FINALLY! Murat Kurnaz to be released by his kidnappers!

[minionofmidas]

http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,432697,00.html

[WMS]

http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,432697,00.html

"Nevertheless, German officials are partly to blame for Kurnaz's long-term detainment. In 2002, the German government rejected an offer made by the Pentagon to transfer the Turk to Germany, saying they didn't want to permit him to return to the country. Afterwards, the issue was dropped for years and the first serious discussions aimed at obtaining his release began last autumn."

Another less-than-glorious moment for Gerhard Schroeder, eh?

[minionofmidas]

http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,432697,00.html

"Nevertheless, German officials are partly to blame for Kurnaz's long-term detainment. In 2002, the German government rejected an offer made by the Pentagon to transfer the Turk to Germany, saying they didn't want to permit him to return to the country. Afterwards, the issue was dropped for years and the first serious discussions aimed at obtaining his release began last autumn."

Another less-than-glorious moment for Gerhard Schroeder, eh?

Oh, absolutely. Damn American stooge.

[minionofmidas]

http://guantanamobile.org/pdf/ksummary.pdf

[WMS]

http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,432697,00.html

"Nevertheless, German officials are partly to blame for Kurnaz's long-term detainment. In 2002, the German government rejected an offer made by the Pentagon to transfer the Turk to Germany, saying they didn't want to permit him to return to the country. Afterwards, the issue was dropped for years and the first serious discussions aimed at obtaining his release began last autumn."

Another less-than-glorious moment for Gerhard Schroeder, eh?

Oh, absolutely. Damn American Russian stooge.

Fixed.

[minionofmidas]

http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,432697,00.html

"Nevertheless, German officials are partly to blame for Kurnaz's long-term detainment. In 2002, the German government rejected an offer made by the Pentagon to transfer the Turk to Germany, saying they didn't want to permit him to return to the country. Afterwards, the issue was dropped for years and the first serious discussions aimed at obtaining his release began last autumn."

Another less-than-glorious moment for Gerhard Schroeder, eh?

Oh, absolutely. Damn American Russian stooge.

Fixed.

While he was grandstanding about his opposition to the Iraq War, he was also doing everything in his power to make it clear to the Americans that despite this, the alliance was going to continue just as is. Not questioning US arrests in the War on Terror was part of that, so was continued extremely close cooperation of foreign secret services (including in Iraq), so was, of course, not denying the US use of their air bases in Germany during the war.

It's rather like the mythical Southern Senator who claimed to "cash in his chips" over the court-packing bill, but of course remained a Democratic Senator anyways.

[WMS]

http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,432697,00.html

"Nevertheless, German officials are partly to blame for Kurnaz's long-term detainment. In 2002, the German government rejected an offer made by the Pentagon to transfer the Turk to Germany, saying they didn't want to permit him to return to the country. Afterwards, the issue was dropped for years and the first serious discussions aimed at obtaining his release began last autumn."

Another less-than-glorious moment for Gerhard Schroeder, eh?

Oh, absolutely. Damn American Russian stooge.

Fixed.

While he was grandstanding about his opposition to the Iraq War, he was also doing everything in his power to make it clear to the Americans that despite this, the alliance was going to continue just as is. Not questioning US arrests in the War on Terror was part of that, so was continued extremely close cooperation of foreign secret services (including in Iraq), so was, of course, not denying the US use of their air bases in Germany during the war.

It's rather like the mythical Southern Senator who claimed to "cash in his chips" over the court-packing bill, but of course remained a Democratic Senator anyways.

Playing both sides, was he? His role in the Security Council debate over Iraq - and did that get absurd...let's have a bidding war between France and the U.S. to sway Guinea's vote, or crap like that - was definitely anti-U.S., although denying the U.S. the use of its air bases in Germany would damn near be outright hostile (of course, I'm moving towards more of an insular quasi-isolationist position on these matters myself and would probably start removing bases and troops from all sorts of places which don't want them and which we can geopolitically afford to leave such as Germany and South Korea ) and I'm not sure he was as convinced as the German Left was that rupturing the U.S. - German alliance in order to protect Saddam Hussein's Iraq was really worth it.

And backstabbing Vladimir Putin and Jacques Chirac is hardly a bad thing.

[minionofmidas]

He wasn't backstabbing them, they were essentially doing the same.

As to not denying the US the airbases, that was out in the open. The matter was discussed within the far left. It was demanded at demonstrations and such, but mostly just to have something to criticise the government on. Very few people really want Germany`s dependence on the US the US-German alliance to end - and doing that would have been quite hostile.

As to the Secret Services' continued cooperation - that was more underhanded, and caused a stink when it came out last year. Then again, it's to be understood. These services had always been cooperating quite closely - and of course 9/11 was partly planned in Hamburg, so the Germans probably felt they had something to make up for there.

