M A I N P A G E


Friday, February 06, 2009

A Legend to Themselves 

posted by Joe @ 08:49

Thefake nature of the whole tempest in this teapot, is that no-one in the Obama administration has asked if Europeans will take any detainees. Of course the real issue here is that the Europeans want the US to take the risk of declaring “innocent” the Gitmo detainees – in effect wanting the US to be brave for them.

This principle was previously employed by the Bush administration when it requested co-operation from the Netherlands and 70 other countries to accept Guantanamo Bay detainees who were eligible for release, but could not be repatriated. The Netherlands has thus far rejected this request.
The Dutch had no problem prosecuting Geert Wilders for “inciting an emotion”, in effect criminalizing his opinions. In this case what they’re looking for is that some other place, culture, anyone far away to confirm what European opinion WISHES was true without any of them having to contend with any of the potential consequences of what any of those men go back to doing after release, even though the Europeans are hoping for the 60 that are to be acquitted anyway.
The US request concerns the 60 “acquitted” detainees. The Dutch government’s argument in denying the request is that the trial and repatriation of these detainees is America’s responsibility. Dutch foreign affairs minister Maxime Verhagen (Christian Democratic party, CDA) is prepared, together with the EU Council [organisation of EU member states' foreign ministers], to consider “the possibility of facilitating the acceptance of ex-prisoners by countries of origin or by third party countries."
Critics, including the opposition party WD [right-wing liberal party], D66 [left-wing liberal party] and GroenLinks [green party] argue that the Netherlands must take in these 60 “acquitted” detainees because the Netherlands has always maintained a high-horse attitude towards the closing of the prison. “Someone like Verhagen, who is always talking about human rights, should really be able to show something on this point,” said D66’s Pechtold.
This reasoning, however, falls short. First of all, the responsibility for the trial, repatriation and acceptance of Guantanamo Bay detainees is primarily that of the US. According to international law, a country that has taken prisoners is itself responsible for safeguarding their rights. Rectifying abuses in Guantanamo Bay is legally and politically very complex and America itself needs to take on this responsibility. Were the Netherlands to do this, it would send the message that America can not only fail to recognize the International Criminal Court, but can also get away with violating human rights.
Using the same old brickbat – their own patented concept of human rights – the dear John letter is starting to take shape and stretching to the point of implausibility. When was it that the acquitted even need a full trial to vindicate them? Isnt the operating assumption that European public opinion has been operating on that these ‘poor waifs’ are the portrait of innocence?

Without the tempest of their invention in the teapot of their invention, they would have to face who and what they are as non-risk-takers who just want to be liked: irrelevant, even to themselves if they can’t back up their opinions.


|

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not been pre-authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available to advance understanding of political, economic, scientific, social, art, media, and cultural issues. The 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material that may exist on this site is provided for under U.S. Copyright Law. In accordance with U.S. Code Title 17, Section 107, material on this site is distributed without profit to persons interested in such information for research and educational purposes. If you want to use any copyrighted material that may exist on this site for purposes that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. // AVIS : En vertu de l'article L. 122-5 du Code de Propriété Intellectuelle, ce site Internet peut contenir des citations dont l'usage n'aura pas reçu l'autorisation du détenteur ou de la détentrice du droit d'auteur. La présentation de ces citations se fait dans le but de faciliter la découverte de divers sujets politiques, économiques, scientifiques, sociaux, artistiques, médiatiques ou encore culturels. L'article L. 122-5 du Code de la Propriété Intellectuelle dispose et autorise « les analyses et courtes citations justifiées par le caractère critique, polémique, pédagogique, scientifique ou d'information de l'oeuvre à laquelle elles sont incorporées ». A contrario, les emprunts qui excéderont les dispositions du « droit de citation », devront obtenir l'autorisation du détenteur ou de la détentrice du droit d'auteur.