U.S. to release 1/3 of Gitmo detainees

Black Dog · April 25, 2006

The Pentagon plans to release nearly a third of those held at the prison for terror suspects here because they pose no threat to U.S. security, an official of the war crimes tribunal said Monday.

It took them this long to figure it out? Here's the real kicker, though: if these guys didn't hate America before, what do you suppose they think now?

GostHacked · April 26, 2006

Link
The Pentagon plans to release nearly a third of those held at the prison for terror suspects here because they pose no threat to U.S. security, an official of the war crimes tribunal said Monday.

It took them this long to figure it out? Here's the real kicker, though: if these guys didn't hate America before, what do you suppose they think now?

UGH logins, I shall find the article.

BUT anyways, yes I agree. This should create some hate for the US. Also where are they going to be sent? Will this be rendition en masse?

geoffrey · May 1, 2006

Good to see those that are innocent are being released. As in most domestic cases of wrongful convictions, I wonder if these people will be compensated in a similar manner.

I am in favour of Gitmo. I believe that it's better to lock up some innocents in order to get more terrorists off the streets than the alternative.

But once they are found to be innocent, they do deserve compensation for their time spent in capitivity and assistance returning to their ways of life. I don't apply different values to domestic murder convictions that are overturned and detainees on the international level.

Some of these people have been there presumably for years. Mind you, it takes awhile to sort the terrorists from the innocents, no doubt. But that doesn't mean the US doesn't owe them for their obvious beaucratic disaster that left these people in captivity for so long.

BD,

I disagree that these people would hate the US. A fair compensation package would settle most concerns, a 'oh crap, we're sorry, have some money, go buy a nicer farm, some new pigs.'

GostHacked · May 1, 2006

geoffrey

Not sure if they will look at the US in a kind way. For one, being an innocent, taken out of your country where you live (in some cases I would guess) shipped off to another country half way around the world, away from his family ect, and held for over 3 years without a charge brought against them and no trial. Then all of a sudden. 'Yeah you can go".

Personally I would be raging and wanting to kill americans. You think a few dollars is going to remedy things? If so, how much money would it take for these people to be happy and let it all slide?

Now it looks like the US is going with the mantra 'Guilty till proven innocent'. I think I used to see this in the former Soviet Union.

geoffrey · May 3, 2006

I think fair compensation for their time spent in custody is adequate.

Why must you assume these people have such savage intentions? I don't see Canadians that were wrongfully convicted, freed and compensated attacking mass amounts of judges and police officers.

I said I agreed with the policy as the few innocents that get locked up potentially save the lives of millions. It's a utilitarian argument. I'm only ok with this type of policy though if proper compensation is given.

These people had nothing to begin with. Buying them a farm or something would clearly make them awfully happy.

GostHacked · May 6, 2006

Hypocracy!!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4979466.stm

Five Chinese Muslim men have been released from the US detention centre in Guantanamo Bay and flown to Albania for resettlement, the US says.
US officials had concluded the ethnic Uighers represented no danger but did not want to return them to China for fear they would face persecution.

Face procesution? That is comedy gold. Awww sympathizing with your captured.

They are not a threat anymore, and from the article they found out they were not a threat a year ago. But yet they remained detained. So now they will fly them to Albania for resettlement. And eventhough they posed no threat and were released, they would not be allowed into the US. But I thought they were innocent?

geoffrey · May 8, 2006

Well chances are most people in Gitmo are realistically guilty. Whether they are legally guilty is the question.

Letting them go is one thing, but letting likely terrorists into the US is another.

The US doesn't go around arresting people at whim, there is a reason for all the detainings. Some might not be provable, so they should be released. But I wouldn't want any of these people in my neighbourhood, they were obviously up to something to get arrested.

KrustyKidd · May 8, 2006

Link
The Pentagon plans to release nearly a third of those held at the prison for terror suspects here because they pose no threat to U.S. security, an official of the war crimes tribunal said Monday.

It took them this long to figure it out? Here's the real kicker, though: if these guys didn't hate America before, what do you suppose they think now?

From the link, an explanation of why they have not been charged but were, arrested. And why, although not a threat to the US, are in fact one to China. And, China would not put these guys into airconditioned cells, rather they would torture them beyond belief.

The detainees determined by last year's Administrative Review Boards to pose no threat to U.S. national security are "no longer enemy combatants," explained Lt. Cmdr. Chito Peppler of the Pentagon office in charge of reviewing detainee status.
He contended that the men's detention had been justified. Battlefield commanders in Afghanistan and Pakistan had determined when the men were arrested that they were a threat to U.S. forces in the region, he said.

"Every detainee who came to the Combatant Status Review Tribunals went though multiple reviews" before their arrival at Guantanamo, Peppler said.

Although Peppler said the majority would be leaving the island "in the near future," he noted that some detainees who had been cleared might remain until an appropriate release site could be found. The government decided, for example, that minority Muslim Uighurs from China should not be handed over to their governments because they could face persecution, torture or execution.

Being trained by Al Queda to operate in China is not an American crime but at the time they were arrested, they were certainly a threat to the troops and, possibly held information that would be interesting or valuable to say the least.

One other thing strikes me. It's not like everybody in Afganistan was thrown onto a Galaxy and flown to Guantonimo under heavy guard and then placed into a prison with limited space for inmates. Even if they wanted to, they couldn't place enverybody they wanted there. So, there had to have been some selectivity going on and, assesement of guilt and threat involved at every step of the way. Given the threat that radicals portray to troops in the field, and the unlikelyhood that innocents would be running around with guns in the middle of a Taliban group, why do some find it so strange that those in Guantonimo might be guilty of being involved but not provably involved?