Merkel criticises Guantanamo Bay

[Arne]

German Chancellor Angela Merkel says the US detention camp at Guantanamo Bay "should not exist", in an interview days before she meets George W Bush.
In the interview to be published on Monday, Mrs Merkel criticises the US camp in Cuba, saying "different ways" should be found to deal with prisoners.

Her visit to Washington is her first since she took office in November.

Mrs Merkel hopes to improve relations with the US, which were strained when Gerhard Schroeder opposed the Iraq war.

Mrs Merkel told the German magazine Der Spiegel: "An institution like Guantanamo can and should not exist in the longer term.

"Different ways and means must be found for dealing with these prisoners."

At a news conference on Saturday, Mrs Merkel defended her comments, but said she would not demand the immediate closure of the camp when she meets with President Bush next week.

"That's my opinion and my view and I'll say it elsewhere just as I have expressed it here," she said.


Human rights campaigners have protested over Guantanamo Bay
"My talks with leaders of other countries don't consist of my expressing demands but of exchanging views."

The chancellor told Der Spiegel she expected to speak to Mr Bush about the fight against terrorism.

"But I want to accentuate that our relationship with the US will not be reduced to talking about fighting terrorism and the Iraq war," she said. In the fight against terrorism there should be no areas of non law

Guido Westerwelle
President of the liberal Free Democratic Party,
Mrs Merkel's Social Democrat partners in the coalition government welcomed her condemnation of Guantanamo.

"The Guantanamo camp must be closed. The Guantanamo system was and still is bad," said the party's parliamentary leader Walter Kolbow.

"It was and remains in contradiction with the agreements and standards of international law."

Human rights campaigners have expressed growing concern about the treatment of inmates at Guantanamo.

The Bush administration has denied allegations of abuse at Guantanamo, insisting it does not torture prisoners.

_______________

Any serious thought on this?

[mavsman]

Originally Posted by Arne

Guido Westerwelle
President of the liberal Free Democratic Party,
Mrs Merkel's Social Democrat partners in the coalition government...

Wow, that's news. Somebody call Guido and tell him that he's in the government after all.

[dude1394]

Not really much comments on it. IMO it's the difference between doers and not doers.

Nice to say they shouldn't be there but unless she suggests we just shoot 'em, I don't see what else to do with them.

Can't let 'em go, they just go back to the battlefield or blow up another pizza parlor, can't swap them for captives since their side seems to cut the heads off of their captives or burn them and drag them through town.

[Drbio]

It's always funny when an insignificant politician criticizes the US.

[Mavdog]

"insignifigant"???

here's what your favorite president said about her and germany:

I'm convinced that we will have a really important and good relationship.

First, I do want to send my best regards to Gerhard Schröeder. We spent a lot of time together, and we talked about issues. Listen, there was room for agreement and room for disagreement. And I do hope he's doing well.

Our job now is to work together. We've got big interests. Germany is a really important country. It's right in the heart of Europe; it's vital that Germany take the lead on a lot of issues. And I look forward to working with the Chancellor on common objectives. And my first impressions, with 45 minutes alone in the Oval Office, were incredibly positive. She's smart -- (laughter) -- she's plenty capable. She's got kind of a spirit to her that is appealing. She loves freedom.

So we're going to have a very good relationship. And that's important for our respective people.I'm looking forward to consultations, visits, contacts, phone calls, all the things you do. And now I'm going to take her to lunch. (Laughter.)

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0060113-1.html

as it relates to guantanamo, this is just another in a series of actions that this administration has done which contradict the law. does the us have the right to hold prisioners? absolutely. does the government have the right to hold prisioners without a) labeling them pow's or b) charging them with an offense? no.

times of war do not negate basic legal principles. imo either follow the law or shut the facility down.

[Drbio]

Very insiginificant. Her opinion of our internal operation goings on has dick to to do with anything. Insignificant to be sure. She has no opinion in the circle that matters.

I'll try to type slower for you in the future. I forgot that it was needed with you.

[Mavdog]

well, that certainly addresses what george bush was saying...

hint: guantanamo is NOT "an internal operation". it's not on american soil, and (hopefully) there aren't americans interned there. it (and our leaders) is subject to our laws and our international agreements.

surely you're not advocating that we don't follow our country's laws and agreements...but then again, you probably do.

[Drbio]

You try really hard to put words in others mouths. You are becoming better and better at the art of misdirection. Others are calling you out on it as do I.

The rantings of a foreign politician do not set our policy. If you do not understand it or like it...tough shit.

