4 ms·

How come he is not released after all they know now? Isn't there anything someone can do? I feel kind of helpless reading these things.

by shifto 7y ago

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
tinus_hn 7y ago
But that would mean admitting fault, accepting responsibility and consequences. That’s a problem! Also there’s some chance these people may harbor a slight dislike towards the land of the free.
- arethuza 7y ago
  These kind of abuses are the best recruiter a terrorist organisation can have - something that the UK only learned very late in the day in Northern Ireland. Edit: You would think that citizens of the United States would know better than most that oppression by distant governments causes revolts, not obedience.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - close04 7y ago
    > These kind of abuses are the best recruiter a terrorist organisation can have I'm willing to bet that's the whole point. This way some countries can keep up the BS "war on terror". They create and maintain a certain status quo and then "fight" against it. This way trillions of dollars get siphoned (from their own citizens!) into certain people's pockets (some even enemies of their own citizens!), and they maintain influence over the Middle East. > citizens of the United States would know better The citizens of the US, like most of the world, has Facebook to keep them entertained, and student loans and more immediate problems to distract them from things that have no obvious direct impact on them. When they found out every aspect of their lives is being spied on and investigated even by their own was there a massive revolt? No, everyone everywhere took it sitting down in a sign that this can continue and even escalate. They'll even justify torture by saying "well they probably are terrorists otherwise they wouldn't get this treatment". Land of the free to do as you're told. https://mamot.fr/system/media_attachments/files/001/582/923/original/e2136d6b4d317af6.jpeg https://mamot.fr/system/media_attachments/files/001/582/923/...
bayesian_horse 7y ago
I think the actual problem is where to put him. No single state in the US volunteers to take him on. It's not so much about the rather small risk that he could be a terrorist (or might have become radicalized/motivated by treating him as such) but rather that some voters might THINK there is still a risk, however small. And a politician that advocates for taking him in will be (figuratively) flogged if the former prisoner commits anything worse than a parking ticket in his further life. Similar pressures apply to Pakistan and to other countries who might feel even less responsibility to free him.
- franga2000 7y ago
  But he still has citizenship, right? In Pakistan? They already know he's not who they thought he was, so what argument/law could they possibly use to not let him back into the country?
  - bayesian_horse 7y ago
    I don't know the details, but I could imagine they would prefer to not know that he is a Pakistani citizen. In that part of the world, citizenship and identity can be a messy subject. None of those countries is ethnically or linguistically homogeneous, not all of them can reliably track all citizens if they lost their papers. And I can imagine he wouldn't be a "gift" for the Pakistani government itself, considering political implications.
  - beerandt 7y ago
    The government of Pakistan were the "kidnappers" that originally turned him over to the US. (He leaves that part out of his story.) They don't want him, and he was previously expelled from Saudi Arabia. I don't know what other options he might have.
    - jstanley 7y ago
      > (He leaves that part out of his story.) No, he doesn't.
- 7y ago
aritmo 7y ago
Perhaps he might sue the US government?
fit2rule 7y ago
"National Security" = we don't want to be embarrassed about our heinous crimes against humanity being revealed, so we keep the subject of those crimes hidden away, at all costs, because "National Security". If the legal precedent is established with even just one case, it will open a whole can of worms because, after all, there are hundreds of innocent people being tortured in our secret torture camps. So, for the sake of the national security of the committer of these crimes, we will keep them indefinitely, hoping the problem will one day go away or we get a President who will make it all legal. Seriously. This is the argument. EDIT: downvote all you want, but America has a serious human rights issue here. It is detaining INNOCENT people with no due process, indefinitely - for DECADES now. It is time for the American people to demand the closure of Guantanamo, and for an investigation into the CIA's black torture sites, of which there are far, far too many around the world, secretly tucked out of the view of the American public. If you are okay with this, you're the problem.
bb88 7y ago
His legal status is "too innocent to charge, too dangerous to release". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Ahmad_Ghulam_Rabbani https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Ahmad_Ghulam_Rabbani The defacto argument is "If he's in Guantanamo, he must be bad." But the courts don't use that argument for the determination of whether someone should be released or not.

