US frees six Guantanamo detainees to go to Uruguay

[Credo]

They did plan to try them, but apparently the leadership of Al Queda refused to come and testify on their behalf.

[Scott]

Off-topic posts removed.

[F430murci]

Not bringing charges does not equate innocence.

If something like 911 happened in:

Russia, brutally tortured and killed along with family and known associates. i.e., Pre-Sochi train station and bus attack.

China, tortured and killed when done with.

Mexico, tortured, dismembered or hung from a bridge with their head duct taped and a sign on their chest stuck on by a knife warning others not to to the same.

Any country in South America, dead by now.

How would GB act if planes had been flown into Big Ben, Parliment and down town London?

Muslim countries . . . dunno what they do to terrorist but they stone innocent women to death, stone people accused of being gay and ISIS apparently behead husbands just to take their wives. Assad napalms school yards and busy markets.

---------

The world is not a pretty place and US government has kept US generally very safe since 911.

All countries deal very harshly with terrorists and suspected terrorist in the aftermath of serious acts of terrorism, especially on the scale of something like 911.

[Seastallion]

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.

You know as well as everybody else that many of the Gitmo prisoners were taken as suspected militants, not taken as POWs during fighting or raids. There is a very clear and significant difference. Just because you have something stuck in your throat about 911 or ISIS, does not mean every middle eastern man should be treated as a POW, stripped of legal rights and human rights, especially when most of the Gitmo prisoners were handed over by bounty collectors so the suspicion comes only from a bounty collector's assertions.

A trial would have been the least the US could have afforded them.

These 6, their release indicates that the US has not one iota of evidence against them. That being the case, a deep and meaningful apology and a whole lot of compensation is in order.

Do you think for an instant that some Afghan policeman bounty collector wouldn't have sold his own cousins for the kind of bounty being offered, let alone his cousin's neighbour who he had a gripe with?

[ggt]

Are there no airline flights from Uruguay to the Middle East?

These guys will be back with their jihadists brothers in no time...

[Naam]

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 ?

i saw a recent documentary with comments from a specific non-governmental organisation which is not exactly US-friendly. it is even fair to assume that the prisoners were and are getting better food then they were used too before.

[Anthony5]

Not bringing charges does not equate innocence.

If something like 911 happened in:

Russia, brutally tortured and killed along with family and known associates. i.e., Pre-Sochi train station and bus attack.

China, tortured and killed when done with.

Mexico, tortured, dismembered or hung from a bridge with their head duct taped and a sign on their chest stuck on by a knife warning others not to to the same.

Any country in South America, dead by now.

How would GB act if planes had been flown into Big Ben, Parliment and down town London?

Muslim countries . . . dunno what they do to terrorist but they stone innocent women to death, stone people accused of being gay and ISIS apparently behead husbands just to take their wives. Assad napalms school yards and busy markets.

---------

The world is not a pretty place and US government has kept US generally very safe since 911.

All countries deal very harshly with terrorists and suspected terrorist in the aftermath of serious acts of terrorism, especially on the scale of something like 911.

Don't you confuse mafia and drug cartels with the US government in your examples?

[NeverSure]

"So what are you saying: two wrongs make a right, or you would prefer it if the US behaved more sadistically towards POWs as other countries do?"

The US declared war after 9/11. Congress officially declared war. How did "civilized" countries treat POW's, spies and belligerents during WWI and II?

"GB would not have opened a prison for them on a remote Falkland Island. The captives would have faced justice in a British court of law and if found guilty sentenced appropriately."

Is that what GB did during WWII with captured Germans? Brought them to London and had a trial? During the war? The US is still officially at war.

"As a civilized country we expect USA to have higher standards...so does Obama..he's embarrassed about his failed election promise. Presumably this release is part of his plan to rectify that before he leaves office."

Obama and other crybabies want to see Al Qaeda and others treated as if they were human ordinary criminals. Anyone who is soft on Al Qaeda has to be nuts. This is a real war.

