A NYT editorial has slammed Goldman Sachs for its role in the financial crisis, Ten must work out what to do with Australian Idol in 2010, how the media downturn will affect higher education, newsreaders get emo, and more.
Why Gillard and Brandis are wrong about Gitmo prisoners
|
Acting Prime Minister Julia Gillard proved over the weekend that she will go weak at the knees at the first sign of a potential nasty scare campaign on the part of her political opponents. Ms Gillard, having late last week indicated the government was considering a request from the US to take some of the remaining prisoners at the world’s most notorious torture chamber, Guantanamo Bay, ruled out such a move on Saturday, after the Opposition had indicated that it would whip up community fear about the idea that “some of the world’s most dangerous” men might be living in Australia. This latter spurious claim came from George Brandis, the Queensland frontbencher and opponent of a charter of rights for Australians. What a pity that Ms Gillard, and no doubt the ever-on-duty-even-while-holidaying Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, ruled out Australia’s participation. Having supported the treatment of prisoners in clear defiance of Geneva Convention by the Bush Administration, Australia has a moral obligation to take some of these men. For a start, most of those at Guantanamo Bay are not dangerous. Remember David Hicks was detained there, and he of so little threat to Australia that the control order placed on him when he returned home and completed his jail term in 2007 was lifted by the Rudd government last month. Many of those still imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay should not have been captured in the first place, but were being held on the basis of dubious sources of evidence or in some cases simply on the basis of guilt by association. In November last year a US District Court judge ruled that there was no basis to hold five Algerians at Guantanamo Bay because they were being held on the evidence of a single source whose credibility was completely untested. The conclusion of an exhaustive examination of the profiles of those at Guantanamo Bay published in February 2006 by the Washington weekly, the National Journal proves Senator Brandis and those who think like him to be simply wrong. The Journal’s Corinne Hegland, observed on February 3 2006:
Hegland’s detailed breakdown of detainees makes for fascinating reading in light of the Opposition’s claims:
By buckling so quickly to the apologists of Guantanamo Bay and the flawed legal basis that lies under it, Julia Gillard and the Rudd government have shirked a clear responsibility on the part of Australia to take men who have been tortured relentlessly for seven years now and who in the majority of cases should never have been detained at all. |
|
|
16 Comments
More woolly thinking from Barns of which the world has endured too much. A group of prisoners of war taken and held by an ally, not treated properly as prisoners of war perhaps but still, in the case of those who were active participants in hostile acts or planning of acts against the US, lucky to be let out even now (cp. German POWs released, if at all, in the 1950s long after the relevant war was over which is not true of the one in Afghanistan), are now to be released by that ally. We certainly don’t owe it to the US to take its unwanted ex-prisoners about whom Americans would know much more than Australians can. So, who do we owe a moral obligation to, and on what basis? Mahomet perhaps, because he doesn’t like Americans, and would feel uneasy about trying to settle in the US? And would there be no criteria by which we might turn down Ahmed or Ismeth if they chose not to return to their own countries or settle in the USA?
No country will take these guys because they know that are just as the Bush administration contended. Barnes simply reflects the ‘fairyland’ that the Left inhabit and why, when they confront the real world, the Left cannot be entrusted with anyone’s security, including their own.
Watch Obama confront Hamas/Hezbollah/Iran. It ain’t going to be pretty. The only terrorists Obama will be making war on are the unborn, God help them!
many of the prisoners held have done nothing wrong and face persecution in their homelands - syria, yemen, saudi arabia etc, its a tricky issue but i understand what greg barns is saying, he is just pointing out that gillard and co should not kowtow to fascist shits like brandis and his ilk in that tome of objectivity, the australian!
quite a few have been released, over the years, back to their own countries… and quite a few have been recaptured again as they resumed the anti-social activities that had them incarcerated the first time… see The Weekend Australian
What is all this rubbish about Guantanamo bay inmates becoming anything other than an American problem? Julia Gillard is absolutely correct by not offering any assistance. John Howard may have denied the existence of “Habeas Corpus” but the rest of the civilized world does not. It is a simple case of making your own bed and “Lie” in it. Let us not forget that David Hicks was described as “The worst of the worst”. He is back with us now after a completely failed election stunt (Hicks pleading guilty to a crime which was not an offence before his capture – or should we say sale) prior to a change of government. I feel sorry for the addition of yet another problem in the lap of Obama but the problem should remain with the nation that caused the problem.
‘eric blair’ says “many of the prisoners held have done nothing wrong and face persecution in their homelands - syria, yemen, saudi arabia….but i understand what greg barns is saying..”.
I’m not surprised about Eric’s sychpantic and frankly silly post considering some of Barns’ ambit outlandish remarks such as ” the world’s most notorious torture chamber”.
