Originally Posted by islamirama

They won't go, not to any muslim land. they love to stay in that hell, away from their families. yea ok

With Other Nations Refusing Detainees' Return, 'We Are Stuck' With Guantanamo, Gates Says

By Walter Pincus
Monday, May 26, 2008; A15



Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, who last year said he would look for ways to close the Guantanamo Bay military prison, has told the Senate Appropriations defense subcommittee that his inter-agency effort has been brought to a "standstill" by what he called "a serious not-in-my-back-yard problem."

Gates said there are "about 70" detainees whom the United States is prepared to send back to home countries. But those governments "either won't accept them or we are concerned that the home government will let them loose once we return them."

Making that prospect more real was the U.S. military's announcement that one of the people who set a suicide bomb in Mosul, Iraq, this month was identified as Abdallah Salih al-Ajmi, a Kuwaiti who was captured in Afghanistan, sent to Guantanamo and released in 2005 after three years there. Al-Ajmi was released when he returned home.

"What do you do with that irreducible 70 or 80, or whatever the number is, who cannot be let loose but will not be charged and will not be sent home?" Gates asked.

Seeking that answer, he said he had talked to members of Congress, Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey and other Bush administration officials. "I haven't found anybody who wants these terrorists to be placed in a prison in their home state," he said.

The result, he said, "is that we are stuck" with Guantanamo Bay.

Gates and Admiral Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, also discussed the fiscal 2009 Defense Department budget in their appearance before the subcommittee.

In response to a question from Chairman Daniel K. Inouye (D-Hawaii), Mullen acknowledged that the "continuous escalation" of the $180 billion in costs associated with pay, benefits and health care for the all-volunteer active-duty and reserve armed forces "does not bode well for a military of this size."

"There are limits which we will hit which will, in the constraints that exist, force us to a smaller military or force us away from any kind of modernization or programs that we need for the future, or curtail operations," Mullen said.

Gates called the rising cost of health care "one area that not only concerns us but where we believe we have to get under control." He said the Defense Department's health-care costs went from $19.5 billion in 2001 to the projected $42.8 billion sought for next year. Within that figure, he said, are military retirees, who are eligible, along with family members, for Tricare medical and dental programs.

Gates said that by fiscal 2011, "65 percent of the people being served by [the Pentagon's health-care] budget will be retirees."

When it was begun in 1995, Tricare Prime had annual enrollment fees of $230 for a single retiree or $460 for a family. Many retirees are in good health and are often working in other jobs, and premiums have not increased since the program started.

Gates said there is a $1 billion shortage in the Pentagon's proposed fiscal 2009 health-care budget that it hopes to fill with a small increase in premiums for younger retirees.

Veterans groups and others so far have succeeded in persuading Congress not to approve the price hike. Gates said a Tricare premium increase for retirees could help slow rising health costs "without impinging on those who are in the service today."

Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-S.D.) asked Gates why the United States will still be paying $2.5 billion to train and equip Iraqi security forces next year, when the Baghdad government will earn $70 billion from oil exports this year. Gates replied that U.S. support has dropped each year as the Iraqis have paid more. But he added that by paying something, the United States can continue to keep an eye on the progress of Iraqi security forces.

"We need to scale this gradually . . . so we can keep an oar in, in terms of the quality and in terms of making sure that the training is of the kind that we'd want," he said.

He added that although the Pentagon continues to provide Iraq with U.S. weapons and equipment, it is gradually moving Iraq to buy those same arms from American suppliers.

National security and intelligence reporter Walter Pincus pores over the speeches, reports, transcripts and other documents that flood Washington and every week uncovers the fine print that rarely makes headlines -- but should. If you have any items that fit the bill, please send them to fineprint@washpost.com.

Gates said there are "about 70" detainees whom the United States is prepared to send back to home countries. But those governments "either won't accept them or we are concerned that the home government will let them loose once we return them."

Innocents should be let loose. It's not that they won't take them back but US wants them to charge these victims and put them away forever. Even US has nothing on these victims, whatever they do have is done through their torture methods.

and what about the other 500 or so innocent victims of US terrorism and torture?

