Human Rights Watch might have a point about Gitmo

[Czar]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5070514.stm

One of the three men who committed suicide at the US prison camp at Guantanamo Bay was due to be released - but did not know it, says a US lawyer.
Mark Denbeaux, who represents some of the foreign detainees said the man was among 141 prisoners due to be released.

He said the prisoner was not told because US officials had not decided which country he would be sent to.

Meanwhile, a top US official appeared to row back from the tough line taken by other officials over the suicides.

At the weekend, one top state department official called them a "good PR move to draw attention", while the camp commander said it was an "act of asymmetric warfare waged against us".

uuu yes yes ofcorse the US would release even more dangerous terrorists, after all everyone there is a terrarist wanting to kill everyone according to certain people

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Today's update is that one of the guys that committed suicide was going to be released . . . I guess he was such a vicious, dangerous terrorist that it was time to go home.

Seems he didn't know it b/c US authorities couldn't figure out where to send him so didn't tell him yet. They couldn't send him back to his home country due to torture and no other country wants to host people that have been denied their human rights for four years.

You have human rights advocates that are complaining because some would be sent back to their own counntires.

They want it both ways.

This is not to justify what has happened, but pointing out that many that espound something different at times will also contradict themselves.

If they (prisoners) do not want to go back to their own country and no other coutnry steps up to take them in; where should they go?

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Today's update is that one of the guys that committed suicide was going to be released . . . I guess he was such a vicious, dangerous terrorist that it was time to go home.

Seems he didn't know it b/c US authorities couldn't figure out where to send him so didn't tell him yet. They couldn't send him back to his home country due to torture and no other country wants to host people that have been denied their human rights for four years.

You have human rights advocates that are complaining because some would be sent back to their own counntires.

They want it both ways.

This is not to justify what has happened, but pointing out that many the espound something different at times will also contradict themselves.

If they do not want to go back to their own country and no other coutnry steps up to take them in; where should they go?

then they should be classified as political refugees

and its not a question about what the prisoners want, its a question what the US wants

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Today's update is that one of the guys that committed suicide was going to be released . . . I guess he was such a vicious, dangerous terrorist that it was time to go home.

Seems he didn't know it b/c US authorities couldn't figure out where to send him so didn't tell him yet. They couldn't send him back to his home country due to torture and no other country wants to host people that have been denied their human rights for four years.

You have human rights advocates that are complaining because some would be sent back to their own counntires.

They want it both ways.

This is not to justify what has happened, but pointing out that many the espound something different at times will also contradict themselves.

If they do not want to go back to their own country and no other coutnry steps up to take them in; where should they go?

then they should be classified as political refugees

and its not a question about what the prisoners want, its a question what the US wants

A problem is that no country is willing to officially accept them (possibly because of their situation).
The prisoners do not have the "qualifications" in the host countries eyes to be a political refugee (what are they running from). They did not leave their own country out of fear.

 

[outriding]

Originally posted by: Frackal

Originally posted by: Aisengard
Or if they were mentally tortured, which led to suicide. Remember, mental torture is as bad, or even worse than physical torture.

lol

Aisengard is wrong.

Mental is worse.

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Today's update is that one of the guys that committed suicide was going to be released . . . I guess he was such a vicious, dangerous terrorist that it was time to go home.

Seems he didn't know it b/c US authorities couldn't figure out where to send him so didn't tell him yet. They couldn't send him back to his home country due to torture and no other country wants to host people that have been denied their human rights for four years.

You have human rights advocates that are complaining because some would be sent back to their own counntires.

They want it both ways.

This is not to justify what has happened, but pointing out that many the espound something different at times will also contradict themselves.