9/11. Never forget. Don't be a fool like Bin Laden who also didn't get a trial. Do not attack the US on US soil. Al Qaeda and now ISIS can burn in hell.

[Bkungbank]

We talking human rights when there are human, these people some are terroris which kill many innocence people under believe can go to heaven with 7 virgin girls waiting for them.

Sometimes we have to harsh when human security under treat.

[bendejo]

One subject that has not come up in any news article is just how porous Uruguay's borders are. I'm not referring to passport control at the airports or seaports.

I've spent quite some time in Uruguay. If for some reason someone had to get out of that country unofficially there are numerous options. These guys would easily find welcoming comrades in either of the neighboring countries. None of this is difficult to figure out, so I don't get this release bs at all.

Unless, of course, the idea is to track them down as they return to the nest.

Carrie Matheson, is this your idea?

[dexterm]

"So what are you saying: two wrongs make a right, or you would prefer it if the US behaved more sadistically towards POWs as other countries do?"

The US declared war after 9/11. Congress officially declared war. How did "civilized" countries treat POW's, spies and belligerents during WWI and II?

Against which countries has Congress officially declared war? Link please.

This is part of the problem. Bush’s declaration of “war on terrorism” is all very well rhetorically, but with no foreign power to sign an end of war treaty with USA could be at war forever with a permanent suspension of human rights laws.... a slippery slope.

[Seastallion]

"So what are you saying: two wrongs make a right, or you would prefer it if the US behaved more sadistically towards POWs as other countries do?"

The US declared war after 9/11. Congress officially declared war. How did "civilized" countries treat POW's, spies and belligerents during WWI and II?

Against which countries has Congress officially declared war? Link please.

This is part of the problem. Bush’s declaration of “war on terrorism” is all very well rhetorically, but with no foreign power to sign an end of war treaty with USA could be at war forever with a permanent suspension of human rights laws.... a slippery slope.

The claim that US has legal rights because of the "declaration of war" is much sillier than that, Dexterm.

The "declaration" of a "war on terror" was just a catchy phrase, not a declaration at all. Just like the "war on drugs".

On both those "declared wars".....how's the US getting on BTW? How many years has it been?

[NeverSure]

"So what are you saying: two wrongs make a right, or you would prefer it if the US behaved more sadistically towards POWs as other countries do?"

The US declared war after 9/11. Congress officially declared war. How did "civilized" countries treat POW's, spies and belligerents during WWI and II?

Against which countries has Congress officially declared war? Link please.

This is part of the problem. Bush’s declaration of “war on terrorism” is all very well rhetorically, but with no foreign power to sign an end of war treaty with USA could be at war forever with a permanent suspension of human rights laws.... a slippery slope.

The US Constitution doesn't have a formal process for declaring war. The courts have ruled that if Congress approves it and funds it, it is declared. So we have at the least Iraq, Afghanistan, the Persian Gulf War and now Syria. The Persian Gulf War was also authorized by the UN Security Council. LINK

Don't forget that many other countries including Australia, Canada and the UK participated in these wars, too. Thailand sent troops to the war in Iraq as did a total of 22 countries.

Al Qaeda authorized this "ongoing war on terrorism" when it was stupid enough to take out the Twin Towers on 9/11. There was a "permanent suspension of human rights" against Bin Laden and others the minute the Twin Towers were hit.

Whose human rights did those animals care about when they killed almost 3,000 people on 9/11? And what did they expect the US to do about it?

[NeverSure]

"So what are you saying: two wrongs make a right, or you would prefer it if the US behaved more sadistically towards POWs as other countries do?"

The US declared war after 9/11. Congress officially declared war. How did "civilized" countries treat POW's, spies and belligerents during WWI and II?

Against which countries has Congress officially declared war? Link please.

This is part of the problem. Bush’s declaration of “war on terrorism” is all very well rhetorically, but with no foreign power to sign an end of war treaty with USA could be at war forever with a permanent suspension of human rights laws.... a slippery slope.