Originally Posted by islamirama

Innocents should be let loose. It's not that they won't take them back but US wants them to charge these victims and put them away forever. Even US has nothing on these victims, whatever they do have is done through their torture methods.

and what about the other 500 or so innocent victims of US terrorism and torture?

I say their outlook is better than Nick Berg's and Daniel Pearls but that's not the point. Let's say we let every single person go back to their home countries. If we catch them in the battlefield again we can summarily execute them right?

Originally Posted by Izyan

I say their outlook is better than Nick Berg's and Daniel Pearls but that's not the point. Let's say we let every single person go back to their home countries. If we catch them in the battlefield again we can summarily execute them right?

Let's not kid our selves, lot of those people are innocent victims of bush's 'war on terror', their gov'ts sold them for money so Bush has some numbers to show his people. Why you think Musharaf was so scared to put Chief Justice Choudary back on the seat, he gave musharaf 30 days to give the wear about hundreds of men, women, and children that were taken away by ISI and gone missing. The Northern Alliance that Bush helped into power were nothing more than corrupt warlords who would do anything for money.

Researched and written by law professor Mark Denbeaux; his son, Joshua (counsel to two Guantanamo detainees); and law students at Seton Hall, the reports demonstrate that:



"Only 8 percent of the detainees were characterized (in the Defense Department data) as Al Qaeda fighters. Of the remaining detainees, 40 percent have no definitive connection with Al Qaeda at all." As for those picked up in Afghanistan, "86 percent were arrested by either Pakistan or the Northern Alliance and turned over to United States custody."


And there is this revealing information: "This 86 percent of the detainees captured by Pakistan or the Northern Alliance were handed over to the United States at a time when the U.S. offered large bounties for capture of suspected terrorists." The captives in these mass roundups were hardly screened carefully for their terrorist connections by the bounty hunters -- nor were they carefully screened, according to international law criteria, by our armed forces.



Once at Guantanamo, to what extent were these prisoners given the due-process rights ordered by the Supreme Court in Rasul v. Bush (2004) and Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006)?


At these hearings -- to determine whether the detainees were unlawful enemy combatants -- they were not allowed to have a lawyer. "Instead of a lawyer," the Seton Hall reports show, "the detainee was designated a personal representative... who was not his advocate, and whose role, both in theory and practice, was minimal... At the end of the hearings, the personal representative failed to exercise his right to comment in 98 percent of the cases."


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...-095331-6262r/

and also....

The Supreme Court rejected an appeal Monday from two Chinese Muslims who were mistakenly captured as enemy combatants more than four years ago and are still being held at the U.S. prison in Cuba.

*And they are not the only ones.*


Of the 500 men still held at Gitmo, 300 have filed to say that they are innocent.


Lawyers for more than 300 of the men filed a brief in Monday’s case, saying that Qassim and al-Hakim “are far from the only innocent non-combatants languishing at Guantanamo.”

Think about that number. That'd mean that *SIXTY PERCENT* of the prisoners would be innocent men.

But here's what the defense attorney's are saying:

“Guantanamo is at the precipice,” Boston lawyer Sabin Willett wrote in the appeal. “Only prompt intervention by this court to vindicate its own mandate can prevent the rule of law itself from being drowned in this intensifying whirlpool of desperation.”

http://www.texaskaos.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=40

Originally Posted by islamirama

Let's not kid our selves, lot of those people are innocent victims of bush's 'war on terror', their gov'ts sold them for money so Bush has some numbers to show his people. Why you think Musharaf was so scared to put Chief Justice Choudary back on the seat, he gave musharaf 30 days to give the wear about hundreds of men, women, and children that were taken away by ISI and gone missing. The Northern Alliance that Bush helped into power were nothing more than corrupt warlords who would do anything for money.


and also....

And a lot were released but that didn't answer my question.

Originally Posted by Izyan

I say their outlook is better than Nick Berg's and Daniel Pearls but that's not the point. Let's say we let every single person go back to their home countries. If we catch them in the battlefield again we can summarily execute them right?

You mean shoot them? Sure. That's what happens on the battlefield.

Whilst I'd rather not have people killing one another, I'd accept it more on the grounds of a battlefield as opposed to a torture camp in an attempt to ''fight the war on terrorism'', ''justice'', etc. At least it's honest!

