US frees six Guantanamo detainees to go to Uruguay

WASHINGTON: -- The US government says it has released six Guantanamo Bay detainees and sent them to Uruguay for resettlement.

A Pentagon statement on Sunday identified the men as four Syrians, a Tunisian and a Palestinian.

All six had been detained as suspected militants with ties to al-Qaeda but were never charged.

Uruguayan President Jose Mujica decided to take the detainees on humanitarian grounds in March but the move was put off until after elections last month.

"The United States is grateful to the Government of Uruguay for its willingness to support ongoing US efforts to close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility," the Pentagon said in a statement.

President Barack Obama has pledged to close the camp in Cuba, which was opened in 2002 as a place to detain enemy combatants in America's war on terror.

Full story: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-30367734


-- BBC 2014-12-08

Released but never charged. After how many years? Why Uruguay? Why not send them to their respective homes?

And what about compensation for the years robbed of them? The release is basically an admission that they have no grounds to hold them.

Possibly this was a deal offered and accepted, which I suppose if the men are happy, then all is good. But also possible they have been given no choice and simply swept under the carpet with no regard to their legal rights had not the US skirted legalities in the despicable way that they have.

The detainees at Gitmo are prisoners of war. Get caught in an act of war and you have no rights, not even the right to be charged. Holding at Gitmo is a military action, not a civilian one.

I know that Gitmo has been under the microscope of leftist hypocrites* the world over for 10+ years. The cases have all been double-examined and the people there have vowed to continue the fight once released, hence they are legal detainees and we now have 6 more jihadists on the lam.

*I say hypocrites because they fight for the rights of these people but never for the plights of their victims, either civilian or military.

Edited December 8, 201411 yr by squarethecircle

Released but never charged. After how many years? Why Uruguay? Why not send them to their respective homes?

And what about compensation for the years robbed of them? The release is basically an admission that they have no grounds to hold them.

Possibly this was a deal offered and accepted, which I suppose if the men are happy, then all is good. But also possible they have been given no choice and simply swept under the carpet with no regard to their legal rights had not the US skirted legalities in the despicable way that they have.

Perhaps the USA should be like ISIL or Al Queda, and offer these 6 up for ransom. Then if ISIL or Al Queda did not pay, cut off their heads and post the video on the internet. I am sure you would find that much more acceptable.

Isn't Uruguay where pot was recently legalized? They must be stoned to take these guys.

I think this is not so much about the very large subject of Gitmo

as many complaints have centered around how the prisoners originally got there & what

percentage may actually have no real ties to terrorism....

But I do think it has everything to do with this....

President Barack Obama has pledged to close the camp in Cuba, which was opened in 2002

Obama is obviously once again on the campaign trail albeit for the next Democratic hopeful.

But this whole close Gitmo thing was a big talking point/promise nearly 7 years ago

So now shall be tossed about again with the same hopes of campaign points

Naw, the US just paid a wad of cash to some politicians in Uruguay to take them off our hands.

They'll pop up in the Middle East within a month.

It's called Obama's fast track to the battlefield.

The detainees at Gitmo are prisoners of war. Get caught in an act of war and you have no rights, not even the right to be charged. Holding at Gitmo is a military action, not a civilian one.

Since there wasn't a charge laid ever, I would think they were unjustified caught in an act of war. How convenient if you just can dream up arguments to rob people from their freedom, because they have another religion or look different, isn't it?

What would you think if they picked you up tomorrow in an act of war?

Charge them and try them or let them go.

True about charging or releasing...

This was from an article in 2012

BJ: Guantanamo originally held 779 detainees. How many Guantanamo prisoners over the years have been convicted of a crime?

And how many of these men were tried and convicted in US military commissions?

AW: Six were convicted in military commissions and one in a US federal court.

Three of those in the military commissions were under Bush, three of them under Obama.

Four of those six were by plea deals. And there was one man who the Obama administration managed to get to the US mainland -

before this ban on transfers was imposed by Congress - who was convicted. So, seven in total.

Article at time of writing said 171 detainees remain

Edited December 8, 201411 yr by mania

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

The detainees at Gitmo are prisoners of war. Get caught in an act of war and you have no rights, not even the right to be charged. Holding at Gitmo is a military action, not a civilian one.

Since there wasn't a charge laid ever, I would think they were unjustified caught in an act of war. How convenient if you just can dream up arguments to rob people from their freedom, because they have another religion or look different, isn't it?

What would you think if they picked you up tomorrow in an act of war?

Charge them and try them or let them go. alt=thumbsup.gif>

It doesn't work like that. It hasn't in our lifetimes. They aren't on US soil. They've been picked up as prisoners of war. They have no rights.

This won't happen to me tomorrow because I'm a citizen of the US and I have different rights. But if I was screwing around in Syria and Syria or ISIS or Al Qaeda picked me up as a prisoner of war, I'd be toast.

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

The detainees at Gitmo are prisoners of war. Get caught in an act of war and you have no rights, not even the right to be charged. Holding at Gitmo is a military action, not a civilian one.

Since there wasn't a charge laid ever, I would think they were unjustified caught in an act of war. How convenient if you just can dream up arguments to rob people from their freedom, because they have another religion or look different, isn't it?

What would you think if they picked you up tomorrow in an act of war?

Charge them and try them or let them go. alt=thumbsup.gif>

It doesn't work like that. It hasn't in our lifetimes. They aren't on US soil. They've been picked up as prisoners of war. They have no rights.

This won't happen to me tomorrow because I'm a citizen of the US and I have different rights. But if I was screwing around in Syria and Syria or ISIS or Al Qaeda picked me up as a prisoner of war, I'd be toast.

Thanks for confirming that you as a citizen of the US have different rights than the rest of the world population.

