Home Politics & Debate
At The Mix, we want to make our services as helpful as we can. To do this, we’d love to ask you a few questions about you, your visit to The Mix and its impact. It should take only about 5-10 minutes to complete. Take this survey and get a chance at winning a £200 Amazon voucher​.
Come and join our Support Circle, every Tuesday, 8 - 9:30pm! Sign up here
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨

Let potential nutjobs into the UK, says Goldsmith.

MixBotMixBot Posts: 8,656 Automated Account
That disgraceful stain on the integrity of the USA, Guantanamo Bay, is finally set to be shut during 2009. The soon-to-be-sworn-in President Obama (whose constant talk about "change" made him sound less like a presidential nominee and more like a homeless person) says as much. Everyone can agree that this place was an abomination which should never have been allowed to exist. There's just one little problem - what to do with the hundreds of people who've been detained there for all these years. Some of these people, to say the least, are a few olives short of a pizza.

Which brings me nicely onto Gordon Brown. The magpie of British politics seems to be desperate to ingratiate himself with Barack Obama, presumably hoping he'll bask in Obama's reflected glory. Therefore, it's more than likely he'll do exactly what Obama tells him to do. Isn't all this rather curious? For years, people complained that Blair was allowing the UK to become too close to Dubya's USA. Now that they've got one of their own going into the White House, they seem to have gone very quiet. Funny that.

Already, some countries have told the USA to fuck off - Australia being one. Ours hasn't. According to the Beeb; "Britain should take some Guantanamo Bay inmates if it helps the US close the Cuban detention camp, former attorney general Lord Goldsmith has said. Lord Goldsmith, who negotiated over the release of Britons at the camp, said he understood concerns over the proposal. But the existence of the camp had damaged the West and 'it is in our interest to see this closed as soon as possible' he said."

Lord Goldsmith? Ah yes, I remember him. He was that wankstain who used to be Attorney General a few years ago. A man who has a tendency to change his mind on big issues. March 7th 2003 - he said that the Iraq war might be illegal. March 17th 2003 - actually, the war would be totally legit and above board. He thinks that we should take them in. Give it ten days and he'll change his mind...

So what do you all think? I personally think we should join the Aussies in sticking two fingers up to Barack Obama and the USA. Guantanamo Bay is their fucking problem, not ours. We should keep well out of this.
Beep boop. I'm a bot.

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Have you not noticed that every British citizen released from that place has turned out to have no evidence against them whatsoever? Nice to see you love the principle of innocent before proven guilty. And even if it turns out some of these people are guilty of being terrorists, I'm sure the British authorities would be able to take the right course of action if this were true.

    Also I believe the UK called the the place to be closed as early as 2006l

    And Australia is a very poor example of SG, one of the most close minded countries in the world when it comes to letting people in.

    What would you do then? Where would you have these perhaps innocent people go?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    These people have been locked away for several years, in many cases. We may never know the full truth of what happened in Guantanamo Bay - the USA has been extremely quiet on the topic of torture during the Bush years. Whilst not explictly condoning it, they've hardly made a show of criticising it either. It's more than possible that many of them will be mentally scarred by now - they're going to need a lot of looking after when released. As it happens, I think that the British detainees should be allowed to return to the UK. If they're legally classed as from this country, allow them back. However, the authorities must ensure that the people coming back are not a danger to this country. We simply don't know enough about the prisoners in that camp.

    I think that the UK could learn a great deal from Australia, particularly on the topic of immigration. They certainly don't tolerate illegals attempting to get into their country, for instance. (Aladdin will soon come along and mention the boat full of people who were trying to get into Aussie Land a few years ago, no doubt) But the Australian decision is fair enough. Why should they take in foreigners who might well be a threat to their country? Whilst I disagree with the blanket ban imposed by the Aussies, I think it's an understandable step.

    I see no reason why the UK should have to take in people who have no links whatsoever to us. And doing it simply because the hip new president of the United States wants us to would be even worse.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Your comparing Obama to a homeless person because he dared to be different?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    stargalaxy wrote: »
    The soon-to-be-sworn-in President Obama (whose constant talk about "change" made him sound less like a presidential nominee and more like a homeless person

    WTF?