The claim that US has legal rights because of the "declaration of war" is much sillier than that, Dexterm.

The "declaration" of a "war on terror" was just a catchy phrase, not a declaration at all. Just like the "war on drugs".

On both those "declared wars".....how's the US getting on BTW? How many years has it been?

I just posted a link to US declared wars and you are wrong.

How is the US getting on? How is Bin Laden getting on?

[DaffyDuck]

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.

It's always unfortunate when people say something backed by ignorance....

[Ulysses G.]

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.

It's always unfortunate when people say something backed by ignorance....

Are you referring to yourself? Chuckd is spot on as usual.

Uruguayan President Jose Mujica earlier this year accepted a request from the United States to take some inmates from the widely condemned military prison at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba so that it can eventually be shut down.

Mujica has also said the six men - four Syrians, a Tunisian and a Palestinian - can leave Uruguay whenever they want.

http://www.voanews.com/content/reu-former-guantanamo-inmate-thanks-uruguay-for-his-freedom/2550475.html

[Morch]

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.

You know as well as everybody else that many of the Gitmo prisoners were taken as suspected militants, not taken as POWs during fighting or raids. There is a very clear and significant difference. Just because you have something stuck in your throat about 911 or ISIS, does not mean every middle eastern man should be treated as a POW, stripped of legal rights and human rights, especially when most of the Gitmo prisoners were handed over by bounty collectors so the suspicion comes only from a bounty collector's assertions.

A trial would have been the least the US could have afforded them.

These 6, their release indicates that the US has not one iota of evidence against them. That being the case, a deep and meaningful apology and a whole lot of compensation is in order.

Do you think for an instant that some Afghan policeman bounty collector wouldn't have sold his own cousins for the kind of bounty being offered, let alone his cousin's neighbour who he had a gripe with?

Out of curiosity, did any of the detainees released ever attempted to sue the USA for damages/compensation? And if so, how did this legal action fare?

Unless much mistaken, most Gitmo detainees would not fall under the POW category (http://en.wikipedia.org /wiki/Prisoner_of_war#Qualifications). Not even sure what is the full extent of their legal rights, really.

While I do not doubt that the trustworthiness of Afghan bounty hunters could and should be questioned, it would seem a tad unrealistic to imagine that most of the people held in Gitmo had nothing to do with terrorist activities. Somehow I don't think it goes along the lines of "this is Ali, he's a terrorist, give me my money", there's probably a bit more to it.

[Morch]

*Deleted Post edited out*

Not sure how much of a higher moral ground the UK actually got on this. As certain reports may indicate, UK government was aware and to a degree, complicit with these sort of actions by the USA:

UK urged to admit that CIA used island as secret 'black site' prison

The government is under mounting pressure to "come clean" about the role of an overseas UK territory leased to the US and allegedly used as a secret "black site" detention centre.

An opponent of Colonel Gaddafi who was rendered in a joint MI6-CIA operation, and a leading human rights group representing him, have demanded that the foreign secretary, William Hague, clarify the UK's position on Diego Garcia, an atoll in the Indian Ocean leased to the US until 2016. The Senate's intelligence security committee is preparing to declassify a file that reportedly confirms that the CIA detained "high-value suspects on Diego Garcia" and that "the black site arrangement on the atoll was made with the 'full cooperation' of the British government".

The revelations are hugely troubling for the government and threaten to raise awkward questions about the UK's relationship with the US, its closest security ally. They strengthen claims made by Abdel-Hakim Belhaj, a rebel military commander and opponent of Gaddafi, who was arrested in Malaysia and rendered with his pregnant wife to Libya, allegedly via Diego Garcia, in a joint US-UK intelligence operation.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/13/cia-black-site-diego-garcia-uk-role

More direct involvement is suggested in other reports:

Afghan officials accuse U.S., British military of maintaining secret prisons on their bases

President Hamid Karzai’s government is accusing the U.S. and British military of operating secret detention facilities in Afghanistan, a development that could further strain relations between Afghanistan’s leader and the West.