Now how about if you as a citizen of the US went on a holiday to Syria, and the US intelligence picked you up over there in an act of war ?

I know you now gone say that you're on holiday and not screwing around, but the fact that after so many years no charges were laid against the people in the OP, makes it clear that the US has nothing against them. May be they were also on holiday.

Unfortunately then they didn't have the same rights as you, since they were not a citizen of the US.

Unfortunately then they didn't have the same rights as you, since they were not a citizen of the US.

They didn't have the same rights as me, since they were enemy combatants.

From reading various accounts over the years a big part of the problem is

because the US was offering substantial bounties to its allies for al-Qaeda or Taliban suspects.

So of course many have been sold for the bounty by Afghanistan/Pakistan cops/military etc yet their guilt is often dubious

at best.

Edited December 8, 201411 yr by mania

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

It doesn't work like that. It hasn't in our lifetimes. They aren't on US soil. They've been picked up as prisoners of war. They have no rights.

This won't happen to me tomorrow because I'm a citizen of the US and I have different rights. But if I was screwing around in Syria and Syria or ISIS or Al Qaeda picked me up as a prisoner of war, I'd be toast.

Thanks for confirming that you as a citizen of the US have different rights than the rest of the world population.

Now how about if you as a citizen of the US went on a holiday to Syria, and the US intelligence picked you up over there in an act of war ?

I know you now gone say that you're on holiday and not screwing around, but the fact that after so many years no charges were laid against the people in the OP, makes it clear that the US has nothing against them. May be they were also on holiday.

Unfortunately then they didn't have the same rights as you, since they were not a citizen of the US.

"Thanks for confirming that you as a citizen of the US have different rights than the rest of the world population."

Only on US soil or when under the control of the US military or other branch of government.

A Canadian has different rights than the rest of the world population regarding the Canadian Government. I don't.

Get it?

Thanks for confirming that you as a citizen of the US have different rights than the rest of the world population.

Now how about if you as a citizen of the US went on a holiday to Syria, and the US intelligence picked you up over there in an act of war ?

I know you now gone say that you're on holiday and not screwing around, but the fact that after so many years no charges were laid against the people in the OP, makes it clear that the US has nothing against them. May be they were also on holiday.

Unfortunately then they didn't have the same rights as you, since they were not a citizen of the US.

Well, of course he has different rights as an [American] Citizen. The subject is in regard to the "US" actions with regard to GITMO. The earlier post with regard to his rights being different than the rest of the world is a statement of fact, relative to his government.

Edited December 8, 201411 yr by arjunadawn

Didn't someone say in the other thread that Uruguay might be a nice retirement destination

Unfortunately then they didn't have the same rights as you, since they were not a citizen of the US.

They didn't have the same rights as me, since they were enemy combatants.

says WHO?

Unfortunately then they didn't have the same rights as you, since they were not a citizen of the US.

They didn't have the same rights as me, since they were enemy combatants.

says WHO?

Says the prisoners of war who have been sitting in Gitmo while I am free to go and do as I please.

Unfortunately then they didn't have the same rights as you, since they were not a citizen of the US.

They didn't have the same rights as me, since they were enemy combatants.

says WHO?

Says the prisoners of war who have been sitting in Gitmo while I am free to go and do as I please.

Is it correct the Gitmo detainees were never granted POW status by the US Govt?

Is it correct the Gitmo detainees were never granted POW status by the US Govt?

POWs have rights according to the Geneva Convention. Guantanamo is nothing but another nail in the Greatest Nation on Earth's™ coffin of shame.

By all accounts they were granted nothing - not even a decent lunch

Is it correct the Gitmo detainees were never granted POW status by the US Govt?

@Naam "POWs have rights according to the Geneva Convention. Guantanamo is nothing but another nail in the Greatest Nation on Earth's™ coffin of shame."

Al Qaeda members and some others are not POW's. They are belligerents. They don't meet the definition of being in armed conflict on a battlefield and don't meet the definition of POW even by Geneva Convention definitions.

BTW the USA never ratified the portions of the Geneva Conventions which would apply to this. It isn't bound by them.

Is it correct the Gitmo detainees were never granted POW status by the US Govt?

They are not POWs. By all rights, they should be shot as spies.

Is it correct the Gitmo detainees were never granted POW status by the US Govt?

@Naam "POWs have rights according to the Geneva Convention. Guantanamo is nothing but another nail in the Greatest Nation on Earth's™ coffin of shame."

Al Qaeda members and some others are not POW's. They are belligerents. They don't meet the definition of being in armed conflict on a battlefield and don't meet the definition of POW even by Geneva Convention definitions.

BTW the USA never ratified the portions of the Geneva Conventions which would apply to this. It isn't bound by them.

So why not try them in a court of law ? The fact that the USA is not a member of the geneva convention kinda puts it in shaky ground when screaming about human rights everywhere Even spies get a trial in UK

They are signatories to the Geneva Convention. The United States has ratified the four Conventions of 1949, but has not ratified two additional Protocols that it does not agree with.

By all accounts they were granted nothing - not even a decent lunch

that's an incorrect assumption. the food provided in Guantanamo is quite acceptable.

By all accounts they were granted nothing - not even a decent lunch

that's an incorrect assumption. the food provided in Guantanamo is quite acceptable.

You had a happy time there ?

Released but never charged. After how many years? Why Uruguay? Why not send them to their respective homes?

And what about compensation for the years robbed of them? The release is basically an admission that they have no grounds to hold them.

Possibly this was a deal offered and accepted, which I suppose if the men are happy, then all is good. But also possible they have been given no choice and simply swept under the carpet with no regard to their legal rights had not the US skirted legalities in the despicable way that they have.

Lets see: Going back to Syria/Tunisia/Palestine...OR going to Uruguay where weed is legal.

Choices, choices....