Originally Posted by Izyan

And a lot were released but that didn't answer my question.

Your question is irrelevant, stop invading other nations, bombing their homes, torturing their civilians, and stealing their resources and you won't have any problems. Instead throwing hypothetical questions around why don't you focus on stopping your gov't from illegal occupation and toture of these people. It's a shame to always find the citizens of the invader justify their leader's war crimes. shameless greedy cowardly leaders and their people.

If they wouldn't release those proven to be innocent and taken by mistake, you expect me to believe they release the others? Where is the proof of them being released. Lot of them were shipped to a stronger, bigger prison. If 40-60% are innocent for sure then what about others.

As for the whole "enemy combatant" label, it's illegal. US invaded a nation and people in that land fought back against the invaders. If anything, they are prisoners of War and should be treated by International law on POWs and not be put under US's own illegal torture chambers with stupid labels to justify tortures and forced fake testimonies.

Originally Posted by aamirsaab

You mean shoot them? Sure. That's what happens on the battlefield.

Whilst I'd rather not have people killing one another, I'd accept it more on the grounds of a battlefield as opposed to a torture camp in an attempt to ''fight the war on terrorism'', ''justice'', etc. At least it's honest!

Fair enough I agree.

Deleted several off-topic posts. If this thread continues with off-topic discussion, and conspiracy theories, I'll lock it.

Please stay to the topic, everyone.

Originally Posted by Muezzin

Deleted several off-topic posts. If this thread continues with off-topic discussion, and conspiracy theories, I'll lock it.

Please stay to the topic, everyone.

hey what gives!

its sad that you get theses non muslims who come on places like this and call you terrorists and attack your religion for things like 9/11. and instead of telling the truth about 9/11 you stay quite accepting what these non muslims say.

Originally Posted by militant g-hard

hey what gives!

its sad that you get theses non muslims who come on places like this and call you terrorists and attack your religion for things like 9/11. and instead of telling the truth about 9/11 you stay quite accepting what these non muslims say.

Firstly, this topic is about Guantanamo, not 9/11.

Secondly, please read this (Posting in the World Affairs Section). I'll quote it too:

'Due to some recent and on-going misuse of the World Affairs section, we would like to clarify some rules and reminders specific to this section of the forum:
No praise of, condoning of, or calls for violence or other unislamic behaviour will be tolerated whatsover on the forum.
Articles which present an incorrect representation of Muslims or Islamic teachings, by highlighting unIslamic acts, are unacceptable.
If any member feels that an article or comment should not have been posted or serves no purpose, then they are to inform the forum administration. There will be no arguments amongst members as to whether or not an article should be posted.
No discussions on conspiracy theories will be allowed. Such conjecture benefits no one.
Always post a source for an article.

JazakAllah khayr/thank you for your cooperation.'

Thirdly, if you're going to imply I'm a stooge of any kind, I'd prefer it if it were Shemp.

Originally Posted by Muezzin

Firstly, this topic is about Guantanamo, not 9/11.

Secondly, please read this (Posting in the World Affairs Section). I'll quote it too:

'Due to some recent and on-going misuse of the World Affairs section, we would like to clarify some rules and reminders specific to this section of the forum:
No praise of, condoning of, or calls for violence or other unislamic behaviour will be tolerated whatsover on the forum.
Articles which present an incorrect representation of Muslims or Islamic teachings, by highlighting unIslamic acts, are unacceptable.
If any member feels that an article or comment should not have been posted or serves no purpose, then they are to inform the forum administration. There will be no arguments amongst members as to whether or not an article should be posted.
No discussions on conspiracy theories will be allowed. Such conjecture benefits no one.
Always post a source for an article.

JazakAllah khayr/thank you for your cooperation.'

Thirdly, if you're going to imply I'm a stooge of any kind, I'd prefer it if it were Shemp.

i see, you highlight the part talking about conspiracy theories. u see 9/11 was not carried out by osama. when 9/11 happend you saw alot of islam bashing going on and also thousands of muslims bieng killed. yet you do not stand up for the truth and just accept it as a conspiracy theory. no muslims should be embarrased aboput calling the 9/11 an inside job. look at that izyan guy who said stop flying planes into buliding, angdyou just let people like him to say offensive things like that instead of standing up for the truth that
osam didnot carry out 9/11.

he even said to stop hijacking cruise ships, yet you see that they r bieng done by pirates not islamic people. you didnt defend yourself there either.