After receiving reports about Afghan detainees at coalition bases, Karzai established a fact-finding commission to study the matter. On Tuesday, it announced that it had found six detention centers that run afoul of an Afghan law requiring all prisoners from the country be held in Afghan-run jails.

Abdul Shokur Dadras, a member of the commission, said two of the jails were overseen by British soldiers at Camp Bastion in Helmand province, while a third jail at that base was under American military control. At Kandahar Airfield, also in the southern part of the country, three more foreign-run prisons were discovered — one controlled by American soldiers, one by the British and one managed by a joint coalition force, Dadras said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/afghan-officials-accuse-us-british-military-of-maintaining-secret-prisons-on-their-bases/2014/04/29/4231cb7c-cfcb-11e3-b812-0c92213941f4_story.html

Further details on both can be found here - http://www.reprieve.org.uk/publiceducation/secretprisonbriefings/

Seems like the world is not black and white after all....

[metisdead]

An off topic post has been removed.

[chuckd]

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.

It's always unfortunate when people say something backed by ignorance....

Purely speculation, Mr. Duck.

Oh yes, I forgot. The recidivism rate was nearing 3 in 10 returning to the battlefield upon release.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Four More Former Gitmo Terrorists Returned to Battlefield

7:07 AM, MAR 6, 2014 • BY JERYL BIER

The semi-annual report on "Re-engagement of Detainees Formerly Held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba" was released on Wednesday by the Director of National Intelligence (DNI). Out of a total of 614 former prisoners (up from 603 six months ago), intelligence has confirmed that 104 (up from 100) have re-engaged in terrorism/insurgent activities while another 74 are suspected of doing so. The latest report nudged the recidivism rate up to an even 29 percent from 28.9 percent last September.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/keyword/Recidivism

[Robby nz]

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

I heard they got regular showers... although it might have been called waterboarding.

[Robby nz]

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.

It's always unfortunate when people say something backed by ignorance....

Purely speculation, Mr. Duck.

Oh yes, I forgot. The recidivism rate was nearing 3 in 10 returning to the battlefield upon release.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Four More Former Gitmo Terrorists Returned to Battlefield

7:07 AM, MAR 6, 2014 • BY JERYL BIER

The semi-annual report on "Re-engagement of Detainees Formerly Held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba" was released on Wednesday by the Director of National Intelligence (DNI). Out of a total of 614 former prisoners (up from 603 six months ago), intelligence has confirmed that 104 (up from 100) have re-engaged in terrorism/insurgent activities while another 74 are suspected of doing so. The latest report nudged the recidivism rate up to an even 29 percent from 28.9 percent last September.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/keyword/Recidivism

Is that really surprising, do you think their time in Cuba would have made them good friends with the US or would they want to get back at them in any way they could for their years of detention ?

Whether they were involved in terrorism or not before their detention they would have come out of there with a heart full of hate and be easy pickings for recruitment into a jihadist movement.

What is surprising is that it isn't higher.

[Ulysses G.]

Whether they were involved in terrorism or not before their detention they would have come out of there with a heart full of hate and be easy pickings for recruitment into a jihadist movement.

Which is exactly why they should have stayed exactly where they were and Obama should not be letting them go for his personal political considerations.

[chuckd]

The hate was there to begin with. It was always there.

Thus is the way of the Islamic radical.

[F430murci]

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.

It's always unfortunate when people say something backed by ignorance....

Purely speculation, Mr. Duck.