    Anyway.. These people should be returned home - whichever country that may be.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    MrG wrote: »
    Your comparing Obama to a homeless person because he dared to be different?

    No I think it was a hilarious joke playing upon the different meanings of the word "change": You see, Barack Obama used it in the sense of "things need to change", but if some scallywag with a propensity for wit and a glint in his eye came along he might just find out that it can also be used in the sense of "Can you spare some change?" and decide to connect the two for ker-azy comic effect. He's shutting down Guantanamo, but boy does he stink of whisky.

    This topic title is like a headline in a tabloid - it bears little relation to the story below. I'll take some of the Beeb's words for a more considered heading: "Britain should take some Guantanamo Bay inmates if it helps the US close the Cuban detention camp, says Goldsmith." Fine by me.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I think its a combination of tiredness and that much rhetoric in his posts thats got me confused this time.

    he could have condensed that first post by at least half, and all that would have been lost was his ferocious nastyness.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    If they're British citizens, we have to allow them in. If not, they should be entitled to apply to come to this country by the same methods as anyone else. The fact that they've been in Guantanamo Bay should be of no concern, because we shouldn't be giving any legitimacy to a system where people were locked up without trial, just like we wouldn't take into consideration any other political prisoners. If they've been found guilty of something in America, that's a different matter.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I personally would give every British citizen there a full honours welcome and free housing for life, on general fucking principle.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Some seem more interested in nit-picking thet title of the thread than they do in the story itself. I suggest that reveals more about them than it does about me. Moving on...
    MrG wrote: »
    Your comparing Obama to a homeless person because he dared to be different?
    You honestly think that Messiah Obama is somehow different to the other presidents before him? Let's try and establish why this argument is false. Like almost every president of the USA, he's a multi-millionaire - his family's 2007 tax return showed the household income was about $4.2million. Like most presidents of the USA, he's religious - he's a Protestant Christian. Like several other presidents, he has written books before going into the White House - in other words, he had a considerable profile. People who claim that he's the complete opposite of Dubya are going to be bitterly disappointed. Give it four or eight years, and the Aladdins of this world will hate him, just like they do the current president.

    The only difference is that the media are currently (and wrongly) treating him with kid gloves, unlike President Bush whose (rightly) had a hard time from the press for most of his presidency. Much was made by Michael Moore and other Left-wing rent-a-voices about Dubya's past, about alleged alcholism and various other mud-racking. Yet these same people don't say a word about Obama the smoker. It's no mystery why, is it?
    Aladdin wrote: »
    I personally would give every British citizen there a full honours welcome and free housing for life, on general fucking principle.
    As it happens, I totally agree with you.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    I personally would give every British citizen there a full honours welcome and free housing for life, on general fucking principle.

    Hmm I wouldn't go that far. If they are British Citizens we should take them back as should any other country who has citizens in Guantanamo.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    I personally would give every British citizen there a full honours welcome and free housing for life, on general fucking principle.

    you dont think they should be detained and prosecuted for their crimes?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Territt wrote: »
    you dont think they should be detained and prosecuted for their crimes?
    What crimes? They haven't actually been found guilty of anything. If the UK authorities believe that any of them have committed a crime, allow them to be tried in a British court. If they are found guilty, they must be punished. If not, they will remain what they should be now - innocent in the eyes of the law.

    Incidentally, if any of them wish to sue the US Government for everything they've been put through, they're more than welcome.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Territt wrote: »
    you dont think they should be detained and prosecuted for their crimes?
    Seeing as the US government doesn't seem to have any evidence whatsoever against any of them (indeed, those freed after several years of illegal imprisoment and torture were only 'guilty' of being in the general area at the time), I shouldn't think there are any crimes to prosecute.

    Even if they were, I'd still receive them with honours. It is imperative we show to the so-called leader of the free world that illegal kidnapping, imprisoment and torture will not be tolerated or condoned.
Sign In or Register to comment.