Originally Posted by militant g-hard

i see, you highlight the part talking about conspiracy theories. u see 9/11 was not carried out by osama. when 9/11 happend you saw alot of islam bashing going on and also thousands of muslims bieng killed. yet you do not stand up for the truth and just accept it as a conspiracy theory. no muslims should be embarrased aboput calling the 9/11 an inside job.

This thread is about Guantanamo, not 9/11.

look at that izyan guy who said stop flying planes into buliding, angdyou just let people like him to say offensive things like that instead of standing up for the truth that
osam didnot carry out 9/11.

he even said to stop hijacking cruise ships, yet you see that they r bieng done by pirates not islamic people. you didnt defend yourself there either.

Jazakallah for alerting me to an off-topic post I missed.

Portugal to take Guantanamo inmates




Portugal is willing to receive detainees from the US-run Guantanamo Bay detention camp in Cuba, Luis Amado, the foreign minister, has said.

He said there had "been a clear consensus [in Europe] throughout on the need to close this detention centre".

The detention of inmates without trial has tainted the US's human rights record, and Barack Obama, the US president-elect, has said he will close the camp.

The Portuguese government urged its European Union partners to also accept to resettle detainees.

"The time has come for the European Union to step forward," a letter produced by the Portuguese foreign ministry read.

"As a matter of principle and coherence, we should send a clear signal of our willingness to help the US government in that regard [closing Guantanamo], namely through the resettlement of the detainees."

'The Guantanamo problem'

Daniel Gorevana, from Amnesty International, told Al Jazeera that the Portuguese offer was a call to other European governments to help solve "the Guantanamo problem".
"As part of that they [Portugal] are offering to take individuals from Guantanamo whether they are cleared for release through the official US system or not," he said.
"I think it's important to note that the US system of clearing individuals at Guantanamo is fairly arbitrary and most of the individuals who have been released from Guantanamo have not gone through that process.

About 255 men are still held in the prison, including 50 the US has cleared for release but cannot repatriate for fear they will be tortured or persecuted in their home countries.

"There's a large Yemeni population [in Guantanamo] and we know that US is in negotiations with the Yemeni government to repatriate some of those individuals. There's a smaller number of detainees that the US plans to charge and try," Gorevana said.

"They're currently doing that under the military commission system and Amnesty are calling for those detainees to be transferred to the US and charged in federal criminal courts."

'Closer to the goal'

Albania is the only country that has accepted detainees on humanitarian grounds, taking in five members of China's Uighur ethnic minority in 2006.

Portugal's offer to take in detainees will bring the US closer to its goal of closing the offshore military prison, a US diplomat said on Thursday.

Clint Williamson, the ambassador-at-large for war-crimes issues, said the gesture marks a breakthrough in efforts to find new homes for detainees who would risk persecution or torture in their native countries.

"We certainly welcome this initiative," Williamson said in an interview with the Associated Press news agency.

"We have approached over 70 countries at this point, and I personally visited a number of those capitals, raising this with other governments."

Security concerns

Obama has also pledged to move the remaining prisoners' trials into regular US civilian or military courts.

Manfred Nowak, the UN's torture investigator, recommended last month that European countries take in Guantanamo inmates who cannot be sent home.
Williamson said governments have been reluctant to accept the men because of security and political concerns.

"In some cases, they have just been reluctant to associate themselves with an unpopular policy related to Guantanamo," he said.

PHOTO CAPTION
Detainees at Camp X-Ray in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
Al-Jazeera
Sunday : 14/12/2008

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

Comments:

What a shame! Not a single miserable leader in the Muslim World has openly called for closing Guantanamo!

What a shame! Not a single Muslim government has demanded the release of its nationals illegally kidnapped and detained in Guantanamo!

How shameful! Not one Muslim State has offered to resettle some or all of the Muslim detainees from Guantanamo, not even its own citizens!