Guantanamo Detainees May Be Released in U.S. Article

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Frazzled**

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123741378746277081.html

Guantanamo Detainees May Be Released in U.S. Article
Comments (48)
more in Politics »By EVAN PEREZ
WASHINGTON -- Attorney General Eric Holder said some detainees being held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, may end up being released in the U.S. as the Obama administration works with foreign allies to resettle some of the prisoners.

Eric Holder
Mr. Holder, in a briefing with reporters, said administration officials are still reviewing individual cases of the approximately 250 detainees to determine which will be put on trial and which may be released to comply with plans to close the detention facility by next year.

Six weeks into his tenure, Mr. Holder is still trying to assemble much of the Justice senior leadership, with several nominees awaiting Senate confirmation. He said he has reviewed the department's handling of white-collar criminal cases in response to the financial crisis and is considering ways to increase coordination on financial fraud among federal prosecutors and state officials. He said he is trying to increase the budget dedicated to white-collar crime, while maintaining funding for national security.

European justice ministers met with Mr. Holder earlier this week and pressed for details on how many Guantanamo prisoners the U.S. planned to release domestically, as part of any agreement for allies to accept detainees. Mr. Holder said U.S. officials would work to respond to the questions European officials have over U.S. Guantanamo plans.

For "people who can be released there are a variety of options that we have and among them is the possibility is that we would release them into this country," Mr. Holder said. "That process is ongoing and we've not made any determinations or made any requests of anybody at this point."

Among the detainees whose fate remains undetermined are 17 ethnic Uighurs, from the Central Asian region of China, who have been ordered released by a judge. The U.S. has refused to turn the men over to China, which considers them part of an separatist group.

Mr. Holder is planning to visit Mexico next month to meet with his counterparts and discuss efforts to fight the trafficking of guns from the U.S. into Mexico and the drug trade from Mexico into the U.S.

"The Mexican government has been courageous in the way it has confronted the problems that now challenge it," Mr. Holder said, noting the violence that has resulted from battles against the drug cartels in Mexico

**utan**

Obama has such faith that we were holding harmless, innocent folk at Gitmo that he is going to take them on as babysitters for his kids.

They are going to stay in the Lincoln bedroom for the time being!

**Greebynog**

Come on now, it's not *everyone* in Gitmo who are going to get released into the US and forgotten about. I imagine they'll still keep tabs on the ones who were held without a shred of evidence, the ones who should be released into the US if they have nowhere else to go.

**dietrich**

In related news, former VP Cheney has invited all released detainees on a hunting trip.

**ShumaGorath**

ITT: people don't understand the procedures following the release of detained from guantanamo. Heres a hint, they don't just get let go in the middle of california with 20 dollars.

**Frazzled**

Thats correct. currently they go straight back to take up command positions in the Taliban.

**dietrich**

I heard they let them go in NYC with $50. It's part of the economic stimulus package. They either spend the money, or they get mugged, and someone else spends it.

**Frazzled**

I heard they get the $50, but then have to pay $20 in "new program investment service fees", but then get a $10 tax rebate and a voter registration form along with their caller id.

**ShumaGorath**

I hope all three of those posts were jokes.

**JD21290**

i thought it was $50, a free phone, driving liscence and a car?

Edit:

might aswell give em a box of nails, a few pounds of C4 or blasting caps and let them get on with it, either ways they will get hold of the stuff.

**dietrich**

ShumaGorath wrote:I hope all three of those posts were jokes.

Which three? Frankly, I hope every post in this thread is a joke, including the original one (but I know that it isn't).

**ShumaGorath**

JD21290 wrote:i thought it was $50, a free phone, driving liscence and a car?

Edit:

might aswell give em a box of nails, a few pounds of C4 or blasting caps and let them get on with it, either ways they will get hold of the stuff.

Yeah, thats exactly what people that could never be charged with anything will do. Did it ever occur to you that a man that is held without trial for six years may have never done anything?. A man recently released to england has been a popular news story as he tries to adjust back to normal life after being tortured for years. He was picked up from afghanistan years ago and finally gets to go home penniless, emaciated, and terrified. There is no doubt that a lot of the people in guantanamo are guilty and those people are being moved, tried, or deported to european officials or their countries of origin. The people that are being released are the ones held illegally under extraordinary circumstances for reasons that are often times classified.

I know you love the idea of secret prisons, and I have a suggestion. Go to north korea. You'll love it there, they torture people all the time.

