Cowen reiterates Guantanamo detainee offer

redout

The Taoiseach has reiterated that Ireland will likely take in some detainees from the Guantanamo Bay prisoner camp if it closes.

In the Dáil today, Brian Cowen repeated comments he made recently in the US, saying 'Ireland will not be found wanting'.

He was responding to a question from Labour leader Eamon Gilmore, who said that the Taoiseach's position seemed to be different from that of the Department of Justice.


Mr Cowen jokingly replied that being at variance with the department is unforgivable.

US President Barack Obama has ordered the closing of the prison at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba within one year.

The Taoiseach also said that while in the US he received confirmation that a new US peace envoy to Northern Ireland will be appointed.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0401/guantanamo.html



Is this an april fools ? The fuk we doing taking these terrorists in here. We have enough of our own here in the first place. First I heard of it.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

redout wrote: »

The Taoiseach has reiterated that Ireland will likely take in some detainees from the Guantanamo Bay prisoner camp if it closes.

In the Dáil today, Brian Cowen repeated comments he made recently in the US, saying 'Ireland will not be found wanting'.

He was responding to a question from Labour leader Eamon Gilmore, who said that the Taoiseach's position seemed to be different from that of the Department of Justice.


Mr Cowen jokingly replied that being at variance with the department is unforgivable.

US President Barack Obama has ordered the closing of the prison at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba within one year.

The Taoiseach also said that while in the US he received confirmation that a new US peace envoy to Northern Ireland will be appointed.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0401/guantanamo.html



Is this an april fools ? The fuk we doing taking these terrorists in here. We have enough of our own here in the first place. First I heard of it.

Not allowed talk about the guy who's name we do not speak of... yikes, I is scared

[img][/img]http://baseballsnatcher.mlblogs.com/Scared%20pug.jpg

Also OP, they have not been convicted of anything, but are suspects. Recieved no trials etc etc. Please refrain from making accusations. You do not hold the facts, if you do, please post them.

AckwelFoley

Dirka dirka

keane2097

redout wrote: »

The fuk we doing taking these terrorists in here. We have enough of our own here in the first place.

What a bigoted statement that is - you're joking right?

thelordofcheese

redout wrote: »

The fuk we doing taking these terrorists in here. .

Most of the people in Gitmo were members of the taliban, making them not terrorists.
Also it's pretty much a matter of record that they had next to no idea who was a 'enemy combatant' and who was a civilian when rounding people up to be shipped to gitmo, so there's still a lot of innocent people in there.

redout

keane2097 wrote: »

What a bigoted statement that is - you're joking right?

emm...........that would be a resounding no.

Zadkiel

redout wrote: »

Is this an april fools ? The fuk we doing taking these terrorists in here. We have enough of our own here in the first place. First I heard of it.

Didn't ya get the memo? :P

redout

thelordofcheese wrote: »

Most of the people in Gitmo were members of the taliban, making them not terrorists.
Also it's pretty much a matter of record that they had next to no idea who was a 'enemy combatant' and who was a civilian when rounding people up to be shipped to gitmo, so there's still a lot of innocent people in there.

Its also common knowledge that some of the bastards they released from Guantanamo are now back with terrorists. Bottom line is its Americas mess so why should others have to take their "enemy combatants" ?

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

redout wrote: »

emm...........that would be a resounding no.

Post some factual evidence or GTFO... less of the steriotypical bullsh!t please...

redout

Skylar Hallowed Axe wrote: »

Post some factual evidence or GTFO... less of the steriotypical bullsh!t please...

Factual evidence about what exactly ?

Highsider

Can't believe this guy is the leader of the country.

Zadkiel

redout wrote: »

Factual evidence about what exactly ?

redout wrote: »

Its also common knowledge that some of the bastards they released from Guantanamo are now back with terrorists. Bottom line is its Americas mess so why should others have to take their "enemy combatants" ?

For this for starters :rolleyes:

dublinario

I think we could easily take some of the burden from Guantanamo Bay. Granted, we'll obviously have to erect a wall around Leitrim, to pen them in. But sure we were thinking of doing that anyway, weren't we?

