5 ms·
No, you have it backwards. They're talking about Gitmo detainees who they'd like to release; but can't due to problems in their home countries. For example: t
by ajays 16y ago
No, you have it backwards.
They're talking about Gitmo detainees who they'd like to release; but can't due to problems in their home countries.
For example: there are (were?) a dozen Chinese Uighur muslims who were languishing in Gitmo, having been caught in the dragnet by mistake. They are Chinese citizens, so if they were to be released, they'd go back to China where the authorities would most likely execute them (or lock them away for life). So we'd like to release them to a third country; but everyone's afraid of China's clout and China was applying a lot of pressure to anyone who was even thinking of taking them. So we bribed countries into taking them: some went to Bermuda, some to Kiribati, etc.
- hugh3 16y agoI think the issue with the Chinese is not that the Chinese would lock them away for life (big deal) but that the Chinese were refusing to take them at all.
- sausagefeet 16y agoWhy can't the US take them?
- Estragon 16y agoAs far as I can tell, primarily because of right-wing hysteria about what the terrorist mischief they would notionally perpetrate if set up for a quiet life in Podunk, USA.
- mahmud 16y agoAs opposed to the quarter million or so, highly trained and combat experienced Laotian Hmongs in the midwest?
- lukeschlather 16y agoBecause congress is afraid that they will break out of prison and kill people. The ones that are getting released probably don't want to come to the States anyway on account of lynch mobs. On a side note, I was clearly mistaken and this includes the one we tried to get Slovenia to take. After the full-body scanners and COICA I'm getting a little on edge about my support of Obama.
- philwelch 16y agoHow many lynchings have occurred in the US in the past 30 years?
- lukeschlather 16y agoIt depends on the definition of lynching. I have no doubt that anyone released from Guantanamo into the United States would be subject to harassment, if not actual danger. The people in congress arguing vociferously against their release must have reasons, and as far as I can see that's either the belief that everyone in Guantanamo deserves to be there, or the belief that it will result in violence if they come to the US. And simply put, in this case the expectation of violence is as good as violence itself. That's the goal of terrorism, and it's worked extremely well.
- jacquesm 16y agoI think their biggest fear is that once in the US they would sue the US government for unlawful acts and succeed.
- prodigal_erik 16y agoThis. After what the US executive branch has done, they don't want these guys to be able to seek justice before an impartial judge (i.e., non-military).
- bl4k 16y agobecause then they would have the right to a trial there is a reason Gitmo was established
- ugh 16y agoShouldn’t everyone you want to lock up have the right to a trial? What’s your point?
- sudonim 16y agoThe point is that _we_ are using a loophole to lock up people without a trial. Gitmo is that loophole and that's why we can't bring the prisoners to the united states.
- jmtulloss 16y agoThat's not true. We can hold prisoners of war without trial in the US. It's just hard to find a state that wants them. It's a "not in my backyard" problem.
- bl4k 16y agonot a declared war hence not prisoners of war besides prisoners of war have other rights (such as not being interrogated) under the Geneva Conventions - this all gets in the way of what we wanted from our prisoners at Gitmo