So...the guys who have already been CLEARED FOR RELEASE from Gitmo...why are they STILL THERE?

[Ken Burch]

If they were cleared for release(and that's about half of the people still locked up there)why CAN'T they just be sent home and that's the end of it for them?

What possible justification can there be for keeping them there?

Obama clearly has no excuse to keep them now that he'll never be running for anything again, so...WTF?

Does ANYBODY here know what the hold up is on that, at this late date?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

1. Will their home nation accept them back?

That has been an issue in prior repatriations.

[Ken Burch]

3. If not, why not just send them somewhere else?

Or...if they didn't actually DO anything(and a lot of them didn't)why not just take them here? If they're harmless, what's the prob?

How could anything ever justify subjecting INNOCENT people to indefinite detention?

Aren't we supposed to be a better country than that?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

8. I would like to know that as well. However, in the past there have been people we had no where

to return them to...

[MADem]

19. Where? Where is "somewhere else" and who pays? nt

[Cali_Democrat]

42. Somewhere in America and the US taxpayers should be on the hook

These people were cleared of wrongdoing and they are innocent, yet they are still locked p indefinitely and were likely tortured in the past. It's now America's responsibility to house them, feed them and give them shelter.

We done fucked up and we have to pay.

[Kablooie]

13. Release them and then find out. Geez.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

30. Not quite that easy

Like deportations, you have to have a nation willing to take them.

[thesquanderer]

37. Release them where?

Just open the gates and let them wander around Cuba?

[Kablooie]

40. There you go. Problem solved.

[Cali_Democrat]

43. Release them in the United States

See my post above.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

2. Good question........I have no idea.

No wonder they're on a hunger strike. They think they've been forgotten, and they're full of despair.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

4. Perhaps they could apply for sanctuary in the US to prevent being tortured by force feeding.

[TransitJohn]

5. It's kind of like the Bushies' rationale for the illegal invasion of Iraq

Namely, "We can't leave, or the soldiers who have already died will have died for nothing."

[rug]

6. The question can be put directly to the UN.

http://www.unhcr.org/pages/4a2535c3d.html

There is no nonpolitical reason to keep them jailed in Guantanamo.

[rgbecker]

7. These guys should each be given $1,000,000 and a nice ranch in Texas if they can't be sent home.

I think W is a through with trying to look like a good ol boy and that ranch ought to be available.

Gitmo is the biggest sign board to the world that the USA sucks and doesn't give a shit about anyhbody.

[idwiyo]

9. K&R Because its so easy to ignore them instead of doing something about it.

Doing something might require a bit of backbone to do what's right instead of what's right for one's political career. That's of course assuming one gives a shit about them brown people locked up in Guantanamo.

[MADem]

23. What brown people locked up in Gitmo?

Yemenis, Saudi Arabians, Afghans, Pakistanis...I'm sure there are some from the African littoral--Morocco, Egypt, Tunisia etc. but these folks, by and large, are SEMITES. They tan well, if that's what you mean by "brown people" but the census would call most of them "caucasian."

Except for the Chinese guys and the occasional black Africans--if there are any there now, that is...

[idwiyo]

38. Would you like me to add a sarcasm smilie to my post? Didn't think its needed.

Thanks for the lecture, though. Without your expert knowledge I'd never known...

PS, last two sentences are sarcasm, in case you missed it.

[MADem]

41. Sorry. I did miss the sarcasm in your post entirely, I'm afraid. nt

[Cleita]

10. One explanation was that it would cost money to transport them or

do whatever it costs to release them and Congress thanks to Boner and the Turtle won't give Obama the funds he needs for that and just to close Gitmo down altogether. I don't know if it's the real reason, but it's one I heard of that makes some sense.

[progressoid]

14. That's BS

I've heard that excuse before. They are already cleared to leave. After spending millions of dollars on them, the cost to send them home is negligible.

The money is there. This is political.

[Cleita]

31. Probably. I heard it on the radio. So sue them.

I'm just offering one of the many excuses I keep hearing.

[progressoid]

39. Yah, I know.

I didn't mean to snip at you.

This would be a whole lot easier to understand if our elected officials would give us the straight story.

[jeff47]

18. Congress has blocked civilian trials, not transport. (nt)

[Cleita]

33. So then it's the trials. I just assumed that maybe it had something to do with

moving them out. The person who stated this just said that Congress was holding up the funds needed to release them. Jeez, why don't you shoot the messenger?

[jeff47]

36. Moving them has a different problem - no country has been willing to accept them. (nt)

[madokie]

11. Is it left up for Obama to decide?

I hardly think it is.

[MADem]

20. He's not the dictator--other countries have presidents who can override the legislature and

the justice system, both.

Our chief executive doesn't have that much clout.

[madokie]

21. I know, you know but some here doesn't seem too

It's maddening sometimes to read what some here find to complain about Obama over.

[MADem]

24. I know. It suggests a lack of understanding of our system of government.

They want Obama to be the King and give all these swell "lefty" orders.