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

redout wrote: »

Factual evidence about what exactly ?

About them all being terrorists... Who said that the detainees we would be taking are terrorists? You are making an assumption...

Door's a thataway

---

>

Nodin

redout wrote: »

The Taoiseach (....). First I heard of it.

Sure what about it? Even if they were Taleban, they're probably not much more conservative than the DUP. Let them in.

My name is URL

Hardly surprising that Ireland's leaders would agree to such a thing. They already allowed the US to carry out Extraordinary Rendition (torture) flights using Shannon.

Police at Shannon have said that they have received political instruction not to approach, search or otherwise interfere with US aircraft suspected of being involved in extraordinary rendition flights

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition#Shannon_Airport.2C_Ireland

me-skywalker

We should not be taking in these suspects! we are not involved in this war on terror! they're american and british suspects so if guatanamo shuts down they can go to their own prisons and we can stop this brown nosing now!

Altho ive no problem with them refueling in shannon.

ShooterSF

Surely April fool's. Aren't these considered POWs. Send them home obviously.

thelordofcheese

redout wrote: »

Its also common knowledge that some of the bastards they released from Guantanamo are now back with terrorists. Bottom line is its Americas mess so why should others have to take their "enemy combatants" ?

Common knowledge, isn't.

Also, after being kidnaped, and held without trial for a few years, i'd be pretty ****in' pissed at the americans too, can't say i blame them. Nor does that prove that they were originally affiliated with terrorists in the first place.


But that aside, i'm fairly certain that they'd qualitfy for asylum and Cowan is saying that we'd be willing to look at anyone who'd want to come here.
And once again, america is the country that violated their human rights, the geneva convention, bent the rules on torture, and kept them in terrible conditions with no trial. Would you want to then seek asylum in the country who's government did that to you, and more to the point, did so with the apparent backing of it's people?

redout

Zadkiel wrote: »

For this for starters :rolleyes:

Here you go. I hope the New York times is good enough for you. There is plenty more articles on news outlets all over the net. In fact there is a interview with President Obama on youtube acknowleding it. Still want to argue it ?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/23/world/middleeast/23yemen.html

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Upward Spiral wrote: »

Hardly surprising that Ireland's leaders would agree to such a thing. They already allowed the US to carry out Extraordinary Rendition (torture) flights using Shannon.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition#Shannon_Airport.2C_Ireland

Nice... wikipedia... you really believe that? Quote something reputable please.

ShooterSF wrote: »

Surely April fool's. Aren't these considered POWs. Send them home obviously.

No. POW's and terrorists are differant and have differant rights. Opinions on what they are is differant. How does one distinguish? Beats me...

me-skywalker wrote: »

We should not be taking in these suspects! we are not involved in this war on terror! they're american and british suspects so if guatanamo shuts down they can go to their own prisons and we can stop this brown nosing now!

Altho ive no problem with them refueling in shannon.

Why not? They have had no trials as of yet. They will be tried and then we will see. If they are innocent then why should they not be let in here? People watch too much sh!t TV... They are still human afterall, just like you and me... Sorry, just like me

pwd

when it closes most of the inmates will have died of old age anyway. Maybe he sees it as a way of getting brownie points from the usa without having to do anything.

Zadkiel

redout wrote: »

Here you go. I hope the New York times is good enough for you. There is plenty more articles on news outlets all over the net. In fact there is a interview with President Obama on youtube acknowleding it. Still want to argue it ?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/23/world/middleeast/23yemen.html

The New York Times is, it also gives evidence of ONE known detainee who went back to al'qaeda.

"Although the Pentagon has said that dozens of released Guantánamo detainees have “returned to the fight,” its claim is difficult to document, and has been met with skepticism. In any case, few of the former detainees, if any, are thought to have become leaders of a major terrorist organization like Al Qaeda in Yemen, a mostly homegrown group that experts say has been reinforced by foreign fighters."