If they do not want to go back to their own country and no other coutnry steps up to take them in; where should they go?

then they should be classified as political refugees

and its not a question about what the prisoners want, its a question what the US wants

A problem is that no country is willing to officially accept them (possibly because of their situation).
The prisoners do not have the "qualifications" in the host countries eyes to be a political refugee (what are they running from). They did not leave their own country out of fear.

that is true, but they can not return because of possible political prosecution, which is precicely the qualifications

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refugee
"Refugees are a subgroup of the broader category of displaced persons. Environmental refugees (people displaced because of environmental problems such as drought) are not included in the definition of "refugee" under international law, as well as internally displaced people. According to international refugee law, a refugee is someone who seeks refuge in a foreign country because of war and violence, or out of fear of persecution "on account of race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group" (to use the terminology from U.S. law)."

and

"Under international law, refugees are individuals who:

are outside their country of nationality or habitual residence;
have a well-founded fear of persecution because of their race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion; and
are unable or unwilling to avail themselves of the protection of that country, or to return there, for fear of persecution. "

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Today's update is that one of the guys that committed suicide was going to be released . . . I guess he was such a vicious, dangerous terrorist that it was time to go home.

Seems he didn't know it b/c US authorities couldn't figure out where to send him so didn't tell him yet. They couldn't send him back to his home country due to torture and no other country wants to host people that have been denied their human rights for four years.

You have human rights advocates that are complaining because some would be sent back to their own counntires.

They want it both ways.

This is not to justify what has happened, but pointing out that many that espound something different at times will also contradict themselves.

If they (prisoners) do not want to go back to their own country and no other coutnry steps up to take them in; where should they go?

You do realize that the dilemma was CREATED by the US government?!

As for the bolded section . . . no one has asked them what they want. The US is running its own little "I am the law" despot routine. The US was never really concerned with anyone's human rights. The primary reason renditions have slowed down is that people are watching. But when it comes to enemy combatants/Gitmo it's quite obvious the marching orders were "grab any and everyone and we will sort it out later."

The US government doesn't want to admit that MOST people in Gitmo are probably no threat to any country. They won't dare call anyone innocent (even if that is the case) b/c it would codify the obvious immorality of the Gitmo detentions.

 

[EagleKeeper]

And now that the sorting process has started (for one reason or another), the dilema of where should they go begins

As you stated in the first quote; no one wants them.

Therefore do you leave them in Gitmo or forceably send them back to their host country.

They did not ask for political refugee status before they were swept up in the conflicts.

Therefore to attempt to do so now makes a travisty of the process.

They may have left their original country of origin because of political beliefs; however, they chose not to take the refugee status when the arrived at their new location. This may have been because they were not a real refugee in terms of the definition.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Uh the sorting starts BEFORE you snatch people NOT after. Again, a problem created by bad US policy. But even an ad hoc "sorting" should have happened YEARS ago.

We don't know that no one wants them b/c the US process is a mystery. In all likelihood some are offered to their home countries. For some portion the home countries balk for others the US won't send them back b/c the home country probably won't commit (or doesn't have the capability) of surveillance.

It's kinda hard to ask for political refugee status when you are snatched at gun point, bound, have a bag put over your head, stripped of your clothing - replaced with a diaper, chained to the floor of a cargo plane, and flown across the world to a foreign country.

The travesty is US policy . . . from beginning to end.

Uh, but while we are on the refugee question . . . who would they request asylum from? Cuba? Oh they aren't in Cuba . . . the US seized that territory. US? Oh no these guys aren't on US soil . . . they are in Cuba.:roll:

 

[EagleKeeper]

One should request asylum when one enters a host country.

These guys did not do that. They left their own countries to go to Iraq/Afghanistan.

Apparently they did not consider themselves refugees at that point.

As stated above, it was only AFTER they were caught, did the situation arrive that political refugeee/asylum status could be used as an option.

They are asking for the rules to be changed after they got caught, after the fact.
Their hands were caught in the cookie jar.

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
One should request asylum when one enters a host country.

These guys did not do that. They left their own countries to go to Iraq/Afghanistan.

Apparently they did not consider themselves refugees at that point.

As stated above, it was only AFTER they were caught, did the situation arrive that political refugeee/asylum status could be used as an option.

They are asking for the rules to be changed after they got caught, after the fact.
Their hands were caught in the cookie jar.

its not the reason why you leave that matters its the reason you cant go back that does.. which usualy is the same, but not in this case