America deserves no help in this matter. How fucking dare the American government get sniffy that Canada won't accept prisoners that they won't even let set foot on their own soil, despite apparently being cleared of all charges. The sick fact is that the American administration with a Democratic president and Democratic majorities in both houses wants to close the disgusting gulag flying the stars and stripes by dropping the prisoners in other people's laps. Not one, not a single one of those poor souls will be allowed into the United States yet we should clean up after America or golly gosh they'll be so awfully put out. Sorry. That doesn't wash.
Am in total disagreement with the notion that this is America's mess, screw them and they should be left to clean it up on their own. Of course it's their mess and they bear primary and ultimate responsibility for what they've done in breaking international laws, for torturing.
The key words, "they bear primary and ultimate responsibility" and yet they will accept none of that responsibility, primary, ultimate or otherwise. At the very least they should bloody well help clean up the damn mess. The Obama plan to close the illegal gulag:
Boot prisoners... ? ...Justice!
What is the guy, a fucking underpants gnome?
Yes Guantanamo is a terrible place. Yes, certain other nations have agreed to help wash out America's dirty little shame. But how, when his own government, his own party and his own nation refuse to bear any burden is this a positive step for America? Some magical thinking indicates that if everyone just shuts up and scours the shit and blood from America's floors that they'll suddenly be encouraged to quit stamping in their filth and act like a mature people. That's the kind of thinking that leads to teenagers. And we know how bloody awful those creatures can be. Acquiescing to Obama's plan will take America off the hook for its own actions and that is not a signal that is healthy for that nation or for the world.
If Canada and other nations are to pick up after the sullen adolescent America, there should be a consequence. It isn't about sitting back and pointing a finger at Obama, it is about standing up to a recalcitrant bully and pointing a finger at America. Obama just happens to be the spokesperson of the moment for the brutish, ugly nation to our south.
Guantanamo Bay should be closed, the Obama administration wants to close it and Canada should be right there helping to close it. It's an historic affront to the rule of law. It's so clear an example in recent history.
No question, Gitmo should be closed. But Obama and his administration want it closed with no cost or consequence for America. His administration is still not pursuing the criminal thugs that set the place up, that used it as a venue for torture and walked away scot free. Now Obama intends to brow beat others to do the dirty work so his administration can claim a hollow moral victory and scamper away, also scot free. That my friends is bullshit, the sort of crap that enables their exceptionalism and further rotten behaviour.
But hey, I'm a reasonable guy... shut UP LuLu. Okay, pretend I'm a reasonable guy. Here's the deal. Canada and any other third party nation should accept custody of the illegally detained prisoners and take them off Obama's hands only on the following conditions:
1. Full, unredacted disclosure of every and all record created in the camp. All documentary evidence in every form, every transcript, every recording and every photographic image turned over to the International Criminal Court to which Obama will personally sign over jurisdiction for a full and complete investigation of the goings on at the Guantanamo Bay prison camp.
2. Again under Presidential seal and signature, an agreement to make available any and every person requested or subpoenaed for questioning and possible charge in the operation of the Guantanamo Bay prison, be they civilian or military personnel, officer of government or high official.
3. Full and complete disclosure of every record pertaining to each and every detainee being delivered into the custody of a host nation. A fund of not less than five million dollars per detainee to be paid to the host nations to defray expenses and security costs incurred in the acceptance of custody and to provide funds for the former detainee to rebuild a life in their new home.
4. A fund of not less than ten billion dollars to be secured from America by officers of the International Criminal Court to draw such compensation for individual detainees as is deemed proper by officers of the court. Moneys drawn from that fund also to help defray the costs of proceedings in matters of the Guantanamo inquiry.
5. Full, unhindered and complete access for former detainees to the American civil justice system should any such persons determine to seek monetary and punitive remedies against individuals, organizations or branches of the American government, either as individuals or in class action suits.
That all strikes me as a pretty reasonable starting point from which to navigate toward that fabled "primary and ultimate responsibility", no?
Well, we could at least agree to take Omar Khadr.
Heeeeeeeyyy ... what did I do? And for your big fat information, I think you're perfectly reasonable -- at least where I'm concerned.
You may commence grovelling at any time.
Only those bloggers who are genuinely interested in dialogue and other people's opinions allow comments, it seems.
I agree with your concern about the fate of the detainees as individuals but in terms of what the closing of Guantanamo is supposed to represent, it seems like empty symbolism when you consider that the Obama administration has already signaled its intention to detain people indefinitely and without charge and to deny them fundamental rights, including habeas corpus. They're just going to do these things at Bagram instead of at Guantanamo. So we wouldn't be helping Obama to stand up for the rule of law. We'd be helping him to placate his base while he quietly implements a kinder, gentler gulag. (For those who saw my post on Obama the other day, I'm recycling links I've used before. They're still relevant.)
It does bother me that Imp won't allow comments. It's a pity, because she's the best Liberal blogger around.
I remember way in the past when the biggest blog on the bloc was Volokh, there was a sniffy disdain held for the very idea of comments on blogs in some quarters.
It's kind of funny, but that's how people thought back in the day!
we should leave them locked up where the are.
Commenters just detract from the original entry to make a thread all about themselves.
I'm going to side with Impolitical regarding comments. While she might write things we disagree with on occasion, she clearly puts a good deal of effort into her research and writing, and her blog would simply be devalued by an infestation of screeching yobs like Twatsy, mahmood, Backseat Blogger, Wayne, boacunt and the like.
She's better off just not letting that get started.
As a Christian, my first response to this business was the Our Lord Jesus Christ would not hold the prodigal's past against him, nor quibble about the worthiness of his first steps on his return.
Then, I remind myself, we today have a new, improved Christianity, and, George W. Bush having ascended into Texas, Stephen Harper is what we've got. Let us celebrate the righteousness of Stephen Harper, and in particular the Bush-like way HM PM communicated his contempt for the usurper's search for a way out of Guantanamo.
Apparently, the short bus just pulled up to the blog.
I think you have to read that one again, CC.
Hi, Seer ... Or should I call you Poe? :-)
WV = "nopress"
Which is precisely what Impolitical gives her critics.
seer am being teh naughty.
metro, impolitical did indeed respond to and link what i wrote and has done so in the past. i admire a great deal of her writing and she is about the best of the partisan liberal bloggers. it must be a hell of a chore wearing a liberal party badge and trying to smile and keeping one's cheer these days.
and as sometimes happens, we are agreeing to disagree. i would add however that the reasoning behind recommending handing over documents and authority to investigate to the icc is precisely because america is not a signatory to the international criminal court and has shown no will or ability to police its own.
Yes, I missed the satire completely. My bad. It's been a long week.
Sorry, I agree completely with Lindsay. Impolitical is an excellent read.
I was just on a "ain't thisyer WV innerestin'?" kick and took it too far.
WV = "promeler"
But I'm sayin' nowt.
Post a Comment