The pentagon said more had returned to the fight and these are the same people who would have had us believe that there were WMD's in Iraq....

redout

Zadkiel wrote: »

The New York Times is, it also gives evidence of ONE known detainee who went back to al'qaeda.

"Although the Pentagon has said that dozens of released Guantánamo detainees have “returned to the fight,” its claim is difficult to document, and has been met with skepticism. In any case, few of the former detainees, if any, are thought to have become leaders of a major terrorist organization like Al Qaeda in Yemen, a mostly homegrown group that experts say has been reinforced by foreign fighters."

The pentagon said more had returned to the fight and these are the same people who would have had us believe that there were WMD's in Iraq....

Here is another from just last week were President Obama even mentions it. I suppose Obama is a big liar. :rolleyes:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090321/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_guantanamo

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

redout wrote: »

Here you go. I hope the New York times is good enough for you. There is plenty more articles on news outlets all over the net. In fact there is a interview with President Obama on youtube acknowleding it. Still want to argue it ?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/23/world/middleeast/23yemen.html

HA, one returns to the fight and automatically ALL detainees are terrorist. Your logic... christ I hope you never hold a position of proper power... really for the sake of mankind.

redout

Skylar Hallowed Axe wrote: »

HA, one returns to the fight and automatically ALL detainees are terrorist. Your logic... christ I hope you never hold a position of proper power... really for the sake of mankind.

Look brother you told me to back it up and I did. I gave you a link with President Obama mentioning it. Now if thats not good enough for you then I dont know what is. Do your own research and you will find plenty of articles backing up what I said.

Here again the same from a respected British Newspaper http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-8415914,00.html

keane2097

“They’re one and the same guy,” said the official, who insisted on anonymity because he was discussing an intelligence analysis.

[ ] Proof
[X] Anonymity due to non-existance

keane2097

redout wrote: »

Look brother you told me to back it up and I did. I gave you a link with President Obama mentioning it. Now if thats not good enough for you then I dont know what is. Do your own research and you will find plenty of articles backing up what I said.

Here again the same from a respected British Newspaper http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-8415914,00.html

There's no actual quote from Obama in that link.

Also, even if it is to be taken as true it disproves your own point.

some of the people released from the facility in Cuba have rejoined terrorist groups

Some have, most haven't i.e. most aren't terrorists.

bill_ashmount

redout wrote: »

The Taoiseach has reiterated that Ireland will likely take in some detainees from the Guantanamo Bay prisoner camp if it closes.

In the Dáil today, Brian Cowen repeated comments he made recently in the US, saying 'Ireland will not be found wanting'.

Another disgraceful decision. These people have no right to be here. :mad:

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

redout wrote: »

Look brother you told me to back it up and I did. I gave you a link with President Obama mentioning it. Now if thats not good enough for you then I dont know what is. Do your own research and you will find plenty of articles backing up what I said.

Here again the same from a respected British Newspaper http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-8415914,00.html

You called them terrorists, you implied that they are all terrorist. While they have had no trials. They were suspected terrorist. Maybe they had some links with terrorists but were not terrorists themselves. You gave a link saying "some" have gone back to terrorist groups. Have these been terrorists before? If it was me I would surely join up to an anti-american group of some sort, preferably holding an AK 47.

You still haven't posted real proof of actual terrorist being released and then re-joining terrorist groups.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

bill_ashmount wrote: »

Another disgraceful decision. These people have no right to be here. :mad:

Says who? You? And you are? GTFO.

redout

Skylar Hallowed Axe wrote: »

You called them terrorists, you implied that they are all terrorist. While they have had no trials. They were suspected terrorist. Maybe they had some links with terrorists but were not terrorists themselves. You gave a link saying "some" have gone back to terrorist groups. Have these been terrorists before? If it was me I would surely join up to an anti-american group of some sort, preferably holding an AK 47.

Who are you to say they are not terrorists ? You have no proof to say otherwise yourself ?

bill_ashmount

Skylar Hallowed Axe wrote: »

Says who? You? And you are? GTFO.

Explain to me what justification there is for leaving them into this country?
There is none. They have no legal right to be here until the Irish government flys halfway across the world and deliberately brings them here.