**Hordini**

A lot of these guys have been picked up during combat with coalition forces, after doing things like shooting at troops and setting off IEDs, which pretty much makes them POWs.

The funny thing about POWs is, unless they've committed war crimes (and just shooting at and blowing up the people on the other side in combat isn't enough to be considered a war criminal), they don't get charged with anything. They just get held until the conflict is over. The reason this is done, is so you can keep them from rejoining the fight without having to just kill them.

Now, I'm not saying there might be some guys in there who got picked up for being in the wrong place at the wrong time, but I would be willing to guess that they're probably in the minority.

**ShumaGorath**

Except to be held as a PoW you have to be a member of an internationally recognized and legitimate fighting force. Revolutionaries and members of terrorist organizations and militias aren't considered prisoners of war. There is no real legal terminology for them beyond criminals or "enemy combatants". Which is how they can be tortured without immediate international legal repercussion. They exist in a gray area.

**sebster**

People in this thread seem to be assuming that everyone in Guantanamo will be released automatically. I don’t know why you made such a ridiculous assumption but you should stop it. There is a process in place, where those who can be taken to court will be, and those who cannot be charged must be released. Because it’s pretty much the basis for the protection of civil rights there, that you can’t someone indefinitely without charging them with a crime.

If you want to complain, complain about what happened in the six years in which these folk were held, and why a decent case couldn’t be formed in that time. Possibly because a bunch of the people taken never did anything wrong.

**Hordini**

ShumaGorath wrote:Except to be held as a PoW you have to be a member of an internationally recognized and legitimate fighting force. Revolutionaries and members of terrorist organizations and militias aren't considered prisoners of war. There is no real legal terminology for them beyond criminals or "enemy combatants". Which is how they can be tortured without immediate international legal repercussion. They exist in a gray area.

I guess that's one more reason why it sucks to join up with a fighting force that isn't recognized as legitimate. Besides the fact that they tend to get their butts kicked when they go up against legit combat forces from first world nations.

They're still effectively POWs, if not technically. The "enemy combatant" terminology got dropped a few days ago though, so things are probably going to be changing somewhat (at least as far as terminology is concerned).

**Hordini**

sebster wrote:If you want to complain, complain about what happened in the six years in which these folk were held, and why a decent case couldn’t be formed in that time. Possibly because a bunch of the people taken never did anything wrong.

Or possibly because trying them with a crime wasn't as much of a priority as keeping them out of combat zones?

**sebster**

Hordini wrote:Or possibly because trying them with a crime wasn't as much of a priority as keeping them out of combat zones?

Then they could have declared them POWs, and set about keeping them in detention until the end of hostilities. But they didn’t, they made a big fuss about trials and convictions, then set about establishing the legal process to secure those convictions. They failed.

**ShumaGorath**

Hordini wrote:
sebster wrote:If you want to complain, complain about what happened in the six years in which these folk were held, and why a decent case couldn’t be formed in that time. Possibly because a bunch of the people taken never did anything wrong.

Or possibly because trying them with a crime wasn't as much of a priority as keeping them out of combat zones?

You're.. Not very smart are you...

**Hordini**

Yes, sebster, they could have, and I'm not really sure why they didn't. Although I'm not sure yet how much the changes in terminology are actually going to change the situation. We'll see.

And ShumaGorath, you never know, I might surprise you. Maybe not though, since you seem to already have the whole thing figured out.

**Hordini**

I'm not really sure what's so not smart about wanting to keep enemy combatants out of combat zones though.

I mean, if they weren't actually enemy combatants, then that's a problem. But if they were (and most probably were), I'm not sure what the big issue is?

**utan**

Problem is, when you are at war with non-state entities, when do hostilities end? Do you sign a peace treaty with a terrorist organization, and then have a prisoner exchange?

Do we try them as ordinary criminals? Do we apply US citizen's constitutional protections or do we apply the Geneva Conventions? Do those cover trials for terrorists?

Do we do nothing but lob a couple of million dollar missiles into the desert as Clinton did the times we were attacked under his watch?

Do we conduct wars in every country that we think has a terrorist cell or WMDs like Bush?

I am only posing questions. I know I do not have all the answers. The world is in new waters here and new solutions need to be developed. It is not so simplistic as some would have us believe.

**sebster**

Hordini wrote:Yes, sebster, they could have, and I'm not really sure why they didn't. Although I'm not sure yet how much the changes in terminology are actually going to change the situation. We'll see.