How many is ‘many” Eric and how would you know? And why would these prisoners “face persecution” in their homelands? Surely they wouuld be received as heroes in the countries you list?
The fact that these combatants did not face a ligitimate court in a timely fashion is the issue but it is far from being an easy one.
Rudd & Gillard did what they should and this only goes to demonstrate that the issue of Guantanomo is not easy and Obama is in the process of finding just that as he now actually faces real responsibility for the first time in his career.
The ‘easy’ solutions screamed from the sidelines and cheered on by the unctuously liberal leftists are not so easy where the buck stops
Greg Barnes, why should America not take the responsibility for fixing what it broke?
Why don’t you ask the question WHY DOES AMERICA WANT TO HOIST THEM , GOOD GOSH A WHOLE 260 OF THEM ( in a country of 300 million plus) ONTO OTHER COUNTRIES?? That’s the question that you and others should be asking.
And No I don’t agree that we should take responsibility for what the USA did.
Benny Yes we should indeed ask why the Us might want to hoist (or do you mean foist) these individuals on us? And if ‘foisting” means a total denial of what has happened here we should not do this. But is it the case that we were not in any way complicit with these events as part of the coaltion of the willing? Leaving aside these ethicaland humanitarian concerns ( as if we can ) political leadership from Australia to find a solution is important We need to help the incoming administration to close Gitmo ASAP but I agree not by colluding with further cover ups However maintaining the inaccurate belief that we cannot take these individuals because they are dangerous terrorists is ridiculous.
Oh! dear. Greg your prejudices are showing. In saying “This latter spurious claim came from George Brandis, the Queensland frontbencher and opponent of a charter of rights for Australians” you are tarring every person in Oz who would like an open debate on the value (or not) of a charter of rights as a lick spittle of John Howard. This spurious and puerile put-down wouldn’t pass muster at a junior school debate. You only lessen the credibility of your argument about Gitmo (which I may have been prepared to listen to) by this childish aside.
I suggest you think a little more clearly next time about the point you are trying to make and how you smear others to make it.
Graham Anderson
I don’t purport to understand all this but I am wondering why the detainees can’t be sent back to their homeland to resettle?
Are ANY of them being sent to their homelands at all?
I disagree with Greg Barnes on this one. It is NOT Australia’s responsibility to accept the Gitmo prisoners. They are America’s responsibility because they are American prisoners. I agree with Kate that these men need to be freed immediately, but into the arms of those who incarcerated them in the first instance, not to Australia.
Greg Barnes is missing the point - to accept these men means Australia must agree to continue to imprison them… within our country by not letting them return home. There is no justification for continued detention in any form on people who have not been found guilty of any offence. The govt was right to say no, not because of security risks, but out of humanity.
This is a terrible mess. With the suspension of habeus corpus and the abandonment of the Geneva convention how does anyone know what crimes, if any , these people( designated detainees) have committed? The rescinidng of Article 5 hearings in 2002 meant that there was no legal process to determine if a prisoner of war had any case to answer. All such captives were deemed to be “unlawful combattants and subject to imprisonment and eventually torture. How do you send such people home after 5 years or so of this. ( Not that we should not try) Do their homes still exist if we include in the definition their families and friends who may not have know what happened to them? What of the long term damage that such incarceration causes? Many of these people are and will be very unwell both physically and psychologically. Shutting our doors and minds will not make this go away. What of the long term fate of the torturers? There was a massive abaondonment of leadership for the lower eschelons of the military that allowed this to happen. George Washington, in responding to the then brutality of the British army in the Revolutionary war issued directives that British prisoners of war should be treated with humanity”and let them have no reason to complain of us copying of the brutality of the British army…While we are contending for our liberty, we should be very cautious of violating the rights and conscience of others.”
I notice ‘eric blair’ answers a question by re-asking it and then proceeds to make suggestions as if his ridiculous assertions need no evidenciary support!
Of course par for the course for a man of his evident deficiencies.
The correct answer is you do not know Eric. Not even Barns tried that one on….
And save us the victim persecutiuon mentality typical of leftists such as yourself without two neurones to rub together in that oh so hollow space between your ears
Kate-I am suggesting that in nearly every cases, these men would be, and should be immediately, released from detention. Kate, the government should have accepted individuals on this basis.
jamesK - how many is not many? i suggest you try reading some books & real news reports instead of masturbating over the Oz and Fox news. how about Taxi to the Dark Side or perhaps Enemy Combatant or perhaps reading about maher arar - not a GB prisoner but an example of how syria treats political prisoners. it’s a complicated issue and as greg Barns points out it falls into the scope of populist prejudiced bullshit inspired by the very same cheerleaders for war (murdoch, ch 7,9,10 etc) who got us into the mess that is iraq & afghanistan. suck on a sycophantic sausage matey