I spend a lot of time in my travels talking to Europeans, and in general they seem to subscribe to the theory that everything they do is right and that all problems are caused by the US. I've even had Germans come down on me for the attemepts to eradicate the Indians after the Civil War, but when I countered with Hitler, I was told that was long ago and didn't matter any more! Apparently time is different in Europe.

Absolutely agreed and well put. Regarding the Indians, Germans have a serious problem with Turks, so maybe you could ask them about the rights of Turkish guest labourers in Germany. I don't think times are different in Europe. They have always been the world's greatest hypocrites, particularly the Brits.

curious · May 1, 2009

One of the things that comes with being a superpower is criticism, I guess.

The arrogance sometimes surprises me. I listened to a guy telling a young American woman how awful America was, going on and on about all the horrible things we had done. Then he asked her out, and looked utterly shocked when she said no. Did he really think that "Your country is horrible" was a good pickup line?

deanhills · May 2, 2009

curious said:
One of the things that comes with being a superpower is criticism, I guess.

The arrogance sometimes surprises me. I listened to a guy telling a young American woman how awful America was, going on and on about all the horrible things we had done. Then he asked her out, and looked utterly shocked when she said no. Did he really think that "Your country is horrible" was a good pickup line?

Perhaps he thought it was the popular thing to discuss? Given that Americans are so super critical of their own country and polticians. All you have to do is click around on the Internet. Americans seem to be much more critical of their own country than anyone from the rest of the world could ever dream to be.

curious · May 2, 2009

deanhills said:
Perhaps he thought it was the popular thing to discuss? Given that Americans are so super critical of their own country and polticians. All you have to do is click around on the Internet. Americans seem to be much more critical of their own country than anyone from the rest of the world could ever dream to be.

I doubt it. I get this a lot. I was literally lectured by a French guy, who went on and on about how awful we are. Then I said something critical of France and he started yelling a screaming at me. I pointed out that I had listened to him for twenty minutes and he owed me the same courtesy. He did agree with that. I gave him a summary of what is wrong with France, and to give him credit he actually agreed with me. But his initial attitude, and a common one, is that we will be grateful to hear what the problems are so we can go fix them, and that their country does everything better than the US.

deanhills · May 3, 2009

curious said:
I doubt it. I get this a lot. I was literally lectured by a French guy, who went on and on about how awful we are. Then I said something critical of France and he started yelling a screaming at me.

The French are known for being quite explosive. Canada is a good example of that

The most interesting part of our history is Quebec, right from the beginning of Canada's history. When you go to France you will see at least one French man screaming every now and then in traffic, or on the side walks. I can imagine when they were born they must have put up a lot of wailing there and then

Sorry, I am stereotyping here. Lots of good to say about the French too. They have a beautiful country. Interesting people. Slightly difficult to learn, but beautiful language too.

curious · May 3, 2009

I've had similar conversations with Germans and English people. I don't know whether they are the worst offenders or whether it is that I meet so many of them.

I know that encounters with Americans are frustrating for them. We are very poorly educated about the rest of the world. We used to do one year of geography, in some states in the fifth grade and in some states it is a sixth grade subject. The daughter of one of my friends never had geography at all, because they moved, and left a state where she would have had it next year for one where she should have had it the year before.

One of my favorite stories was from a guy who was taking a taxi in New York. The driver asked where he was from, and he told him he was from Enland. The driver then asked, "What language do you speak there?"

deanhills · May 4, 2009

curious said:
I've had similar conversations with Germans and English people. I don't know whether they are the worst offenders or whether it is that I meet so many of them.

Could be that a number of these tourists may suffer from a superiority complex. Europeans in average do think their culture is superior to that of the US or anywhere else in the globe for that matter. I think that may have been the case a number of years ago, not sure that is still the case however, depending in which part of the United States you find yourself in. Sort of contrasts in the population itself for example comparing people from San Francisco with small towns in the Bible Belt of Mississippi for example. Or people from New York and people from Savannah (average of course). Hope I have not opened myself up for criticism here. I like people from Savannah very much and I do know they have a great culture, but perhaps people from New York could be more international in their thinking?

DodgeFB · May 4, 2009

deanhills said:
Could be that a number of these tourists may suffer from a superiority complex. Europeans in average do think their culture is superior to that of the US or anywhere else in the globe for that matter. I think that may have been the case a number of years ago, not sure that is still the case however, depending in which part of the United States you find yourself in. Sort of contrasts in the population itself for example comparing people from San Francisco with small towns in the Bible Belt of Mississippi for example. Or people from New York and people from Savannah (average of course). Hope I have not opened myself up for criticism here. I like people from Savannah very much and I do know they have a great culture, but perhaps people from New York could be more international in their thinking?

People from Kentucky get looked down on from everywhere. Even Leno loves a good "Kentucky" joke. I could live in Florida if I wanted to I guess. I have have brothers and sisters there. But I hate tourist.

I really like Texas. But it is changing too much for me. I went to Mexico years ago and liked it. Always wanted to go back. But not now.

deanhills · May 5, 2009

DodgeFB said:
People from Kentucky get looked down on from everywhere. Even Leno loves a good "Kentucky" joke. I could live in Florida if I wanted to I guess. I have have brothers and sisters there. But I hate tourist.

I really like Texas. But it is changing too much for me. I went to Mexico years ago and liked it. Always wanted to go back. But not now.

I'm curious. How is Texas changing? I always thought that it was the State with the most hospitable people and most beautiful women?

curious · May 5, 2009

deanhills said:
Could be that a number of these tourists may suffer from a superiority complex. Europeans in average do think their culture is superior to that of the US or anywhere else in the globe for that matter. I think that may have been the case a number of years ago, not sure that is still the case however, depending in which part of the United States you find yourself in. Sort of contrasts in the population itself for example comparing people from San Francisco with small towns in the Bible Belt of Mississippi for example. Or people from New York and people from Savannah (average of course). Hope I have not opened myself up for criticism here. I like people from Savannah very much and I do know they have a great culture, but perhaps people from New York could be more international in their thinking?

I think Europeans, with the exception of the English, have a hard time recognizing how diverse the US is. And they all have a hard time recognizing how large it is. Print a map of the US on one page of an atlas, and print a map of Germany on the opposite page, and you get the feeling they are the same size.

Obama's European trip

Similar threads