Originally Posted By Beaumandy Some Gitmo Prisoners Don't Want to Go Home By BEN FOX Associated Press Writer March 6, 2006, 6:46 PM EST SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico -- Fearing militants or even their own governments, some prisoners at Guantanamo Bay from China, Saudi Arabia and other nations do not want to go home, according to transcripts of hearings at the U.S. prison in Cuba. Uzbekistan, Yemen, Algeria and Syria are also among the countries to which detainees do not want to return. The inmates have told military tribunals that they or their families could be tortured or killed if they are sent back. President Bush has said the United States transfers detainees to other countries only when it receives assurances that they will not be tortured. Critics say such assurances are useless. The U.S. has released or transferred 267 prisoners and has announced plans to do the same with at least 123 more in the future. Inmates have told military tribunals they worry about reprisals from militants who will suspect them of cooperating with U.S. authorities in its war on terror. Others say their own governments may target them for reasons that have nothing to do with why they were taken to Guantanamo Bay in the first place.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan The full article is here: <a href="http://www.forbes.com/entrepreneurs/feeds/ap/2006/03/06/ap2574368.html" target="_blank">http://www.forbes.com/entrepre neurs/feeds/ap/2006/03/06/ap2574368.html</a> >>A man from Syria who was detained along with his father pleaded with the tribunal for help getting them political asylum - in any country that will take them. "You've been saying 'terrorists, terrorists.' If we return, whether we did something or not, there's no such things as human rights. We will be killed immediately," he said. "You know this very well." <<
Originally Posted By gadzuux They're not without their point - it's understandable if these people are ostracized (at best) by their own countrymen. It's a fair bet that the 267 we've already released, and the 123 in the pipeline turned out to be something other than some god-crazed terrorist to begin with. We weren't being too choosy when we scooped them up - anybody that was remotely suspicious suddenly became a "detainee", whether or not they actually did anything wrong in the first place. But just because they don't want to return to their homelands doesn't mean they want to stay imprisoned at guantanamo bay either. It seems like a sensible request - and it may be in our interests to re-locate them to some neutral place, and prevent them from falling in with a bad crowd again. So the prisoner is better off and so are US interests - win/win - which is why we'll almost certainly not do it.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< It seems like a sensible request - and it may be in our interests to re-locate them to some neutral place, and prevent them from falling in with a bad crowd again. So the prisoner is better off and so are US interests >>> Having these people be granted asylum and eventually getting in front of television cameras to describe how they were treated is probably not in the US's best interest.
Originally Posted By cmpaley >>Having these people be granted asylum and eventually getting in front of television cameras to describe how they were treated is probably not in the US's best interest.<< You mean Bush's best interests. :-D
Originally Posted By SuperDry ^^^ I mean it will not help the image of the United States, regardless of who is President.
Originally Posted By cmpaley >>^^^ I mean it will not help the image of the United States, regardless of who is President.<< Agreed. It stinks that there are people in charge who would order such things so we have to be embarrassed by their actions. Well, those of us who know right from wrong are embarrassed.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>"not wanting to leave" ? "want to stay"<< I really think that sort of distinction is lost on someone who thinks: "opposition to the war" = "loving Saddam Hussein"
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> You mean Bush's best interests. << Exactly. The alternative is to hold these guys under appalling conditions without benefit of charges or evidence - indefinitely. All to prevent their stories finally reaching the public. I've been harping on the torture issue for months now, because I believe that we are actively engaging in it. And I'm disgusted by it. I want all the dirty laundry out in the open while bush is still in office. There's a reason that there's no accountability within this administration - there's a lot of things occuring that there's no accounting for. Guantanamo bay has to close, and soon.
Originally Posted By patrickegan Where did they catch most of these guy’s again? Oh yeah that’s right at an Amway convention!
Originally Posted By cmpaley They's Ay-rabs. They wuz in their Ay-rab cuntrees and we gots 'um. Izzunt been Ay-rab enuf?
Originally Posted By patrickegan They’ve probably already heard that if they get political refuge status they automatically qualify for welfare. And as an added bonus, if they play their cards right down the road they could be in line for a nice SBA loan and open a liquor store or buy an ice cream truck!
Originally Posted By DISNEYhasMe Why do people who do not agree with the gay agenda get deleted on LP?
Originally Posted By DISNEYhasMe Why do people who do not agree with the gay agenda get deleted on LP?
Originally Posted By patrickegan Well that ? might seem off topic but after the gibberish in post #12 anything is fair game! I guess it’s safe to assume you didn’t get the memo. Now that BB Mountain won an Oscar there is no more gay, it’s just mainstream and you’re the odd one out! What I don’t like is the hard time you get around here if you’re a Pimp!
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< I guess it’s safe to assume you didn’t get the memo. Now that BB Mountain won an Oscar there is no more gay, it’s just mainstream and you’re the odd one out! >>> Are you making reference to the broad conspiracy that some have talked about here whereby all "liberal" posts on LP WE are coming from a homosexual point of view?
