Sending Gitmo Detainees Home?

I’ve read or heard several articles about the U.S. negotiating with 34 countries to send 80% of the Gitmo detainees back to where they came from. I’m sure you’ll understand that I’m apprehensive and a little distrustful of the whole thing.

According to CNN.com the conditions that the other countries have to agree to are:

• treat detainees “humanely and in a manner consistent with applicable international obligations”
• refrain from torture
• allow the United States or a third party such as the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) access to the detainees to “verify the assurances”
• “investigate, detain and prosecute” the detainee to the fullest extent possible; and
• provide the United States with “advance notice” and place the detainee on “watch lists” should a country decide to release a detainee.

I admit to suspicions that despite the “refrain from torture” clause, we are sending them to countries were torture is more acceptable or their definition of torture is more lenient or their media is less likely to report any infractions.

Most of these people have never been charged with anything by the U.S. but we’re going to send them back where they came from (reminiscent of the Sedition Act) and expect their own people to investigate and try them for supposed crimes against the U.S. America is one of the few countries where you are innocent until proven guilty, which is why there’s been such an outcry about holding these people without charging them without allowing them contact with their families or lawyers, so since we can’t keep holding them here without losing face, we’ll send them somewhere else and let them handle it.

For those of you who are true believers in George Bush and his administration and believe that they like the Knights of the Round Table can do no wrong, please excuse my little feeling of unease and suspicions that this is more of a shell game than anything else. Now you see the detainee; now you don’t!

Oh, just one more thing…

Detainees whom the United States considers “really bad guys” will remain in Guantanamo, the officials said, but in coming months the facility population could drop to about 100.

Now I had to giggle at this quote and wonder who exactly CNN was quoting. Really, I can guess, but doesn’t that sound so intelligent and prestigious. Right up there with “evildoers”.

tags: Guantanamo Bay, detainees, Red Cross, torture, Conspiracy Theories, politics, Terrorists

4 comments

1. on August 11, 2005 at 9:20 pm

   Big Dog said:

   The detainees are being held and not charged because they are held as POWs. No POW is charged with anything in a conventional war unless of course he commits a war crime. The ones there who committed crimes will be charged. But remember, they can be held until the end of hostilities.

   The MSM and the left demanded they be released and now there is an outcry because they are being released? Perhaps if they do run in to hard times they can come to the press and tell us how much they miss club Gitmo and the meals they are getting, which by the way are better than what our troops in the combat zone are eating.

   You might like this site. lostadam.net
   Just a little plug for a liberal site I visit.

2. on August 12, 2005 at 7:32 am

   n. mallory said:

   O.K. So we assume they are P.O.W.s. We have been detaining them under the guise that if we release them, they could turn around and commit terror acts against us. The fact is that the war, whichever war it is at the moment, isn’t over — despite declaring “mission accomplished”. But we’re sending them home anyway?

   And we’re expecting their home countries to investigate and try them for crimes against the U.S., the country that had captured them in the first place. Seems like we’re expecting those 34 countries to do all the work for us and we want our cake and eat it too.

   It just seems like there’s some sort of agenda going on. Traditionally, how many POWs got sent home to stand trial for crimes against the country that just released them?

   I’m not saying they shouldn’t be released. Certainly, I wonder how many of them really are terrorists. My main issues with Gitmo are the conditions the prisoners are kept in, their treatment, and their rights. I question if everyone there actually deserves to be (and obviously those two innocent refugees are proof that they all don’t). I think that we should have at least made more effort to prove these people were enemies of the state.

   I’m not for releasing true “bad guys” so they can come back and kill innocent people.

3. on August 12, 2005 at 2:54 pm

   Surfside said:

   Knowing that they are terrorists and proving it in a court of law is often two different things. And, much of what we did at Gitmo was gleaning information about Al Qaeda, bases, SOPs and possible future attacks.

   In releasing these terrorists to their own countries, we are both endowing each recipient country with a certain level of trust that they will “do the right thing;” and, we are returning them to an enviroment where their own “brothers” may actually testify against them. They (anyone willing to testify) would not as readily be seen as a traitor to Allah and a “friend” of the US — which is still a huge stigma even with ally nations.

   You’re certainly right that there’s no guaratee that these countries will prosecute the terrorist. Unfortunately, there’s also the possibility that their prosecution could be “overzealous,” shall we say. Point in fact, this is not without precedence. The UN uses the same method to exact justice when someone under their umbrella commits a crime.

   But, unless we start trusting and forming bonds with these nations, we are unlikely to get their full cooperation in this “war on terror.” We have to start somewhere. Winning hearts and minds (aka. trust) is the best way.

4. on August 13, 2005 at 1:59 am

   Big Dog said:

   By the way, the folks at Gitmo have better living conditions than our troops fighting the war. They have more rights than school children who are not allowed to pray in school.; Our guests there are given a Koran and a prayer mat and allowed to pray. It is not uncommon to send POWs back as part of a repatriation process. We can not have another country try them for crimes against us. In all reality, they will probably be tried for crimes they commited against their home countries.

   Mission Accomplished referred to the mission of the war ship the President was on. They had completed their mission. The banner gave the wrong idea and the MSM ran with it. The people on the ship will tell you that is what it was supposed to mean.

   There were 2 “innocent” people. They were finally released. So it took a while. That is better than letting the wrong guys go and having them come back. That would get blamed on GWB also.

   I imagine that we picked most of these folks up fighting in the war. That in and of itself says they belong there. They were enemy combatants. BTW, they do not have it so bad. The ones of ours that get captured get their heads cut off.

Leave a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.