[WMS]

He wasn't backstabbing them, they were essentially doing the same.

As to not denying the US the airbases, that was out in the open. The matter was discussed within the far left. It was demanded at demonstrations and such, but mostly just to have something to criticise the government on. Very few people really want Germany`s dependence on the US the US-German alliance to end - and doing that would have been quite hostile.

As to the Secret Services' continued cooperation - that was more underhanded, and caused a stink when it came out last year. Then again, it's to be understood. These services had always been cooperating quite closely - and of course 9/11 was partly planned in Hamburg, so the Germans probably felt they had something to make up for there.

Hmm? What were Chirac and Putin doing again? They certainly haven't cooperated with the U.S. over Iraq (now when it comes to Al Qaida, that's another story...) so who were they backstabbing?

I find your description of the air bases issue to be amusing and I'll give Merkel credit...she's balancing* all sorts of issues, and if she pulls it off could possibly increase Germeny's international stature.

And the various secret services of the world cooperating over Al Qaida is not exactly a surprise...in fact, it would be striking if they didnt. Now, the extent of said cooperation can be debated...

*yes, balancing, despite the opinion in some quarters that nothing short of breaking relations with the U.S is acceptable

[minionofmidas]

He wasn't backstabbing them, they were essentially doing the same.

As to not denying the US the airbases, that was out in the open. The matter was discussed within the far left. It was demanded at demonstrations and such, but mostly just to have something to criticise the government on. Very few people really want Germany`s dependence on the US the US-German alliance to end - and doing that would have been quite hostile.

As to the Secret Services' continued cooperation - that was more underhanded, and caused a stink when it came out last year. Then again, it's to be understood. These services had always been cooperating quite closely - and of course 9/11 was partly planned in Hamburg, so the Germans probably felt they had something to make up for there.

Hmm? What were Chirac and Putin doing again? They certainly haven't cooperated with the U.S. over Iraq (now when it comes to Al Qaida, that's another story...) so who were they backstabbing?

Not backstabbing. Playing both sides at the same time. Of course, they weren't as deeply involved with the US in the first place.
Of course, as the Security Council "crisis" wore on, those opposing the US grew a little puffed up with their own importance, which led to errors which in turn led to the username of my fellow German poster here. But that's really a different story, and perhaps not a very important one in the long run.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm not talking about cooperating about Al-Qaeda. The Americans were relying on German assistance in picking out targets to bomb in Baghdad.

[WMS]

He wasn't backstabbing them, they were essentially doing the same.

As to not denying the US the airbases, that was out in the open. The matter was discussed within the far left. It was demanded at demonstrations and such, but mostly just to have something to criticise the government on. Very few people really want Germany`s dependence on the US the US-German alliance to end - and doing that would have been quite hostile.

As to the Secret Services' continued cooperation - that was more underhanded, and caused a stink when it came out last year. Then again, it's to be understood. These services had always been cooperating quite closely - and of course 9/11 was partly planned in Hamburg, so the Germans probably felt they had something to make up for there.

Hmm? What were Chirac and Putin doing again? They certainly haven't cooperated with the U.S. over Iraq (now when it comes to Al Qaida, that's another story...) so who were they backstabbing?

Not backstabbing. Playing both sides at the same time. Of course, they weren't as deeply involved with the US in the first place.
Of course, as the Security Council "crisis" wore on, those opposing the US grew a little puffed up with their own importance, which led to errors which in turn led to the username of my fellow German poster here. But that's really a different story, and perhaps not a very important one in the long run.

Oh, typical Russian and French behavior then.
Oh yes, I remember that - extremely amusing, especially when Chirac lost his composure.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm not talking about cooperating about Al-Qaeda. The Americans were relying on German assistance in picking out targets to bomb in Baghdad.
[/quote]

That's the first I've heard of that...

[minionofmidas]

He wasn't backstabbing them, they were essentially doing the same.

As to not denying the US the airbases, that was out in the open. The matter was discussed within the far left. It was demanded at demonstrations and such, but mostly just to have something to criticise the government on. Very few people really want Germany`s dependence on the US the US-German alliance to end - and doing that would have been quite hostile.

As to the Secret Services' continued cooperation - that was more underhanded, and caused a stink when it came out last year. Then again, it's to be understood. These services had always been cooperating quite closely - and of course 9/11 was partly planned in Hamburg, so the Germans probably felt they had something to make up for there.

Hmm? What were Chirac and Putin doing again? They certainly haven't cooperated with the U.S. over Iraq (now when it comes to Al Qaida, that's another story...) so who were they backstabbing?

Not backstabbing. Playing both sides at the same time. Of course, they weren't as deeply involved with the US in the first place.
Of course, as the Security Council "crisis" wore on, those opposing the US grew a little puffed up with their own importance, which led to errors which in turn led to the username of my fellow German poster here. But that's really a different story, and perhaps not a very important one in the long run.