Of course, when Bush was engaging in serious "righty" overreach the same folks were bullshit and bellowing about jackbooted thugs and police states.

Checks and balances are slow and painful sometimes.

And all politics is local. We need more people on our side in Congress, and nothing will happen unless and until that happens.

Yesterday, I drove Democrats to the polls to vote in my state's special election primary. That's how I chip in. I think we need more people doing more chipping in.

[riderinthestorm]

12. Their home countries don't want them, we don't want them in the US because they are now so hostile

There is no justification for keeping them at Guantanamo. None.

Now we are torturing them to keep them alive for ... what?

Their situation appears so bleak and hopeless. They are stuck in a terrible limbo. They should be able to decide their fate with dignity like we afford those who are terminally ill without any future.

Obama will be blamed for their deaths. Justifiably so. Let that be a stain on his legacy imho. This situation should NEVER have been allowed to go this far. Don't get me wrong - its Congress that's set up Obama as the fall guy.

But the inhumanity is hideous.

[jeff47]

15. Because no one will accept them.

We can't just drop them off somewhere. The receiving country has to agree to take them. And their home countries refuse to take them.

[Kablooie]

16. Who has say over who stays or who leaves? Is the Congress the warden of the prison?

Someone is making the decision to keep the cleared guys there.

Who?

[G_j]

27. it has to violate some international agreement

wouldn't one think?


war crime
noun

1. crimes committed against an enemy, prisoners of war, or subjects in wartime that violate international agreements or, as in the case of genocide, are offenses against humanity.

[GitRDun]

17. This article has a lot of good history in it.

Guantanamo is a national tragedy that occurred because we have not yet had the will to close it...hopefully that changes.

http://dissenter.firedoglake.com/2013/04/30/obamas-deluded-remarks-on-guantanamo-ignore-his-role-in-keeping-prisoners-detained/

[riderinthestorm]

22. The Rethugs in Congress are probably giggling over the prospect of some death at Guantanamo

That particular horror would be hung around Obama's neck forever - like Bobby Sands (and the others who died while on a hunger strike) and Margaret Thatcher.

Even though this horror is Congress' fault, the Rethugs know that the blowback will fall on Obama.

Its sick. Its disgusting. I wish I didn't believe this... but I do.

[GitRDun]

25. I blame everyone for not making it a national priority

including Obama, all of us.

We've seen how LGBT rights, immigration reform, increasing taxes on the rich have all been pushed steadily forward over the two terms.

Gitmo was just lost in a sea of other national priorities / fights.

I agree that Congress has been a problem, but clearly the President has to overcome that obstacle going forward as he has done with other issues.

[riderinthestorm]

26. FYI, our own military review boards cleared these men for release. Here's a site that tells

their stories....

http://www.closeguantanamo.org/Articles/38-Telling-the-Guantanamo-Prisoners-Stories-The-89-Men-Cleared-for-Release

[arcane1]

28. Because they would talk n/t

[morningfog]

29. Same question for those who are guilty and have served 12 sentences, and counting.

Obama has been, with respect to releases, worse than bush.

If you compare the rate of releases that were occurring in the years before Obama took office to after, you see that he slowed down the releases. Granted, bush was the one who stocked the place in the first place, and he had a longer way to go. But if you speak to the lawyers for the detainees, they will tell things got worse when Obama took office with respect to access and transfers out.

Conditions haven't improved either. And, now Obama is sanctioning his own torture at gitmo.

[goldent]

34. I think once someone gets into the White House they start to get a lot of information

and they find the problem is much more difficult than they thought. Based on a lot of things President Obama has said over the last four years, it would not be a surprise if he privately isn't eager to release anyone. Sad to say, but politically I think he had done the "right" thing.

[treestar]

32. No one knows

US journalists thus far seem incredibly incurious on this subject. I thought reporters were supposed to look into these things. Instead they get just a few facts and then start speculating and judging.

[Progressive dog]

35. No one will take them

At least that's the executive's story.
Imagine the turmoil if the "terrorists" were released in the US. If you were them, would you feel safe here?

[Niceguy1]

45. or would we

Be safe from them??????

[Cali_Democrat]

44. If no country will take the Guantanamo detainees, they should be released in the United States

One excuse people are using to justify indefinite detention is to claim no country will take them. If that's the case, then the people cleared of wrongdoing should be released in the United States. The detainees that have not been cleared should be prosectuted in the court of law.

We screwed up big time. We violated their rights. We tortured them. We committed war crimes. It should now be our responsibility to house them, feed them and give them shelter indefinitely. The US taxpayer should be on the hook.

If the unthinkable happens and these folks do turn out to be violent, then that's a price America will have to pay.

Let that be a lesson to us in the future. Don't commit war crimes, don't torture people and don't hold people indefitely without due process for over a decade.

[SoCalDem]

46. Fear of what happens after

what they will divulge to AlJazeera (and every other media)
what they will do when their anger is put into practice