And who are you? Clown.

My name is URL

Skylar Hallowed Axe wrote: »

Says who? You? And you are? GTFO.

Instead of getting hot-headed about other peoples opinions and asking for citations, how about doing some research yourself.. or better yet provide the citations that back up your own opinions

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

redout wrote: »

Who are you to say they are not terrorists ? You have no proof to say otherwise yourself ?

Innocent until proven guilty... ofcourse, the bush admin bent the rules to allow them to be detained with no trial or anything, completely against human rights. Obama has a brain in his head. They will be tried and convicted if proven guilty.

bill_ashmount wrote: »

Explain to me what justification there is for leaving them into this country?
There is none. They have no legal right to be here until the Irish government flys halfway across the world and deliberately brings them here.

And who are you? Clown.

Personal abuse? Enjoy your ban.

They have the legal right to claim asylum, which is what they more than likely will do.

I cannot understand your logic. They have no legal right to be here unless the government flies over and gets them? How does that change their legal right?

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Upward Spiral wrote: »

Instead of getting hot-headed about other peoples opinions and asking for citations, how about doing some research yourself.. or better yet provide the citations that back up your own opinions

I am not hot headed. He did not post an opinion, he posted an incorrect statement.

I do not need to quote anything to back up my posts. It is common knowledge. Some people have generalised and I have argued against this. I have done some research. This was discussed a few weeks/months ago. I won't be repeating myself here for anyone

Innocent until proven guilty.

javaboy

bill_ashmount wrote: »

And who are you? Clown.

Banned.

Captain Ginger

And who's paying for them? Surely not our tax?

keane2097

redout wrote: »

Who are you to say they are not terrorists ? You have no proof to say otherwise yourself ?

This is nonsense - I can't prove you are not a terrorist redout, therefore you must be one. You are having an absolute laugh brother.

Nodin

redout wrote: »

Who are you to say they are not terrorists ? You have no proof to say otherwise yourself ?

Actually the US says that the majority are not "terrorists"......

1. Fifty-five percent (55%) of the detainees are not determined to have committed any
hostile acts against the United States or its coalition allies.
2. Only 8% of the detainees were characterized as al Qaeda fighters. Of the remaining
detainees, 40% have no definitive connection with al Qaeda at all and 18% are have no definitive affiliation with either al Qaeda or the Taliban.
3. The Government has detained numerous persons based on mere affiliations with a
large number of groups that in fact, are not on the Department of Homeland Security terrorist
watchlist. Moreover, the nexus between such a detainee and such organizations varies considerably.
Eight percent are detained because they are deemed “fighters for;” 30% considered “members of;” a large majority – 60% -- are detained merely because they are “associated with” a group or groups the Government asserts are terrorist organizations. For 2% of the prisoners their nexus to any terrorist group is unidentified.
4. Only 5% of the detainees were captured by United States forces. 86% of the
detainees were arrested by either Pakistan or the Northern Alliance and turned over to United States custody. This 86% of the detainees captured by Pakistan or the Northern Alliance were handed over to the United States at a time in which the United States offered large bounties for capture of suspected enemies.
5. Finally, the population of persons deemed not to be enemy combatants – mostly
Uighers – are in fact accused of more serious allegations than a great many persons still deemed to be enemy combatants

http://law.shu.edu/aaafinal.pdf
(my bold)

me-skywalker

Skylar Hallowed Axe wrote: »

........

Why not? They have had no trials as of yet. They will be tried and then we will see. If they are innocent then why should they not be let in here? People watch too much sh!t TV... They are still human afterall, just like you and me... Sorry, just like me

Well you obviously you have your head in the land of oz clouds because you missed the point completlety! they are not OUR suspects they are american/british suspects.

we are neutral in war and conflict. we do not support war or its activites and taking in POW's or terrorist subjects as a holding mechanism would contravene our neutrality and then we are open to all interprations to be a co-aid in the 'war'.

and your probably the same person that voted against nice/lisbon treaties.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

me-skywalker wrote: »

Well you obviously you have your head in the land of oz clouds because you missed the point completlety! they are not OUR suspects they are american/british suspects.

we are neutral in war and conflict. we do not support war or its activites and taking in POW's or terrorist subjects as a holding mechanism would contravene our neutrality and then we are open to all interprations to be a co-aid in the 'war'.

and your probably the same person that voted against nice/lisbon treaties.