Oh, typical Russian and French behavior then.
Oh yes, I remember that - extremely amusing, especially when Chirac lost his composure.

Oh, I was explicitly including my own government in that.
Of course, those second-rate European leaders who tried to grasp importance by towing the US line and opposing Germany and France are, by the same token, even more pathetic and amusing. -_-

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm not talking about cooperating about Al-Qaeda. The Americans were relying on German assistance in picking out targets to bomb in Baghdad.
[/quote]

That's the first I've heard of that...
[/quote]
Ultra-reputable source, but only indirect allusions as to what the "role" played might have been...
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,1916084,00.html

Not sure what sort of source this is, but gives all the allegations...
http://www.statewatch.org/news/2006/jan/04germany-iraq.htm
and just to update on this one: a later line of defence was that they were giving the US lists of places *not* to bomb for humanitarian reasons - or maybe striking places from USprovided lists.

[WMS]

He wasn't backstabbing them, they were essentially doing the same.

As to not denying the US the airbases, that was out in the open. The matter was discussed within the far left. It was demanded at demonstrations and such, but mostly just to have something to criticise the government on. Very few people really want Germany`s dependence on the US the US-German alliance to end - and doing that would have been quite hostile.

As to the Secret Services' continued cooperation - that was more underhanded, and caused a stink when it came out last year. Then again, it's to be understood. These services had always been cooperating quite closely - and of course 9/11 was partly planned in Hamburg, so the Germans probably felt they had something to make up for there.

Hmm? What were Chirac and Putin doing again? They certainly haven't cooperated with the U.S. over Iraq (now when it comes to Al Qaida, that's another story...) so who were they backstabbing?

Not backstabbing. Playing both sides at the same time. Of course, they weren't as deeply involved with the US in the first place.
Of course, as the Security Council "crisis" wore on, those opposing the US grew a little puffed up with their own importance, which led to errors which in turn led to the username of my fellow German poster here. But that's really a different story, and perhaps not a very important one in the long run.

Oh, typical Russian and French *and German* behavior then.
Oh yes, I remember that - extremely amusing, especially when Chirac lost his composure.

Oh, I was explicitly including my own government in that.
Of course, those second-rate European leaders who tried to grasp importance by towing the US line and opposing Germany and France are, by the same token, even more pathetic and amusing. -_-

Corrected.
Oh, I think they were being rational...call it one of the oldest bits of geopolitics...if you're worried about domination by your powerful neighbors, snuggle up to an equally or more powerful more distant power. Ergo, if you're worried about the Germans, French, or Russians (and Central Europe has reasons to be worried about all of them ) align with the Americans. If you're worried about China, align with the Americans. And so on, and so on, etc. Ideology doesn't enter into the equation at all - thus the from-FDR-onwards Saudi-American alliance, wherein two countries that don't like each other at all remain allied because they keep ending up with the same enemies (Russia/Soviet Union, Now And Forevermore; currently Iran; in prior decades Nasser's Egypt; etc.). This is also one of the reasons even a Socialist-led Chile is leaning towards the U.S. - after all, if the Brazilians, Argentinians, and Bolivians are leaning against the U.S. (although Brazil not so much these days), lean toward the U.S. for leverage against your rivals. The European countries which made their announcement of support for the U.S. were not surprises, oh no...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm not talking about cooperating about Al-Qaeda. The Americans were relying on German assistance in picking out targets to bomb in Baghdad.
[/quote]

That's the first I've heard of that...
[/quote]
Reputable source, but only indirect allusions as to what the "role" played might have been...
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,1916084,00.html

Not so reputable source (and biased presentation in parts), but includes the key words I was looking for...
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/mar2006/germ-m10.shtml

[/quote]

The first link is interesting.
The second link...err, gee, biased ya think? Interesting nevertheless, but still...

[minionofmidas]

I've replaced it. These are basically the first things I found googling.

[WMS]

I've replaced it. These are basically the first things I found googling.

OK, read that, and it's better, although I still dispute the whole "the US is running a torture center in Guantanamo" line common amongst the Left - I haven't seen proof of more than an isolated instance or two in which those who went over the line were prosecuted and/or punished. It isn't quite full-bore Geneva Convention, but sh**t, we provide prayer services for them! And we don't force them to eat 'unclean' food, etc, etc...

There is a case to be made against the renditions to places like Lebanon or Pakistan, but equating Gitmo with them weakens the overall argument.

As for the article, while I see no problem with the Germans helping us out with intelligence efforts - we certainly needed better information - I take it the main dispute inside Germany is that the Red-Green government basically lied about being opposed to the Iraq War?

[minionofmidas]

Oh, btw.
Murat Kurnaz a while before he left Germany; at the time of his arrest;  and today.