11 Gitmo detainees returned to their home countries

posted at 12:50 pm on November 5, 2007 by Bryan

Perhaps we should start a pool on how long it takes before they start turning up on battlefields in either Iraq or Afghanistan.

A group of 11 detainees who had been held at the U.S. military detention facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, have been transferred to the custody of their home countries in recent days, according to the Defense Department.

Department officials said yesterday that eight detainees were transferred to Afghanistan and three to Jordan, decreasing Guantanamo’s detainee population to about 320.

I give it less than a month for the ones who were sent to Afghanistan.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Well lets be compassionate and send them to paradise for their reward.

Theworldisnotenough on November 5, 2007 at 12:53 PM

We should have fit them with a GPS locater chip.

right2bright on November 5, 2007 at 12:53 PM

It is only 320 people. If they do not have a strategic/infrastructure role let them go so they can get along with their jihad, and face the consequences.

Theworldisnotenough on November 5, 2007 at 12:54 PM

We should have fit them with a GPS locater chip.

right2bright on November 5, 2007 at 12:53 PM

Maybe the Bushitler did?!?!?

Theworldisnotenough on November 5, 2007 at 12:55 PM

Tomorrow is election day.

Did they fill out their absentee ballots before going back home?

BacaDog on November 5, 2007 at 12:56 PM

Too bad each detainee couldn’t take one or two ACLU lawyers with them.

What do you call a few dozen ACLU lawyers on their way to Afghanistan? A good start.

Mallard T. Drake on November 5, 2007 at 12:57 PM

A month before getting caught perhaps, but they are probably back in full jihadi mode within days of their return.

bbz123 on November 5, 2007 at 12:59 PM

Well, I’d recommend we not send any back to Yemen.

CP on November 5, 2007 at 1:01 PM

What, alive?

Transfers in a pine box were what I had in mind.

TexasDan on November 5, 2007 at 1:14 PM

Perhaps we should start a pool on how long it takes before they start turning up on battlefields in either Iraq or Afghanistan.

And once they do, the left will tell us that it’s our own fault because we held them in that dungeon at Gitmo and violated their rights.

Rick on November 5, 2007 at 1:15 PM

I find this disturbing. If we think they are guilty, why don’t we bring them to justice by trying them in a US court and putting them away in a US supermax where they can’t hurt anyone ever again. The government has had a pretty good track record with the few terrorism cases it has brought to trial; there is no reason to doubt that it would prevail in most of these cases as well.

If, on the other hand, these are innocent goatherds picked up by mistake while gathering dung for winter fuel, I’d like to see some accountability for those mistakes, which cost these innocent goatherds their freedom, squandered a fair amount of our country’s good reputation and wasted taxpayer money. I’d like to know who screwed up, how and why, and most of all I’d like to know what we are doing not to repeat those mistakes.

But most disturbing of all is the notion that if any of these people turn out to be bad guys ready to kill our soldiers after all, that that will somehow be the ACLU’s fault, as opposed to being a miserable intelligence and counter-terrorism failure. The ACLU’s job is to watch out for civil liberties and the military’s job is to keep the country safe. Just as I don’t expect a Navy SEAL commando to free the Jena Six in a daring predawn raid, I don’t expect the ACLU to preserve national security either. So, dear Commander-in-Chief, the nation gives you half a trillion dollars plus two million motivated volunteers to defend the country, please catch, try and jail the bad guys, leave alone the good guys and accept responsibility when you mix up the two.

factoid on November 5, 2007 at 1:30 PM

factoid on November 5, 2007 at 1:30 PM

Umm, in case you forgot, they are prisoners of war, not U.S. citizens.

Rick on November 5, 2007 at 1:33 PM

Good, I hope they don’t get captured the second time around. We ought to put one of those really garish tracking collars on them, no microchip stuff, but a big orange collar with an antennae about 3 ft long on them, so that they look like one of those flags you put on a kids bike so they can be seen. Put them off near a Taliban or Al Queda location and just watch the fun.

LakeRuins on November 5, 2007 at 1:45 PM

Errr, yeah Factoid, let’s examine the government’s stellar track record in prosecuting terrorists. Starting with the triumphant Holy Land Foundation case.

Oh. Never mind.

Martin on November 5, 2007 at 1:53 PM

I will beleive in prosecuting the terrorists under our law when I see them give lawyers to all of the citizens of the world they kidnap and hold for ransom. I don’t recall Steve Centanni, the Fox reporter seized by the Palestinians, getting a lawyer, nor do I recall anybody being arrested in connection with it. How about the South Koreans held hostage? Fortunately some of those kidnappers met up with some coalition forces and exercised their right to remain silent.

