Friday, March 10, 2006

An unclear response

I've finally received a reply from Don Brash's office on Keith Locke's motion to condemn the US detention camp at Guantanamo Bay. He (or rather, one of his staff) writes:

We understand the concerns that you express about the situation at Guantanamo Bay. We have received similar representations from other New Zealanders.

Our Foreign Affairs spokesman, Murray McCully, has raised the matter with the Minister of Defence, Hon Phil Goff. Please be assured that we will continue to keep an eye on the situation in the future.

Which neatly manages to avoid the question entirely. Does National support or oppose Keith's motion? Do they support or oppose the continued detention without trial of 500 people on mostly dubious "evidence" and in conditions which "must be assessed as amounting to torture"? It's entirely unclear.

I'll continue poking at this, and I'll try and get an answer out of McCully about where exactly National stands on Guantanamo.


OK al, lets say you're right and the released detainees are a bunch of dissembling terrorist lackeys. And lets assume that those still incarcerated are equally culpable.

Surely, then, you're impatient to see them all appear before a properly constituted court with actual judges and real lawyers so you can watch as they wilt beneath the weight of the evidence brought against them.

Why is it, do you think, that the Bush administration hasn't set this in motion already?

Posted by Jarvis Pink : 3/11/2006 10:20:00 AM

So, backtracking through posts on this, we seem to have the Greens, the Maori Party and probably United Future prepared to condemn torture where they see it.

And on the weaselling side we have the Labour Progressive coalition and the Nats.

Anyone heard from Rodney?

Posted by Jarvis Pink : 3/11/2006 10:45:00 AM

Al; is this an official public admission that men are being held for years without charge or trial in Guantanamo Bay, undergoing conditions amounting to torture throughout, because they were travelling Imams or simply a person who had moved to Iraq?

Back in my day the idea was to charge people with actual crimes, but as Mr Blair says, those terrorists are rascally when it comes to not breaking any actual laws.

Posted by tussock : 3/12/2006 12:01:00 AM