Gitmo Prisoners Sent to Bermuda? WTF?
I understand that Bermuda, or rather Dr. Brown, has agreed to allowing four Uighur detainees from the US concentration camp of Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to settle in Bermuda.
There are a number of questions that this raises, for one, whether such a decision is even legal, as with our current constitutional arrangement such foreign policy decisions are the remit of the UK Government and not Bermuda.
The main question from my perspective though, is if these detainees are innocent, as Dr. Brown says the Yankees have reassured him of, then why are we taking them? Surely this is a US made mess, a US made problem, and as such there should be a US solution to it?
WHY ARE THEY BEING SETTLED IN BERMUDA AND NOT IN THE USA?
And has Dr. Brown even considered the wider consequences of this action? Surely the People's Republic of China - which Dr. Brown has been courting of late - won't exactly take kindly to such an action.
Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against the Uighurs, and I am actually sympathetic to the Uighur cause. But again, WHY DON'T THE AMERICANS TAKE THEM? This just makes us look like we've been pressured, or even bribed, by the Yankees. And this from a Party that officially supports independence, and yet capitulates to Yankee imperialism at every chance.
- J Starling's blog
- Login to post comments
Blog
Recent comments
- Thesis
1 year 10 weeks ago - We all have to start
1 year 10 weeks ago - Thanks
1 year 10 weeks ago - Best to you
1 year 10 weeks ago - Thanks for pointing that out
1 year 10 weeks ago - Clarifications
1 year 10 weeks ago - Moving over
1 year 10 weeks ago - Wow
1 year 10 weeks ago - Clarification
1 year 10 weeks ago - Thank You
1 year 10 weeks ago
Forum
- Making Our Building Codes Better For Hurricances
- Expanding The Bus System
- Speedbump Power Generation
- Fast Ferries For Flatts?
- 'Solar Trees' for Hamilton?
- Why has limey and his brigade infected the plp blogs?
- The Bermuda Regiment - Discrimination based on Convenience
- Crime in Bermuda: Does it Affect You Directly?
Syndicate
Comments
What Makes You PLP?
You didn't vote PLP in 2007. You constantly criticise the PLP. What exactly makes you PLP?
Rocksolid, WTF?
Rocksolid, I am very curious how you know what my vote was in 2007. However, I have actually publically stated that I voted PLP in 1998 and 2007, although I spoiled my ballot in the 2003 election, so please get your facts straight. And I also assisted with canvassing for the Party in the 2007 election, primarily assisting then Senator Davida Morris in her constituency. My membership expired in January of this year. Now that we've got that out of the way, lets move on to a more substantial point, like, WTF DOES MY BEING PLP OR NOT HAVE TO DO WITH THIS ISSUE AND WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT IT?
I assure you 'brother' that a lot of PLP members are going to be livid with this decision.
Tell me, and please don't obfuscate, if these individuals are innocent, why are we taking them? Why aren't the Americans? Is this even constitutional? Does this make a mockery of our immigration protocols?
2003
My apologies, I thought you said your spoiled your ballot in the 2007 elections. I wasn't commenting on the issue at hand, I was asking a valid question. You call yourself a PLP member and regularly oppose the PLP. I want to know: what have you done to help the PLP lately? Let your membership expire?
Irrelevant question though
Your question made and makes no sense as regards the topic, and looks more like a personal attack than anything else. I am overseas, and as such not able to assist with Party issues. I have however attempted to assist from afar in the reorganisation of the Youth Wing which I think you will find is currently defunct, however people back in Bermuda need to step up to make that work - there is little I can do to organise it from Edinburgh, Scotland. My membership expired and on my return to Bermuda I will rejoin, I don't see how it is practical to do so from overseas though.
Criticism of Party issues does not mean disloyalty to the principles of progressive labour. Uncritical thinking is a greater disservice to the Party than criticism of it. So I guess you could say I've tried to encourage critical thought within the Party. Is that good enough for you?
Your support
I certainly appreciate your support for the PLP. Your support for the PLP is almost as valuable as Joe Lieberman's support for the Democratic Party in the US.
And yours...
Ha, sure, and your support is what, like Kim Jong Ills advisors?
LOL
LOL
I have in the past and will continue to criticise the PLP when they screw up. I'd like to see you give them credit when they help innocent stateless refugees.
