The german newspaper has published an interview with michael chertoff and the german minister of interieur. Unfortunately it is not available online
for now, therefore only parts of the interview are available. For the curious, Mr. Schäuble is in germany what Chertoff is in the united states, in
fact they are comrades in their fight against democracy and human rights.
Here are the relevant parts of the interview (translated):
Title: "Guantanamo is just a symbol"
(to Schäuble): Could you at least bring yourself to the conclusion that Guantanamo is not a good solution?
Everyone in europe agrees that guantanamo cannot be the solution. There is no eye squinting on this. It's easy to argue against
guantanamo, but it is much more difficult to develop constructive proposals. All this stuff leads us to the fact that we have to think openminded
about alternatives. This is what we actually are doing.
Mr. Chertoff, are you willing to close guantanamo?
President George W. Bush put it like this: It would be wonderful if we could close guantanamo. But that's not the issue.
I don't want to talk about details, but that's the problem here: On an american court under american law we are urged to present verifiable evidence
and witnesses. We just cannot run around in afghanistan and ask the taliban to give us some time to take shots of crimescenes.
What about reports about abuse of prisoners using the so called waterboarding for example, which makes the prioner feel to be drowned
then? Is this not the true reason why you are afraid of courts?
No. It is, for example, difficult for us that every suspect during a lawsuit has the right for an advocate and to refuse to give
(somewhat shocked) With respect, but the right for an advocate is one of the fundamental achievement of a constitutional state!
Not at war. (...)
Mr. Schäuble, don't you fear the massive collateral damage for the constitutional state due to those views?
That's exactly the cause why we sat together and struggled to find solutions to avoid this. As you see in this very interview: it is
complicated and that's why I won't accept prohibition of thought. (...)
How do you define the current situation? Are we fighting terrorism or are we at war against terrorism as the american government claims
That's just a question of semantics. The United Nations gave the USA the right to defend themselfes against armed attacks anyway.
Could you, at least, follow the anxiety, that while you are looking for solutions, human rights get lost?
Yes, but I believe, we all do our best, that exactly this doesn't happen. And I want to remind you, that the right for security is
one of the most fundamental human rights. (...)
As I already said, I do not have the full interview here. Once it's available I'll repost the complete interview. And excuse me for the possibly bad
english, I did my best to translate the bull# those two persons spoke.
(visit the link for the full news article)