And BTW....Gitmo is ours. There are no Americans interned there (the only exception would be if a soldier was being disciplined, but there is a separate brig for that). And yes our laws apply there which had nothing to do with the point made. Nice attempt at misdirect though. You do not get to dictate our points. You and your parties insistance on global testing is sickening.

[Mavdog]

"misdirection"? surely you're joking...but then again, probably not.

did anybody say that merkel "set[s] our policy"? no, although that's a good attempt at "misdirection".

is germany "insignifigant"? not according to george bush. maybe he just didn''t get your e mail telling him it is "insignifigant".

we don't really know if any americans are interned there do we, as we don't know exactly who is there. the vast majority haven't been brought before any court, or charged with a crime. there's these simple legal issues (us laws and agreements) that are being violated by guantanamo.

let's see, foreign nationals held in a foreign conflict. nope, definitely not an "internal operation".

personally, I find the ignoring of the law by our current administration to be what is truly "sickening".

[Drbio]

We broke the law at Gitmo mavdork? Do tell.

You are a farking idiot. I know for a fact that American citizens are not interned at Gitmo and if you cannot agree it is only because you are a farking ignorant tool. There is no point in talking to you. You are a closed minded fool. As I so accurately pointed out above, our citizens are not held there unless it is a discipline/criminal act by a soldier inwhich case he/she would be placed in the brig and de;pending on the act would be subject to transport back to the US mainland.

My point in the first post was that the opinion of a foreign politician is insignificant in setting our internal policy. No matter how badly you want to misdirect that it will not change that. You truly are sssoooooooo stupid.

[Mavdog]

you "know for a fact"??? impossible. there is no list of detainees to establish this fabricated "fact" of yours.

you can say that you believe there are no americans, you can say that you've been told there are no americans, but it is anything buit a FACT. we don't know the FACTS.

that's why the us courts have been sought. holding people without being charged or classified as a pow is against the law. if the current administration were to follow the law we would then know for a FACT who is being held at guantanamo....

again, george bush disagrees with your characterzation of merkel as "insignifigant". period. your crude and poorly worded attempt at debate doesn't change that.

[kg_veteran]

Her attempts to say what the U.S. should and shouldn't do ARE insignificant.

I enjoy how you elevate the rights of the enemy over the safety of the American public.

[Mavdog]

germany is an important ally. she is the leader of germany. she and germany are not insignifigant. do you disagree with george bush?

what rights are elevated above the safety of the american people? to demand that our government follow the law doesn't comromise our safety.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

germany is an important ally. she is the leader of germany. she and germany are not insignifigant. do you disagree with george bush?

No, I don't disagree with George Bush, because he never said that Germany's opinion about Guantanamo Bay should matter, and his actions make it clear that he doesn't care what other countries think about it -- he's going to do what he thinks is right.

Good for Dubya, and good for the U.S.A.

what rights are elevated above the safety of the american people? to demand that our government follow the law doesn't comromise our safety.

How do you claim that the government is violating the law? By holding foreign prisoners without classifying them in accordance with the Geneva Convention?

Please lay out how you think the law is being broken, because you keep stating vaguely that the law is being broken without specifically explaining how.

[Mavdog]

bush stated he does have some agreement with merkel on guantanamo btw.

a detainee must either be classified as a pow or be charged with a crime.

do you believe that a person can be legally detained by our government otherwise? do you believe the government can detainee a person without going thru legal processes?

you didn't answer the question of what rights are elevated above the safety of american's lives.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

bush stated he does have some agreement with merkel on guantanamo btw.

Source? Link?

a detainee must either be classified as a pow or be charged with a crime.

It was a simple request. Could you lay out which law you think they are violating, and how?

do you believe that a person can be legally detained by our government otherwise?

Potentially, yes.

do you believe the government can detainee a person without going thru legal processes?

Depends on what you mean by legal processes.

you didn't answer the question of what rights are elevated above the safety of american's lives.

That means you place more importance on the rights of foreign nationals than on the safety of American citizens. After all, that's who we're talking about here.

[Mavdog]

the link to the press conference is above.

no, i cannot give you the law. I can speak about our international agreements suchas Geneva, and our own laws such as habeus corpus. you are an atty, you are aware that a person must be charged or released within what? 30 days?

i do not agree that a person can be held without due process. is that your position?

how does the adherence to our country's laws endanger the safety of american citizens? seems to me that the reverse is true, that the ignoring of american laws endangers american citizens.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

the link to the press conference is above.

Thanks. I read the transcript of the press conference, but I see nothing about a deal between Bush and Merkel.

no, i cannot give you the law. I can speak about our international agreements suchas Geneva, and our own laws such as habeus corpus. you are an atty, you are aware that a person must be charged or released within what? 30 days?

i do not agree that a person can be held without due process. is that your position?