LMAO
Right. I like the way you are trying to stress the 'innocent stateless refugees' and stop people from pointing out the US's obligations under international law and their use of 'consequences' to encourage us to 'help'.
Innocent ...
... of what exactly and who confirmed as much?
The U.S. Department of Justice has confirmed the U.S. is a safer place with these four not residing there. If tehy are 'innocent' ... why is that?
If China is happy to have them return home, how are they stateless?
Yes, Innocent
They were not charged or convicted of any crime. That makes them innocent. Moreover, an American court ruled that they cannot be considered "enemy combatants."
Yes, they are De Facto Stateless. You are De Facto stateless if "the subject may have a legally meritorious claim but is precluded from asserting it because of practical considerations such as cost, circumstances of civil disorder, or the fear of persecution." If returned to China, they would be politically persecuted.
Do you really want to stand on the side of condemning innocent people to political persecution all because you don't want these four people in Bermuda?
Typical Brown Obfuscation
"Do you really want to stand on the side of condemning innocent people to political persecution all because you don't want these four people in Bermuda?"
You mean the way the type of political persecution Dr. Brown is submitting us to because Obama didn't "want these four people in" the United States?
Why do (did the) Bermudian people not have a say in this matter?
Explain
1) If these Uighurs went back to China, they may have to endure torture, work camps, prison, etc. It's offensive to compare real political persecution to the fact that you have to live on the same island as four innocent people.
2) Perhaps you forgot how democracies work. Free and fair elections elect governments. Those governments get to govern. Part of governing is making decisions. Do you have a problem with democracy?
rocksolid supports an opaque government and ignores electorate
1) The U.S. has a legal obligation to keep these people. We are under no obligation to take them. Furthermore Dr. Brown doesn't have the constitutional authority to unilateraly act on 'our' behalf to the exclusion of the FCO/UK when dealing with matters involving foreign affairs. He has committed a clear breach and should be dealt with accordingly.
2) Minister Burch has already said the Bermudian people did not deserve to have a say or participate in the decision to take the Gitmo detainees so its clear neither you nor an unelected Minster are aware of basic democratic principles and concepts of transparency. The U.S. Congress were previously given the opportunity to weigh in on this matter (as it would have affected the representatives' respective electorates), however, the Bermudian people were not give the same opportunity for their elected officials to be heard in the House. How is that in any way reflective of a democratic and right thinking society?
32n64w has a problem with a democracy
1) Yes, we are in agreement that the US has an obligation to the Uighurs and Bermuda does not have an obligation to them. The US engaged in negotiations with other governments to ensure that those refugees are settled. Those governments agreed to take on the humanitarian case of taking in innocent refugees which relieved the US of the burden for these four individuals and assumed the burden for Bermuda. As for whether or not the duly elected Bermuda government had to bow to their colonial masters, the Premier acknowledged in the statement that those discussions would begin.
2) It's hypocritical for you to wrongly criticise me fo rtaking things out of context, and then not provide Col. Burch's full quote. In democracies, elections have consequences. Governments are elected to govern. I'm glad that this government is both acting in both a strong way vis a vis our colonial overlords and making humanitarian decisions that a right thinking society should be applauding.
rocksolid confirms support for a dictatorship over a democracy
1) The Gitmo detainees already arrived in Bermuda so there was no prior consultation. You really must have quite a case of victim mentality to keep repeating Brown's colonial masters' misdirection. What a pity.
2) Minister Burch was asked by a caller on Everest's show if the Bermudian people deserved to have a say or participate in the decision to take the Gitmo detainees. He tried to evade her question and she quite rightly asked him to give a simple yes or no answer. He answered ... "no". What part of that "no" do you not understand?
So regarding my question as to whether Bermudians should be given the same opportunity to express their point of view as their counterparts in the U.S. House of Representatives ... your answer is a resounding no and further confirms that you really think Governments should operate in a vacuum once they are elected and ignore the wishes of the electorate. That in no way resembles a democracy and anyone who thinks so is guilty of supporting a dictatorship.
32n64w doesn't know what a democracy is
1) Elections have consequences. We elect a government to govern. Governing means making decisions. You don't see Americans criticising Obama for not consulting them about this decision. That's because they know that in democracies elections determine governments and governments have the right to make decisions.