I didn't vote in the nice/lisbon poll.

Firstly, these are not POW's. Get your facts right.

Secondly, we are not going to be taking in any terrorist subjects. Really, get your facts right before you post anything.

After their trials they will be taken to various places. Britain, America and their home countries are too dangerous for the innocent to go to, because some people are just too ignorant to accept that they are not terrorist. They will not ALL come here. They have every right to be here. They will be seeking asylum which will more than likely be granted to them.

It's how you percieve it to be. Which is completely wrong, sorry for ya.

Zadkiel

me-skywalker wrote: »

Well you obviously you have your head in the land of oz clouds because you missed the point completlety! they are not OUR suspects they are american/british suspects.

we are neutral in war and conflict. we do not support war or its activites and taking in POW's or terrorist subjects as a holding mechanism would contravene our neutrality and then we are open to all interprations to be a co-aid in the 'war'.

and your probably the same person that voted against nice/lisbon treaties.

There was definitely more than one person against it.

me-skywalker

Skylar Hallowed Axe wrote: »

I didn't vote in the nice/lisbon poll.

Firstly, these are not POW's. Get your facts right.

Secondly, we are not going to be taking in any terrorist subjects. Really, get your facts right before you post anything.

After their trials they will be taken to various places. Britain, America and their home countries are too dangerous for the innocent to go to, because some people are just too ignorant to accept that they are not terrorist. They will not ALL come here. They have every right to be here. They will be seeking asylum which will more than likely be granted to them.

It's how you percieve it to be. Which is completely wrong, sorry for ya.

are you taking some moral high ground or are you just looking for an arguement you seem to have handled this all wrongly and taken major offence to it. and if you didnt even bother voting then your points imo have no validity! you have a voice(vote) use it! or you can jsut sit on boards all day and clock up a few thousnad posts defendinfg the weak and vulnerable and playing robin hood.

They are suspects yes? who's suspects are they? ours? NO!
they are AMERICAN /BRITISH suspects! we dont take in french/spanish/enlgish/indian/australian murder/rapist/ suspects if they ask because they cant be bothered dealing with them.

and they have no right to be here unless they come here of their own accord! they have NO RIGHT to be here if they are flown over by the americans and dumped on our doorstep and told to look after them or we send over a plane and take them and pat o'bama on the back and say dont worry buddy we are here to take them.

why should they be sent here? tell me? (remembering who's suspects are they are AMERICAN /BRITISH suspects!)

a point being that it would contravene our neutrality you seem to have missed!

wes

me-skywalker wrote: »

and they have no right to be here unless they come here of their own accord! they have NO RIGHT to be here if they are flown over by the americans and dumped on our doorstep and told to look after them or we send over a plane and take them and pat o'bama on the back and say dont worry buddy we are here to take them.

Our government is offering to take them in. So if our government takes them in, then they do have a right to be here, as our government is the one doing the offering here.

keane2097

me-skywalker wrote: »

are you taking some moral high ground or are you just looking for an arguement you seem to have handled this all wrongly and taken major offence to it. and if you didnt even bother voting then your points imo have no validity! you have a voice(vote) use it! or you can jsut sit on boards all day and clock up a few thousnad posts defendinfg the weak and vulnerable and playing robin hood.

They are suspects yes? who's suspects are they? ours? NO!
they are AMERICAN /BRITISH suspects! we dont take in french/spanish/enlgish/indian/australian murder/rapist/ suspects if they ask because they cant be bothered dealing with them.

and they have no right to be here unless they come here of their own accord! they have NO RIGHT to be here if they are flown over by the americans and dumped on our doorstep and told to look after them or we send over a plane and take them and pat o'bama on the back and say dont worry buddy we are here to take them.

why should they be sent here? tell me? (remembering who's suspects are they are AMERICAN /BRITISH suspects!)

a point being that it would contravene our neutrality you seem to have missed!