LakeRuins on November 5, 2007 at 1:58 PM

in case you forgot, they are prisoners of war, not U.S. citizens.
Rick on November 5, 2007 at 1:33 PM

First of all, they are most pointedly not prisoners of war; they are enemy combatants, whatever that means to the lawyers.

But that’s beside the point because I’m not a lawyer; nor do I care if they are US citizens. Wherever they live, if they are committing, aiding, abetting, conspiring to commit or supporting terrorist acts against the US of A, they can be captured, charged, tried, convicted and jailed or executed under US law, and in the past we’ve done that successfully. So if they are bad guys, I want our military to nab them and then deliver them to some capable DA. I certainly don’t want them to be sent back home in the hope that they’ve learned their lesson.

On the other hand, if they are not bad guys, I want the military to leave them alone. That’s not a very complex idea either, is it?

Finally, if the government made a mistake, I want it to admit doing so and try to make sure the mistake is not repeated. Sounds pretty basic to me.

Legal status has nothing to do with it.

factoid on November 5, 2007 at 2:01 PM

I’ll take the under on those going back to Afghanistan before it moves to 2 weeks, and I’ll also take the under on those going back to Jordan.

steveegg on November 5, 2007 at 2:11 PM

Well, can we shoot them now if seen again on the battlefield instead of listening to hippies calling for the closing of Gitmo?

madmonkphotog on November 5, 2007 at 2:32 PM

Well, can we shoot them now if seen again on the battlefield instead of listening to hippies calling for the closing of Gitmo?

madmonkphotog on November 5, 2007 at 2:32 PM

Sure if you don’t mind standing trial for murder. Comrade Murtha will be glad to pronounce you guilty.

Wade on November 5, 2007 at 2:53 PM

Thank you for reminding me, factoid. In fact, a “prisoner of war” is:


a detained person as defined in Articles 4 and 5 of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War of August 12, 1949. In particular, one who, while engaged in combat under orders of his or her government, is captured by the armed forces of the enemy. As such, he or she is entitled to the combatant’s privilege of immunity from the municipal law of the capturing state for warlike acts which do not amount to breaches of the law of armed conflicts. For example, a prisoner of war may be, but is not limited to, any person belonging to one of the following categories who has fallen into the power of the enemy: a member of the armed forces, organized militia or volunteer corps; a person who accompanies the armed forces without actually being a member thereof; a member of a merchant marine or civilian aircraft crew not qualifying for more favorable treatment; or individuals who, on the approach of the enemy, spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces.

On the other hand, “enemy combatants” are:

Any person in an armed conflict who could be properly detained under the laws and customs of war.

Oh, and the “enemy combatants” do get an opportunity to testify and present evidence as to their status:


The CSRT is a review to determine whether each detainee in DoD custody at Guantanamo meets the criteria to be designated as an enemy combatant. Each detainee has the opportunity to present evidence and testify on the question of an enemy combatant status determination. It is not a criminal trial and is not intended to determine guilt or innocence; rather, it is an administrative process structured under the law of war regarding the status of persons detained at Guantanamo.

Rick on November 5, 2007 at 2:56 PM

Sorry, link was wrong in my comment regarding the following:

On the other hand, “enemy combatants” are:

Any person in an armed conflict who could be properly detained under the laws and customs of war.

Rick on November 5, 2007 at 3:12 PM

Tomorrow is election day.

Did they fill out their absentee ballots before going back home?

BacaDog on November 5, 2007 at 12:56 PM

I’m sure the Dems got down there in time to get ‘em registered.

commonsensehoosier on November 5, 2007 at 4:21 PM

This is far worse than the equivalent of letting 11 serial killers go free starting with Charles Manson and is irresponsible criminal negligence.

MaiDee on November 5, 2007 at 6:39 PM

Umm, in case you forgot, they are prisoners of war, not U.S. citizens.

Rick on November 5, 2007 at 1:33 PM

Wasn’t there a legal problem in having them declared POWs, and that’s the whole reason they’re using terms like “unlawful combatants” or something like that?

I read one guy’s blog a while back (the guy’s a lawyer) who claims their legal status is roughly equivalent to that of a pirate. Meaning they can be summarily executed, and they should be damned glad they’re being treated as they are.

flipflop on November 5, 2007 at 9:31 PM

I don’t think the Afghan prisoners will like Pol-e Charki in place of Gitmo. I suspect they will be begging to go back to Gitmo within 48 hours…

major john on November 5, 2007 at 11:33 PM

Wasn’t there a legal problem in having them declared POWs, and that’s the whole reason they’re using terms like “unlawful combatants” or something like that?

Yes, you are right, and Factoid reminded me of that as well. I went ahead and put the definitions of enemy combatant and POW (as defined by the DoD) in my next comments after the one you quoted. In summary, an enemy combatant is “any person in an armed conflict who could be properly detained under the laws and customs of war.”

Rick on November 6, 2007 at 12:15 AM