How come he is not released after all they know now? Isn't there anything someone can do? I feel kind of helpless reading these things.

by shifto 7y ago

How come he is not released after all they know now? Isn't there anything someone can do? I feel kind of helpless reading these things.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

tinus_hn 7y ago

But that would mean admitting fault, accepting responsibility and consequences. That’s a problem! Also there’s some chance these people may harbor a slight dislike towards the land of the free.

arethuza 7y ago
These kind of abuses are the best recruiter a terrorist organisation can have - something that the UK only learned very late in the day in Northern Ireland. Edit: You would think that citizens of the United States would know better than most that oppression by distant governments causes revolts, not obedience.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- close04 7y ago
  > These kind of abuses are the best recruiter a terrorist organisation can have I'm willing to bet that's the whole point. This way some countries can keep up the BS "war on terror". They create and maintain a certain status quo and then "fight" against it. This way trillions of dollars get siphoned (from their own citizens!) into certain people's pockets (some even enemies of their own citizens!), and they maintain influence over the Middle East. > citizens of the United States would know better The citizens of the US, like most of the world, has Facebook to keep them entertained, and student loans and more immediate problems to distract them from things that have no obvious direct impact on them. When they found out every aspect of their lives is being spied on and investigated even by their own was there a massive revolt? No, everyone everywhere took it sitting down in a sign that this can continue and even escalate. They'll even justify torture by saying "well they probably are terrorists otherwise they wouldn't get this treatment". Land of the free to do as you're told. https://mamot.fr/system/media_attachments/files/001/582/923/original/e2136d6b4d317af6.jpeg https://mamot.fr/system/media_attachments/files/001/582/923/...

bayesian_horse 7y ago

I think the actual problem is where to put him. No single state in the US volunteers to take him on. It's not so much about the rather small risk that he could be a terrorist (or might have become radicalized/motivated by treating him as such) but rather that some voters might THINK there is still a risk, however small. And a politician that advocates for taking him in will be (figuratively) flogged if the former prisoner commits anything worse than a parking ticket in his further life. Similar pressures apply to Pakistan and to other countries who might feel even less responsibility to free him.

franga2000 7y ago
But he still has citizenship, right? In Pakistan? They already know he's not who they thought he was, so what argument/law could they possibly use to not let him back into the country?
- bayesian_horse 7y ago
  I don't know the details, but I could imagine they would prefer to not know that he is a Pakistani citizen. In that part of the world, citizenship and identity can be a messy subject. None of those countries is ethnically or linguistically homogeneous, not all of them can reliably track all citizens if they lost their papers. And I can imagine he wouldn't be a "gift" for the Pakistani government itself, considering political implications.
- beerandt 7y ago
  The government of Pakistan were the "kidnappers" that originally turned him over to the US. (He leaves that part out of his story.) They don't want him, and he was previously expelled from Saudi Arabia. I don't know what other options he might have.
  - jstanley 7y ago
    > (He leaves that part out of his story.) No, he doesn't.
7y ago

aritmo 7y ago

Perhaps he might sue the US government?

fit2rule 7y ago

"National Security" = we don't want to be embarrassed about our heinous crimes against humanity being revealed, so we keep the subject of those crimes hidden away, at all costs, because "National Security". If the legal precedent is established with even just one case, it will open a whole can of worms because, after all, there are hundreds of innocent people being tortured in our secret torture camps. So, for the sake of the national security of the committer of these crimes, we will keep them indefinitely, hoping the problem will one day go away or we get a President who will make it all legal. Seriously. This is the argument. EDIT: downvote all you want, but America has a serious human rights issue here. It is detaining INNOCENT people with no due process, indefinitely - for DECADES now. It is time for the American people to demand the closure of Guantanamo, and for an investigation into the CIA's black torture sites, of which there are far, far too many around the world, secretly tucked out of the view of the American public. If you are okay with this, you're the problem.

bb88 7y ago

His legal status is "too innocent to charge, too dangerous to release". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Ahmad_Ghulam_Rabbani https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Ahmad_Ghulam_Rabbani The defacto argument is "If he's in Guantanamo, he must be bad." But the courts don't use that argument for the determination of whether someone should be released or not.