2) I ask you again, please provide the exact quotation. You did not quote the question nor did you quote Col. Burch's full answer. I look forward to your posting the full transcript so we can evaluate it, sans your incredibly biased filter.
3) Last time I checked, the U.S. House of Representatives didn't vote on whether or not the Obama administration has a right to make this deal with Bermuda. Nor did the Bush administration consult the Congress or test in the courts whether or not the original detention was constitutional. If you look to the Americans as an example of healthy democratic habits, than it's clear that you don't know what democracy is.
I believe that governments are elected by the people and that elections have consequences. Elections mean that the elected government can govern - which means make decisions. You will have the opportunity to make your case at the next election whether or not this government deserves another term. Oh, but, then again, you'll be sitting it out because you're "not UBP" - I forgot. ;-)
Liberal and Popular Democracy
The US Congress had a vote on whether to allow the Uighurs into the USA - that is what 32 is referring to Rocksolid. It was an irrelevant vote though, as they are still bound by international law to take them in and not coerce small island states to take them instead.
True, under our liberal democratic system, and its particular form of Westminsterism, you are correct. So to me that says we need to deepen democracy and encourage greater popular participation and not accomodate to the machinery of State which goes hand in hand with oligarchy.
The Law
The PLP was, indeed, following the rules of our liberal democratic system. If you want to talk about how to reform Westminsterism, that's another discussion. But, all of the regulations that govern our liberal democracy were followed in this case.
Yes, the law
Actually, no the PLP, in this action, was not following the rules of our liberal democratic system. These rules are set out in the Bermuda Constitution, and while I support independence and all, the Constitution is what it is and leaves such decisions as this to the UK. So where we cherry picking what rules and laws we follow now?
Agreed
I was referring to the social contract between the state (BDA government) and the BDA people. I was not referring to the colonial relationship with the UK. I absolutely believe that the liberal democratic social contract between the people and it's government must be preserved at all times. Like Jefferson and Ghandi before me, I'm much more willing to push the boundaries when it comes to challenging a colonial power.
I'm sorry, "you don't see
I'm sorry, "you don't see the americans criticizing Obama"? For what *would* they criticize him for, sending people his country owes a great debt to because of persecution to another country and having that country accept completely without due process? That's a ridiculous comparison.
Huh?
What due process did "that country" (Bermuda) not follow?
Bermudian due process
You do recall that we are a British colony? I get that you and others don't like this and wish we were independent but the fact of the matter remains. And how it is possible to constitutionally make a decision like this without informing ALL the government, which, lest we forget, includes the opposition and the Governor.
In the foot steps of Jefferson & Ghandi
Like Jefferson and Ghandi before me, I'm willing to push the boundaries when it comes to challenging a colonial power.
To the Bastille?
So you agree then that the people have the right to take arms and overthrow the government when it is seen to no longer represent the people, and replace it with one that does?
The idea of government should not be to govern FOR the people but rather Government BY the people. Quite radically different things.
The Legacy of Gandhi and Jefferson
I think it is just for people to overthrow a tyrannical, repressive and unelected government by force. I also believe that civil disobedience is justified in a democratic society insofar as it is protesting clear discrimination.
Bermuda has an elected government and a liberal democracy. Unfortunately, we also have a colonial power that lords over us and that is wholly unaccountable to the people of Bermuda.
When it's Convenient ...
I also believe that civil disobedience is justified in a democratic society insofar as it is protesting clear discrimination
... unless it's a Bermudian taxpayer suggesting we need not pay our tax bills as a reaction to the Government's decision (at least in this circumstance with the Cabinet's consent) to write off over (in excess of) $7m owed the to the public coffers in accordance with the terms of a legitimate contract between two supposedly informed and honest parties.
Spin, spin, spin as usual. You're blind loyalty has blinded your common sense.
Please
Not paying taxes to a Government that is duly elected in free and fair elections in a democratic society does not justify civil disobedience. I do, however, believe that the civil disobedience that Ghandi and Martin Luther King led against injustice was justified. Do you disagree or are you going to spin, spin spin as usual and let your blind opposition to this government blind your common sense?
Hypocrisy ...
.. rules.
Offensive
Comparing Gandhi's struggle against dictatorial colonialism and King's battle against institutional discrimination to paying taxes in a democratic country is offensive. You should be ashamed of yourself.