4 ms·

> Slovenia was told to take a prisoner if it wanted to meet with President Obama, while the island nation of Kiribati was offered incentives worth millions of d

> Slovenia was told to take a prisoner if it wanted to meet with President Obama, while the island nation of Kiribati was offered incentives worth millions of dollars to take in Chinese Muslim detainees, cables from diplomats recounted. It's a little hard to tell from the wording, but that might be explicit evidence that the Obama administration is continuing the Bush administration's practice of extraordinary rendition. That or it's just banal, and the Obama administration is trying to find places to take our prisoners we can't release because of bureaucracy and fearmongering.

philwelch 16y ago
No, it's pretty clear from the context that they're talking about releasing prisoners from Guantanamo Bay. Though it wouldn't be surprising that the Clinton administration's practice of extraordinary rendition (which expanded under the Bush administration) has continued within the Obama administration.
ajays 16y ago
No, you have it backwards. They're talking about Gitmo detainees who they'd like to release; but can't due to problems in their home countries. For example: there are (were?) a dozen Chinese Uighur muslims who were languishing in Gitmo, having been caught in the dragnet by mistake. They are Chinese citizens, so if they were to be released, they'd go back to China where the authorities would most likely execute them (or lock them away for life). So we'd like to release them to a third country; but everyone's afraid of China's clout and China was applying a lot of pressure to anyone who was even thinking of taking them. So we bribed countries into taking them: some went to Bermuda, some to Kiribati, etc.
- hugh3 16y ago
  I think the issue with the Chinese is not that the Chinese would lock them away for life (big deal) but that the Chinese were refusing to take them at all.
  - sausagefeet 16y ago
    Why can't the US take them?
    - Estragon 16y ago
      As far as I can tell, primarily because of right-wing hysteria about what the terrorist mischief they would notionally perpetrate if set up for a quiet life in Podunk, USA.
      - mahmud 16y ago
        As opposed to the quarter million or so, highly trained and combat experienced Laotian Hmongs in the midwest?
    - lukeschlather 16y ago
      Because congress is afraid that they will break out of prison and kill people. The ones that are getting released probably don't want to come to the States anyway on account of lynch mobs. On a side note, I was clearly mistaken and this includes the one we tried to get Slovenia to take. After the full-body scanners and COICA I'm getting a little on edge about my support of Obama.
      - philwelch 16y ago
        How many lynchings have occurred in the US in the past 30 years?
        lukeschlather 16y ago
        It depends on the definition of lynching. I have no doubt that anyone released from Guantanamo into the United States would be subject to harassment, if not actual danger. The people in congress arguing vociferously against their release must have reasons, and as far as I can see that's either the belief that everyone in Guantanamo deserves to be there, or the belief that it will result in violence if they come to the US. And simply put, in this case the expectation of violence is as good as violence itself. That's the goal of terrorism, and it's worked extremely well.
matthewsimon 16y ago
It's the latter -- the quoted passage is referring to relocating the existing long-term prisoners already housed at Guantanamo. ("Bargaining to empty the Guantánamo Bay prison") My understanding is that new prisoners are no longer being brought to Guantanamo, but instead to other sites outside of the United States.

philwelch 16y ago

No, it's pretty clear from the context that they're talking about releasing prisoners from Guantanamo Bay. Though it wouldn't be surprising that the Clinton administration's practice of extraordinary rendition (which expanded under the Bush administration) has continued within the Obama administration.

ajays 16y ago

No, you have it backwards. They're talking about Gitmo detainees who they'd like to release; but can't due to problems in their home countries. For example: there are (were?) a dozen Chinese Uighur muslims who were languishing in Gitmo, having been caught in the dragnet by mistake. They are Chinese citizens, so if they were to be released, they'd go back to China where the authorities would most likely execute them (or lock them away for life). So we'd like to release them to a third country; but everyone's afraid of China's clout and China was applying a lot of pressure to anyone who was even thinking of taking them. So we bribed countries into taking them: some went to Bermuda, some to Kiribati, etc.

hugh3 16y ago
I think the issue with the Chinese is not that the Chinese would lock them away for life (big deal) but that the Chinese were refusing to take them at all.
- sausagefeet 16y ago
  Why can't the US take them?
  - Estragon 16y ago
    As far as I can tell, primarily because of right-wing hysteria about what the terrorist mischief they would notionally perpetrate if set up for a quiet life in Podunk, USA.
    - mahmud 16y ago
      As opposed to the quarter million or so, highly trained and combat experienced Laotian Hmongs in the midwest?
  - lukeschlather 16y ago
    Because congress is afraid that they will break out of prison and kill people. The ones that are getting released probably don't want to come to the States anyway on account of lynch mobs. On a side note, I was clearly mistaken and this includes the one we tried to get Slovenia to take. After the full-body scanners and COICA I'm getting a little on edge about my support of Obama.
    - philwelch 16y ago
      How many lynchings have occurred in the US in the past 30 years?
      - lukeschlather 16y ago
        It depends on the definition of lynching. I have no doubt that anyone released from Guantanamo into the United States would be subject to harassment, if not actual danger. The people in congress arguing vociferously against their release must have reasons, and as far as I can see that's either the belief that everyone in Guantanamo deserves to be there, or the belief that it will result in violence if they come to the US. And simply put, in this case the expectation of violence is as good as violence itself. That's the goal of terrorism, and it's worked extremely well.

matthewsimon 16y ago

It's the latter -- the quoted passage is referring to relocating the existing long-term prisoners already housed at Guantanamo. ("Bargaining to empty the Guantánamo Bay prison") My understanding is that new prisoners are no longer being brought to Guantanamo, but instead to other sites outside of the United States.