Oh yes, I forgot. The recidivism rate was nearing 3 in 10 returning to the battlefield upon release.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Four More Former Gitmo Terrorists Returned to Battlefield

7:07 AM, MAR 6, 2014 BY JERYL BIER

The semi-annual report on "Re-engagement of Detainees Formerly Held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba" was released on Wednesday by the Director of National Intelligence (DNI). Out of a total of 614 former prisoners (up from 603 six months ago), intelligence has confirmed that 104 (up from 100) have re-engaged in terrorism/insurgent activities while another 74 are suspected of doing so. The latest report nudged the recidivism rate up to an even 29 percent from 28.9 percent last September.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/keyword/Recidivism

Is that really surprising, do you think their time in Cuba would have made them good friends with the US or would they want to get back at them in any way they could for their years of detention ?

Whether they were involved in terrorism or not before their detention they would have come out of there with a heart full of hate and be easy pickings for recruitment into a jihadist movement.

What is surprising is that it isn't higher.

There were no innocents there. US has pretty solid intelligence and would not waste time on some poor dude just walking down the street.

I say inject them with some type of homing device, let them go home and send in a drone when they are having a terrorists bin fire jamboree. Better than wasting time and money trying to extract information.

[Ulysses G.]

I say inject them with some type of homing device, let them go home and send in a drone when they are having a terrorists bin fire jamboree.

Inspiring.

[Publicus]

If international terrorists had continued their Twin Towers-Washington attacks anywhere in the US then a Guantanamo facility could readily be justified.

However, because the USGovernment and people responded immediatey and decisively to 9/11 there were no such further events. There was a shoe bomber type here or there but nothing like 9/11. And I don't see that Gitmo somehow served as any kind of deterrent besides. Indeed, we're still trying to recover from the Patriot Act and NSA overreach.

I commend the US government and my fellow citizens for the effective work since 9/11 to preclude another such catastrophe as 9/11.

Jumping to 2008 and 2012, the majority of those who voted twice to elect Barack Obama president want Gitmo shut down and the ground under it morphed into a sink hole. I think the prez now knows he simply has to set a shutdown date and a schedule to wind the place down and tell the last one out to turn off the lights.

Given the stable and secure on the ground realities since 9/11 to the present, the USGovernment has stained itself by establishing and in maintaining Guantanamo and has imposed itself on its allied governments to their discredit as well. The whole of this fiasco against the moral standing of the United States needs now to be terminated. The realities of the on the ground circumstances just never fully warranted a Camp Delta.

[DaffyDuck]

It's pretty well established that these folks being released are being watched well, and should they re-insert themselves into battle, will be terminated. No different than the 5 in Qatar.

What the do-gooders claiming "no cause to hold them" fail to understand, is the most basic understanding of procedures regarding detention in Guantanamo. Essentially, certain prisoners, after being held for a specific amount of time, are to be released regularly. This release schedule was set long before US elections or Obama's decisions. Those 5 that ere horse trade for that American marine, for example, would have had to be released in another 6 months anyway.

The utter ignorance at the foundation of most of these libertarian arguments is staggering. Not only are they absolutely ignorant, but they refuse to inform themselves when it is pointed out to them.

[DaffyDuck]

Jumping to 2008 and 2012, the majority of those who voted twice to elect Barack Obama president want Gitmo shut down and the ground under it morphed into a sink hole. I think the prez now knows he simply has to set a shutdown date and a schedule to wind the place down and tell the last one out to turn off the lights.

Given the stable and secure on the ground realities since 9/11 to the present, the USGovernment has stained itself by establishing and in maintaining Guantanamo and has imposed itself on its allied governments to their discredit as well. The whole of this fiasco against the moral standing of the United States needs now to be terminated. The realities of the on the ground circumstances just never fully warranted a Camp Delta.

Speaking of ignorance - maybe you really should spend about 30 minutes educating yourself why Guantanamo Bay has not been shut down yet, and it's not for lack of trying on Obama's part.

[dexterm]

F430murci,

>>There were no innocents there. US has pretty solid intelligence and would not waste time on some poor dude just walking down the street.

...your blind faith in the CIA is small comfort to these innocent dudes just walking down the street minding their own business.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition#.22Erroneous_rendition.22