They didn't because keeping them out of the combat zone wasn't the priority. Securing convictions and getting some measure of closure for 9/11 was a big deal. Getting information on Taliban higher ups was a big deal. They screwed that stuff up. Because they tried to kludge these people into a somewhat criminal system, they haven't even managed to keep them out of the combat area. The whole thing was a debacle.

Watch now, by the way, as a over the next year or so the ditto-heads try pretend that the problem only started when Obama closed the camp.

**sebster**

utan wrote:Problem is, when you are at war with non-state entities, when do hostilities end? Do you sign a peace treaty with a terrorist organization, and then have a prisoner exchange?

Do we try them as ordinary criminals? Do we apply US citizen's constitutional protections or do we apply the Geneva Conventions? Do those cover trials for terrorists?

Do we do nothing but lob a couple of million dollar missiles into the desert as Clinton did the times we were attacked under his watch?

Do we conduct wars in every country that we think has a terrorist cell or WMDs like Bush?

I am only posing questions. I know I do not have all the answers. The world is in new waters here and new solutions need to be developed. It is not so simplistic as some would have us believe.

They are good questions. They're questions that don't really have satisfactory answers.

Oh, but the situation isn't new. It isn't even the first time the US has faced paramilitary non-state actors.

**Frazzled**

sebster wrote:People in this thread seem to be assuming that everyone in Guantanamo will be released automatically. I don’t know why you made such a ridiculous assumption but you should stop it. There is a process in place, where those who can be taken to court will be, and those who cannot be charged must be released. Because it’s pretty much the basis for the protection of civil rights there, that you can’t someone indefinitely without charging them with a crime.

If you want to complain, complain about what happened in the six years in which these folk were held, and why a decent case couldn’t be formed in that time. Possibly because a bunch of the people taken never did anything wrong.

Is this the same process that allowed the current Taliban leader in Southern Afghanistan to be set free? Yea, I completely trust that, like I trust the administration is looking out for me in the bailout mess.

Problem is, when you are at war with non-state entities, when do hostilities end? Do you sign a peace treaty with a terrorist organization, and then have a prisoner exchange?

Do we try them as ordinary criminals? Do we apply US citizen's constitutional protections or do we apply the Geneva Conventions? Do those cover trials for terrorists?

Do we do nothing but lob a couple of million dollar missiles into the desert as Clinton did the times we were attacked under his watch?

Do we conduct wars in every country that we think has a terrorist cell or WMDs like Bush?

I am only posing questions. I know I do not have all the answers. The world is in new waters here and new solutions need to be developed. It is not so simplistic as some would have us believe.

Thats the boiled down to purity crux of the problem isn't it?

**Kilkrazy**

Geneva Convention applies to personnel of regular armed forces.

In other cases, criminal law should be used. Obviously this is difficult to achieve in guerilla warfare conditions.

Imposition of martial law in occupied territories has often be used to steer a middle course. For example, shooting of looters and saboteurs by the Germans in the Franco-Prussian War of 1970-71, and in the Second World War. The British also used a number of dubious measures in wars such as the Boer War and the Malayan Emergency.

Suspected Taleban fighters could have been held under the conditions of the Geneva Convention, since the Taleban was the government of Afghanistan until the CotW kicked them out.

The purpose of putting them into this different and new category of illegal combatant was to be able to violate normal legal procedures. It has backfired.

**Frazzled**

Or just shoot them as spies and saboteurs. Problem solved, life is good, time for some biscuits and gravy.

**JD21290**

i agree with frazz

ok, it may not seem "fair" to some people on here, but it sends a pretty big warning to terrorist groups.

before people cry and say some of them may not have done anything wrong, or its in-humane, ever seen a british or american soldier taken as a prisoner and executed on live TV?

why should we treat them with such respect and fairness when they do the opposit to this and kill innocent soldiers to try and send out a message.
they take prisoners too, and im guessing they are not treated even close to the standards of gitmo, but 1000x worse.

tell you what, sign up, go out on a tour of iraq for 6 months, then come back, i bet you changed your mind.

**Hordini**

The only thing I'm really suggesting is that we hold onto all the guys who are actually enemy combatants and terrorists, and we release all the guys who are actually innocent.

I think that's reasonable enough.

**Frazzled**

Hordini wrote:The only thing I'm really suggesting is that we hold onto all the guys who are actually enemy combatants and terrorists, and we release all the guys who are actually innocent.

I think that's reasonable enough.

Shoot at an American soldier or help someone who's trying to do so-you should die. Simple as pie.

We'll just have to agree to disagree.