There is an area in between the 5th Amendment (which applies to our citizens) and the Geneva Convention (which applies to prisoners of war). The issue at hand is whether the government has the right to adjudicate those held at Guantanamo Bay through military tribunals. That issue is being litigated and will ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court, I'm sure.

My point is, at this juncture the law is not exactly clear on what we can and can't legally do. Obviously, until the Supreme Court rules, Bush is going to take the position that what he's doing is legal.

[kg_veteran]

Here's an informative column written by Ronald Rotunda, a constitutional law scholar and professor of law at George Mason University:

The news media prominently publicize the mistakes that the United States has made while conducting its war against terror, and they should, because newspaper criticism is an important check on the abuse of power. The recent publicity surrounding the abduction of the Lebanese-born German national, Khaled al-Masri, is an example. Because terrorists, contrary to the Geneva Conventions, do not wear uniforms or other insignia visible from a distance, civilians are put at risk. In this case, Macedonian police apparently turned over al-Masri to agents of the Central Intelligence Agency because the police and agents mistook him for an al Qaeda operative with a similar name. Then, it appears that they wrongly imprisoned him for several months in Afghanistan until they discovered their mistake.

While we should know about such blunders, there is another side of the story -- what the United States is doing in its prison in Guantanamo Bay. I visited several times and was given complete access to all parts of the base I cared to see. I visited the prisoners’ cells, where they were interrogated, where they played volleyball, and where they ate.


It was not what I had expected. The news media talked of each prisoner isolated in their individual cells. Most of the cells are separated by chain-link fence, so the prisoners talk to each other and play games with the checkers, chess, and backgammon that the military has supplied.


This is an American base, so the tap water is drinkable except for a few well-marked locations. The detainees, however, prefer bottled water, so they drink that while their guards drink tap water. The military even flew in fresh dates and other fruits from the Mideast so the detainees could celebrate Muslim feast days like Ramadan and Eid al Fitr in style. The International Red Cross inspects the base on a regular basis.


The detainees receive the same medical care as the soldiers. Some receive, for the very first time, eyeglasses and crucial medicine. When they are released, some have told the press that they were well-treated; others have claimed torture, but that does not mean it occurred, because the al Qaeda training manual advises its members to always claim torture.


There have been unfortunate instances where soldiers behaved very badly, and the military has punished them. For example, one detainee collected his own urine and threw it at a guard, who responded by hitting the detainee; the military responded by punishing the guard.


After the U.S. Supreme Court decisions of last year, the military created a special tribunal to decide if each detainee was properly captured. The government informs the detainee why the military is holding him and gives him an opportunity to respond and present his evidence. Some detainees waive their right to participate. In addition, the military created another level of hearings (not required by the U.S. Supreme Court) that determines if the detainee, even if a member of al Qaeda or the Taliban, should nonetheless be released because he is no longer dangerous.


Through these two proceedings, the military has released several hundred detainees from Guantanamo. Some of these releases are mistakes: about 5 percent to 10 percent of them are later recaptured or killed in battle. Others will return to battle but we will never know that. One released detainee later killed a judge leaving a mosque in Afghanistan. Another detainee, Abdullah Meshoud, bragged that he fooled interrogators into releasing him, so he could return to battle.


In other cases, the government will release someone wrongly held. For example, the military stopped a truck in Afghanistan holding about 21 people, all dressed like local farmers, along with many weapons. One of them said that he was not part of the group and was just a farmer hitching a ride on the truck. The other 20 refuse to talk to the Americans because they are infidels. They were all taken to Guantanamo and, after several months, some of the people, impressed by their treatment, started talking and confirmed the first person’s story. The military released that person. Given the fact that the terrorists masquerade as civilians, these mistakes are both very unfortunate and unavoidable.


Each cell has an arrow telling detainees where to face east when they recite their Muslim prayers. Islamic mullahs minister to the detainees in their own language, and there is a call to prayer five times a day. Each detainee receives a copy of the Quran. Sometimes detainees cut out pages of their Quran to send secret messages to each other. At least once, a detainee threw his copy down a toilet in an effort to obstruct the plumbing. (Rumors about that incident led to story, later found to be false, that a U.S. soldier had intentionally thrown a copy of the Quran down the toilet. However, the rules do not even allow the soldiers to touch the Quran.)


The military is under orders to respect the detainees’ religion. Detainees know that and use that information to their advantage. At Camp Bucca Detention Center in Iraq, the military set up tent as a mosque and told the American soldiers that they could not go there out of respect for the detainees. The detainees used that tent to build a massive underground escape tunnel over 120 meters long. The tunnel’s walls were smooth and sculpted with concrete, water and milk from the food the Americans had supplied. The detainees safely stored their tools and make-shift weapons inside this mosque because it was off limits to the guards. When the guards learned about the expected prison break from a detainee, they stopped it and the detainees fought back, using floorboards as shields, and socks filled with a cocktail of feces, dirt and flammable, slow-burning hand sanitizer. One of these crude bombs even ignited a Polaris all-terrain vehicle. On the fourth day of the riot, the guards called in air support and the detainees surrendered.


The government must treat all detainees humanely because it is the right thing to do and because that is what U.S. law requires. The government will make missteps because all human institutions are fallible. Yet we should know that there is another side to the story and the government is learning from its mistakes.

link

[Mavdog]

a "deal"? no, SOME agreement with each other, not AN agreement with each other. you misread.

granting the government the right to hold a person without due process is a very bad right to give.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

a "deal"? no, SOME agreement with each other, not AN agreement with each other. you misread.

I guess I did misread. On what do they agree? That the prisoners should be treated humanely? That there should be a lawful process for handling the prisoners?

Bottom line, there are some Supreme Court rulings on the way that will clarify whether the Bush Administration's policy is legal or needs to be modified. It is not a resolved (or clear-cut) issue at this point.

granting the government the right to hold a person without due process is a very bad right to give.

I generally agree, but I disagree with the notion that Bush is holding prisoners without due process.

Read the article I posted, if you haven't already.

[Mavdog]

the case of Yaser Esam Hamdi clearly shows that the bush administration was not adhereing to the law.

the article discusses the humane treatment provided to the detainees. that's not the question. until the courts interceded, these detainees were not held according to the law.

[kg_veteran]

Courts don't intercede Mavdog.

The Hamdi opinion involved an American citizen who fought with the Taliban against the United States in Afghanistan. That opinion wouldn't apply to foreign soldiers.

Also, the Supreme Court in Hamdi actually said that the government was lawful in detaining Hamdi as an "enemy combatant" but had to give him a right to contest his decision "before a neutral decision-maker."

[Mavdog]

the opinion was that the us government must give due process to hambi, even if the administration did classify him as an enemy combatant.

the bush administration argued that they did not need to provide due process.

they were wrong according to the court.

[Drbio]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

germany is an important ally. she is the leader of germany. she and germany are not insignifigant. do you disagree with george bush?

Nice try on blending unrelated statements. Nice try but more typical mavdog bullshit.

what rights are elevated above the safety of the american people? to demand that our government follow the law doesn't comromise our safety.

Answer the question. Which law has been broken?

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by Drbio

Answer the question. Which law has been broken?

not very hard actually. after all, they "are well known"...

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...&invol=03-6696

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...0&invol=03-334

[Mavdog]

as much as you'd like, it's not about me, it's about you. you made the assine statement about having "facts".

when you can provide these ficticous "facts", let us know.

here's a fact for you: hamdi (an american citizen) WAS held in guantanamo.

[kg_veteran]

Mavdog - You are really embarrassing yourself. I mean, moreso than usual.

[Mavdog]

kg- it is so sweet to see you come to the defense of your buddy.

[Drbio]

swing and a miss.....again......inevitable......yep......so sad.....

[Arne]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

No, I don't disagree with George Bush, because he never said that Germany's opinion about Guantanamo Bay should matter, and his actions make it clear that he doesn't care what other countries think about it -- he's going to do what he thinks is right.

Good for Dubya, and good for the U.S.A.

I highly doubt if its better for the USA to isolate itself from the rest of the world more than they have already. I think George W. Bush has understood this by now and therefore treats Mrs. Merkel with respect and spares a lot more time for the conversations and discussions about foreign policy issues with her.

Originally Posted by Drbio

Nice try on blending unrelated statements. Nice try but more typical mavdog bullshit.

In which way are Mavdog's quotes of Bush unrealated to the claim that Mrs. Merkel is insignificant?

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

kg- it is so sweet to see you come to the defense of your buddy.

I'm not defending Doc. There's really nothing to defend.

He presents facts, you come back and amazingly try and taunt him, claiming, "See, you have no facts!!!"

It's just flat-out embarrassing. You don't understand the law or what the facts regarding Gitmo are, yet when someone presents you with the law or the facts, you taunt them like they don't know, either.

You never have understood that Doc has physically BEEN to Guantanamo Bay, for instance. For you to tell him what he saw there is downright hilarious.