Best missing of the point ever imo.

me-skywalker

wes wrote: »

Our government is offering to take them in. So if our government takes them in, then they do have a right to be here, as our government is the one doing the offering here.

No because then legally they would still have to apply for asylum so they have no rights as of yet to come here. they have a right to appy for ayslum.

Does that mean you are advocating the search and hunt for emmigrants? Are you agreeing that we openly suggest to other countries they can send their suspects... or the unwanted emmigrants to here?

should we advertise in eastern european countries or african countries or any other country for that matter, 'Willing to sell out society to the Devil! Relax we'll come get you! Ps send a diplomat with corrupt bussiness values and wads of cash and your in'

ShooterSF

Still think this is an April fools but I'll humour it.

What most people in here seem to be doing is arguing over whether or not they are terrorists, eh point and missed.
If they are and it's proven, lock them up. If not send them home, you know to the place they are from. What the hell has Ireland got to do with it (got to do with it)?

wes

me-skywalker wrote: »

No because then legally they would still have to apply for asylum so they have no rights as of yet to come here. they have a right to appy for ayslum.

The government seems to be offering them asylum pretty much up front from what I understand from the article. They have a right to come here as the government of this country have offered to take them in.

me-skywalker wrote: »

Does that mean you are advocating the search and hunt for emmigrants? Are you agreeing that we openly suggest to other countries they can send their suspects... or the unwanted tto here?

What the hell are you talking about? Look up the meaning of the word emigrant and you will see that the term does not apply to the people we are talking about.

me-skywalker wrote: »

should we advertise in eastern european countries or african countries or any other country for that matter, 'Willing to sell out society to the Devil! Relax we'll come get you! Ps send a diplomat with corrupt bussiness values and wads of cash and your in'

What are you talking about? The government are offereing to take these guys in, so as to do a favour to the US. They are not making this offer around the world, just to the US for a very limited number of people.

You are basically talking nonsense, as no one here is making the argument above.

me-skywalker

wes wrote: »

What the hell are you talking about? Look up the meaning of the word emigrant and you will see that the term does not apply to the people we are talking about.

Definition
Noun 1. emigrant - someone who leaves one country to settle in another

Clearly applies to the people we are talking about. Afghans/Iraq's(any otr countries) taken from their land and brought to Guatanamo then sent to ireland. Are you missing something?

wes wrote: »

What are you talking about? The government are offereing to take these guys in, so as to do a favour to the US. They are not making this offer around the world, just to the US for a very limited number of people.

No they are not my friend, no they are not! Your powers to detect sarcasm are beyond comprehensible i shall indeed need to point you the the definition of satire: satire - a humor that uses ridicule and irony and sarcasm.

Just to the US? aww bless and then we'll bend over backwards and take it liek a man, why? because they will agree to send an envoy to the north?! bah!

wes

me-skywalker wrote: »

Definition
Noun 1. emigrant - someone who leaves one country to settle in another

Clearly applies to the people we are talking about. Afghans/Iraq's(any otr countries) taken from their land and brought to Guatanamo then sent to ireland. Are you missing something?

They hardly fit the defintion. They were taken against there will. They were basically kidnapped by the US government. To call them Emigrants is simply inaccurate. They had no intentions of leaving there countries to settle elsewhere. They are going some place else, as they can't go home for fear of torture or death, which makes them refugee's.

me-skywalker wrote: »

No they are not my friend, no they are not! Your powers to detect sarcasm are beyond comprehensible i shall indeed need to point you the the definition of satire: satire - a humor that uses ridicule and irony and sarcasm.

Its sort of hard to get that kind of stuff from text. Also, the use of smiley tends to help.

me-skywalker wrote: »

Just to the US? aww bless and then we'll bend over backwards and take it liek a man, why? because they will agree to send an envoy to the north?! bah!

The government are the ones doing the offereing, as they clearly see as gaining the favor of the US, as being in our interests. What yours saying here is hyerbole.