General discussion

Locked

US government asks Canada to become their Australia.

By Oz_Media ·
In his year to close Guantanamo, President Obama has been looking for places to 'stick' the released detainees. Canada among many other European countries have been asked to accept these released, suspected terrorists.

The Canadian government has, so far,declined the warm hearted offering, however there is the Canadian Council for Refugees (CCR), whoe are looking to use unique Canadian refugee adoptio laws to sponsor released detainees who have chosen Canada as their desired destination. (and there I have been boasting about Vancouver being the most desired city in the world. )

Refugee release to Canada denied
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/06/04/uighurs-canada.html

Canada a desired location for Guantanamo Bay detainees
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/02/03/guantanamo-detainees-canada.html


EDIT: Ironically, I was just watching Chasers The War on Everything, a hilarious Aussie political bashfest (similar to Penn & Teller's Bulls**t) and they were talking aout how Oama has asked Australia to take suspected terrorist prisoners too. They did a funny piece on a secret CIA prison in Poland that the CIA apparently says doesn't exist...(while standing right in front of it)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHy0HyG8Yus

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

79 total posts (Page 3 of 8)   Prev   01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05   Next
Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

Hey Oz, I hope you don't mean that comment to be directed

by Deadly Ernest In reply to OH blah blah blah

at me as I'm and Australian. I just take the line that the other countries who's governments or senior politicians complained about the existence of GB and the keeping of prisoners and advocated they be released, should now also take responsibility for providing a place for said prisoners that heir actions are getting released.

Kind of like - don't ***** about the food unless you want to cook.

Collapse -

It was in error

by Oz_Media In reply to Hey Oz, I hope you don't ...

Of course you are Australian, sorry for not recognizing that in my previous post, I really didn't mean to call you American, that's not very nice of me.

I see what yoru point is, but as these are nations that NEVER supoprted the action to begin with, why would they be expected to help clean up the mess?

If we had all been gung-ho about taking them in and sending them to Gitmo, that would be different and rather hypocritical to say, 'not in my backyard.'

In the case if Afgan refugees, we have many in Canada already, and I would accept Canada taking these people in and INCARCERATING them and following through with legal trials in speedy time etc.

But to just grab hoards of Iraqi's from a war that few supported and then expect us to help take the burden of your actions, actions which are seen as war crimes wordlwide, is a bit much.

Don't ***** about the food, unless you said you weren't hungry to begin with and didn't want to eat there anyway.

Collapse -

Regardless of them agreeing to GB or the captures or not

by Deadly Ernest In reply to It was in error

those who put pressure on to have them released do bear a responsibility for creating the environment for them being released and thus are responsible for the release. That's the point I'm making. They wanted the situation changed, then they have a responsibility for the new situation.

Collapse -

No I disagree

by HAL 9000 Moderator In reply to Regardless of them agreei ...

GB is just plain wrong and a Blot on America.

If the Yanks don't understand this simple fact it is up to others to point it out to them in the sternest manner possible.

The Yanks created this mess and they are responsible for fixing it up, Plain & Simple.

The only thing against this is that because of the Abuse that the Yanks have dished out they have created a bigger problem than what they began with and this is what they don't like and are unwilling to deal with.

Col

Collapse -

I never said it wasn't - I just said those who complained and

by Deadly Ernest In reply to No I disagree

wanted it closed have to accept some of the responsibility for what happens to the people affected by the closure.

Collapse -

No they don't

by Oz_Media In reply to No I disagree

That civil/moral issue simply does not apply in this case.

Ever heard the saying, you make you rbed and you can sleep in it?

This wan't like Americans that were wrrested for just causes and the world said they should free all rapists, in which case those countries would be responsible.

THeir arrests were not supported to begin with, they should never have been at war so nobody else should be responsible for helping carry the burden on that war.

I had no part in it, I'm not helping clean it up.

I think Bush should be in Guantanamo, and tortured. If he was and then I requested his release, then fine it is for me to see ot him after that.

If Americans arrest someone they shouldn't and then public outcry has them released, it is AMERICA'S problem, nobody else's, they shouldnt have arrested them to begin with.

Collapse -

Oz, I know the saying, however it applies to a situation

by Deadly Ernest In reply to No I disagree

where no one interferes and the person in trouble comes seeking help - that is NOT the case here. What this relates to is a case where the US was lying in their bed and a bunch of others came around and complained about what the bed's made of and insists it's changed. That makes the complainers responsible for the bed as well.

You said "Their arrests were not supported to begin with..."

The one really publicised case of an Australian involved included public evidence of the guy admitting, in documents prior to his capture, to being involved with a terrorist organisation and a photo of him bearing arms for them overseas - then he confessed, which the validity of it is being disputed by some.

His diary and letters home, and the photos he sent home make him guilty of a crime under Australian law which prohibits the bearing of arms in another country except under specific conditions which he did not meet. - He was guilty of being a terrorist. Did he actually fire weapons at allied troops? Unproven. Did he bear arms for a terrorist organisation? Proven by his own words.

Who's to say the same is or isn't true of those still there? I haven't seen the evidence available so I don't know. However the guilt or innocence of the prisoners is NOT what I'm talking about. What I'm about is countries screaming at the US that GB is wrong and should be closed down, then doing a Pontious Pilot and refusing to get involved in the clean up of what they pushed to have happen. That's hypocrisy by them.

Collapse -

Oh no

by Oz_Media In reply to No I disagree

You've been hanging out with Tony or something.

By saying many arrest were not supprted, I am referring to those who were captured and arrested in Iraq, a war that was against the majority of allied nations wishes and one that is still seen as an illegal war where war crimes have been comitted.

Certainly some are wanted men, some are known criminals, some are unproven criminals that may be set free, some are completely innocent, the same goes for any prison in the world. HOwever we process our own as we must be due process, we decide who's a cirminal and lock them up, whether we were right or wrong. We decide who's innocent and send them home, sometimes regretably.

But just because other nations thought it should be closed and were outspoken about how wron git was, it doesn' tin ANY way makek them responsible if america see their fault.

Just because you open somebody's eyes, it doesn't make you responsible for their actions.

Collapse -

Get real

by Oz_Media In reply to Regardless of them agreei ...

Half of America wanted them release, the rest of teh world wante dthem released. They were incercerated against the wills of others, just because they dshouldn't have been incarcerated in the first place, it doesn' tmean those who thought they were wrongly detained should be responsible.

I completely iunderstand your view and it applies in many cases, but that same expectation doesn't even come close in this case.

Lets say I tell you not to rape someone, you go ahead and tie a girl up in your basement and rape her anyway. If I continue to urge you to release her and you eventually do, is it MY responsibility to take care of her? **** no, you shouldn't have taken her to begin with.

Let's say America decides they need world support to lock down Alabama and arrest everyone that they think is affiliated with the KKK.

The rest of the world says there's no need to lock down Alabama, they do not represent the KKK and others want nothing to do with it, but America goes ahead and locks down Alabama and arrests everyone anyway.

The rest of the world cries foul and expects you to release these people you have wrongly taken from their homes and arrested. YOu eventually decide they need ot be released, why shoul the countries opposed to your initial actions be responsible?

That theory of yours has SOME merits in SOME conditions, certainly not here though.

Collapse -

disregard (nt)

by Joe_R In reply to US government asks Canada ...
Back to Community Forum
79 total posts (Page 3 of 8)   Prev   01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05   Next

Related Discussions

Related Forums