You claimed that the Hamdi opinion showed that Bush's Administration was acting unlawfully, when in fact it showed just the opposite.

Embarrassing.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Arne

I highly doubt if its better for the USA to isolate itself from the rest of the world more than they have already. I think George W. Bush has understood this by now and therefore treats Mrs. Merkel with respect and spares a lot more time for the conversations and discussions about foreign policy issues with her.

Of course Bush treats Merkel with respect. She's an ally. What he doesn't do is let her dictate his policies. And by her own admission, she was just offering an opinion, not demanding that Bush do anything.

In which way are Mavdog's quotes of Bush unrealated to the claim that Mrs. Merkel is insignificant?

Because Mavdog was trying to take Bush's comment that Germany is an "important ally" and somehow convolute that to mean that Merkel's opinion regarding Bush's Guantanamo Bay policy is important. That's not what Bush said -- at all -- and Mavdog knows it.

[Mavdog]

the irony of your post is the claim that there were "facts" presented by bio.

just what "facts" were there? is it a "fact" that there are no americans being held in guantanamo? in NO way is that a validated "fact". that's exactly my point. we don't know.

yet when presented with that very point, that we do not know, that the claim that no americans being held in guantanamo is exposed as an OPINION, there is nothing but personal crap thrown back.

that is what should be embarrassing to bio, but it's not. that is what is amazing.

when the FACT that an american was held in guantanamo is shown, bio shrugs it off as "could have been".

it matters NOTHING if he was at guantanamo. I didn't "tell him what he saw". that is fabrication on your part.

Hamdi showed that the bush administration acted INCORRECTLY. it ordered the administration to not deny the detainees legal rights, and told the administration to develop a better process of review of the cases.

embarrasing is right, it's just that the charge is being made to the wrong poster.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

Of course Bush treats Merkel with respect. She's an ally. What he doesn't do is let her dictate his policies. And by her own admission, she was just offering an opinion, not demanding that Bush do anything.

"dictate his policies"????
can you tell me what country does dictate the us foreign policy?
none. nada.
to suggest that merkel is not a signifigant ally because she doesn't "dictate [bush's] policies" means that the us has NO signifigant allies...which we do.

Because Mavdog was trying to take Bush's comment that Germany is an "important ally" and somehow convolute that to mean that Merkel's opinion regarding Bush's Guantanamo Bay policy is important. That's not what Bush said -- at all -- and Mavdog knows it.

no, I don't agree. bush went to lengths to say that he sees germany and merkel as "important". that he doesn't accept her suggestions and counsel doesn't mean they are unimportant, merely that they disagree on this issue.

[Arne]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

Because Mavdog was trying to take Bush's comment that Germany is an "important ally" and somehow convolute that to mean that Merkel's opinion regarding Bush's Guantanamo Bay policy is important. That's not what Bush said -- at all -- and Mavdog knows it.

The claim of Drbio was not that Mrs Merkel's opinion on Guantanamo was insignificant, but that she's an insignificant politician in general. Don't switch things around like you want them to be. These Bush quotes were in reply to this claim:

Originally Posted by Drbio

It's always funny when an insignificant politician criticizes the US.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Arne

The claim of Drbio was not that Mrs Merkel's opinion on Guantanamo was insignificant, but that she's an insignificant politician in general. Don't switch things around like you want them to be. These Bush quotes were in reply to this claim:

I didn't switch anything around. Mavdog clearly tried to take one quote and stretch it to mean something else that it didn't. However, if DrBio said that, I disagree with him. Merkel is not an "insignificant politician."

[Arne]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

I didn't switch anything around. Mavdog clearly tried to take one quote and stretch it to mean something else that it didn't. However, if DrBio said that, I disagree with him. Merkel is not an "insignificant politician."

Ok then you're talking about another statement. But originally Mavdog's Bush quotes were in reply to Drbio's claim that Merkel were a insignificant politician.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

I didn't switch anything around. Mavdog clearly tried to take one quote and stretch it to mean something else that it didn't. However, if DrBio said that, I disagree with him. Merkel is not an "insignificant politician."

your description is wrong.
I'd suggest that you re-read the post. the quotes were immediately after and in reference to the comment about merkel being "an insignifigant politician".

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

your description is wrong.
I'd suggest that you re-read the post. the quotes were immediately after and in reference to the comment about merkel being "an insignifigant politician".

I'm not re-reading anything. I'm simply going to state my opinion one more time:

Merkel is a significant politician because she is the leader of Germany, which is an ally and an important part of the European political structure.

Merkel's opinion regarding how the U.S. should conduct operations at Guantanamo Bay is insignificant.

If anyone disagrees with that, let me know.