kats n greys Posted March 31, 2007 Report Share Posted March 31, 2007 Just reading the views about the capture marines and I'm wondering if we have lost the right to criticize other countries treatment of "prisoners" by our condoning of the American tactics in Guantánamo Bay? Guantanamo Bay- Amnesty International. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GSDFan Posted April 1, 2007 Report Share Posted April 1, 2007 Whilst the Americans have Guantánamo Bay and we continue to support them I don't honestly think we have any right to complain at what other countries do. The American and British Governments seem to believe that things that are inhumane when done by another country are acceptable if it is Americans/British doing them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snow Posted April 1, 2007 Report Share Posted April 1, 2007 Errrrm usually I'm one of the first to condem the Government over anything Iraq related since I vehermently oppose the Iraq conflict and the UK's involvement in it - however - I'm not quite sure why you feel the Uk condones Guantanamo? The Uk has protested officially to the US about its treatment of and holding of UK Nationals and has publicly stated its insistance upon all detainees being given the right to fair trial etc. So "condone" is maybe not quite the way I see it - yes I think we could have spoken out stronger, yes I think we should have been as forceful as the Australians for example however, we HAVE criticised the US over Guantamamo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Owlish Posted April 1, 2007 Report Share Posted April 1, 2007 Errrrm usually I'm one of the first to condem the Government over anything Iraq related since I vehermently oppose the Iraq conflict and the UK's involvement in it - however - I'm not quite sure why you feel the Uk condones Guantanamo? The Uk has protested officially to the US about its treatment of and holding of UK Nationals and has publicly stated its insistance upon all detainees being given the right to fair trial etc. So "condone" is maybe not quite the way I see it - yes I think we could have spoken out stronger, yes I think we should have been as forceful as the Australians for example however, we HAVE criticised the US over Guantamamo. I may be remembering this wrong, but the words 'extraordinary rendition' are coming to mind. M15 threw a couple of British Muslims to the American wolves and they ended up in Guantanamo. Annoyingly, I can't remember any details, but I think one of them was released the other day.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snow Posted April 1, 2007 Report Share Posted April 1, 2007 Our involvement in the extrodinary renditions has been to turn blind eye to the over flying of our airspace by the CIA flights http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Owlish Posted April 1, 2007 Report Share Posted April 1, 2007 Our involvement in the extrodinary renditions has been to turn blind eye to the over flying of our airspace by the CIA flights http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition Not just that though... I've found a link now. "MI5 enabled UK pair's 'rendition' Telegrams sent by the British security service led to the "extraordinary rendition" of two UK residents now in Guantanamo Bay, BBC News has learned." BBC Link I was hoping to find a bigger link to an article the Independent ran a few months ago, detailing the relationship M15 had with these men, and its role in their eventual captivity in Guantanamo Bay. I don't have time to find the full thing right now, but it was pretty damning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snow Posted April 1, 2007 Report Share Posted April 1, 2007 Yes I'm familiar with that story - and again the details aren't clear, in fact the MI5 telegrams expressly stated no action covert or overt was to be taken - again it was the US that did the detaining and ignored what The UK had said. You might find this useful - http://www.guardian.co.uk/alqaida/story/0,,1012002,00.html In particular The British government's stance has also hardened recently. In October, the foreign secretary, Margaret Beckett, used a speech on human rights to label the centre "unacceptable in terms of human rights", calling for it to be closed. Again as I said I am NO defender of the UK government over Iraq and have been out on the picket lines more than once against the war however, there have been plenty of statements made either by the government or made with their approval which have condemed what the USA is doing in Guantanamo. Jack Straw has been particularily outspoken as has Lord Faulkener. My response here is to simply address the Op's question do we have the right to critise the treatment of the captured marines? And the answer to that is yes we do, we have critised the USA and that criticism has been going on ever since Guantanamo opened. We have not condoned it - whether we have done enough to pressure the USA into closing it is another matter entirely. One other point - we have the additionally have the right to do so because unlike the detainees at Guantanamo the UK detainees are serving military personel that were engaged in legitimate activities thus they are protected by international law and the Geneva convention. Links: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5340104.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6046684.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6080644.stm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kats n greys Posted April 2, 2007 Author Report Share Posted April 2, 2007 Individual ministers may have condemn Guantanamo, but Tony Blair hasn't and the Government as a whole haven't. These people are being denied basic human rights. Black Hole or Vital weapon. Amnesty International Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snow Posted April 2, 2007 Report Share Posted April 2, 2007 And you'll note I haven't defended whats going on at Guantanamo, I have however answered your question. As for Blair not saying it should be closed down - I think you'll find that he has. http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200603/s1581836.htm http://www.guardian.co.uk/guantanamo/story...1712066,00.html I have to say once again in answer to your own point comparing the USA's illegal treatment of people they deem to be terrorists with the treatment of legitimate UK service personnel, that they are two entirely different situations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kats n greys Posted April 2, 2007 Author Report Share Posted April 2, 2007 Blair has never been quoted in the UK press as stating that it should be shut, he describes it as "an anomaly", but never says that it should be shut. "In Berlin to meet the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, the prime minister was asked whether he supported a call from his Northern Ireland secretary, Peter Hain, for the centre to be closed. "I have always said it is an anomaly, and sooner or later has to be dealt with," the prime minister told a news conference, repeating a comment he made to MPs last November." Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? "However, only some 75 of the 395 prisoners there at the moment are likely to face these tribunals, at least in the initial stages. For the rest, there is the prospect of indefinite detention without trial." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wendbert Posted April 2, 2007 Report Share Posted April 2, 2007 Blair has never been quoted in the UK press as stating that it should be shut, he describes it as "an anomaly", but never says that it should be shut. I don't understand why you say that when one of the articles Snow linked to, included this: Asked whether it was government policy that Guantánamo should be shut down, he replied: "That's what I think." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kats n greys Posted April 2, 2007 Author Report Share Posted April 2, 2007 (edited) That's Peter Hain's, not Tony Blair "Last night, Mr Hain told BBC1's Question Time: "I would prefer that it [Guantánamo] was not there. I would prefer it was closed, yes. Asked whether it was government policy that Guantánamo should be shut down, he replied: "That's what I think." Edited April 2, 2007 by kats n greys Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Helly Posted April 3, 2007 Report Share Posted April 3, 2007 im confused. in the first of the 2 links snow gave, it quotes "British Prime Minister Tony Blair says he wants the US military detention camp at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba to be closed. Mr Blair also repeated his opinion that the camp was an "anomaly", but told law makers it was important to remember the context in which the camp was set up. Mr Blair went further than before during his weekly question and answer session in Parliament, saying: "I hope the judicial process can be put in place which means that Guantanamo Bay can close -- as I think it should for the reasons I have given." I cant see any comparisons between the 2 places though. The location the Iranians gave for our soldiers was clearly in Iraqi waters where we are allowed, so to pluck them from their boats, hide them away and then parade them on TV seems nothing short of confrontational to me. I do not condone guantanamo or the conditions the prisoners are kept in, or the treatment of them, but i cant see any likeness of the 2 situations. I dont think the UK has been forcefull enough in its protestations about the camp but i certainly dont think our government approves of what is going on there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts