82 Guantanamo inmates ready to go

[Mycroft]

Only there is no place to send them.

LONDON -- More than a fifth of the approximately 385 prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, have been cleared for release but may have to wait months or years for their freedom because U.S. officials are finding it increasingly difficult to line up places to send them, according to Bush administration officials and defense lawyers.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/28/AR2007042801145_pf.html

 

[Puppycow]

Maybe there are some unused beds at the white house or Camp David, or the President's ranch in Crawford where they can stay temporarily until a permanent home can be found?

 

[gtc]

Maybe there are some unused beds at the white house or Camp David, or the President's ranch in Crawford where they can stay temporarily until a permanent home can be found?

Send them to Iraq?

 

[Lothian]

With their kidnapping and false imprisonment payouts I would have thought they had a wide choice of places to go.

 

[fishbob]

I understand that Florida is nice this time of year. And only a few short hours away.

 

[The Fool]

well, I guess the ones that the US can't find anyone willing to take will have to be offered US citizenship eventually....I can't think of any other viable alternative. Any Ideas?

 

[wahrheit]

Another major obstacle: U.S. laws that prevent the deportation of people to countries where they could face torture or other human rights abuses ...

There's some irony in that sentence.

"In general, most countries simply do not want to help," said John B. Bellinger III, legal adviser to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. "Countries believe this is not their problem. They think they didn't contribute to Guantanamo, and therefore they don't have to be part of the solution."

Lo and behold! What a surprise, Mr. Bellinger III.

 

[Lothian]

well, I guess the ones that the US can't find anyone willing to take will have to be offered US citizenship eventually....I can't think of any other viable alternative. Any Ideas?

Indeed from wiki think all boxes will be ticked

To become a naturalized United States citizen, one must be at least eighteen years of age at the time of filing,

Tick

a legal permanent resident of the United States, and have had a status of a legal permanent resident in the United States for five years less 90 days before they apply

Tick, (unless they are being held illegally)

They must have been physically present for at least 30 months of 60 months prior to the date of filing their application.

Tick Gitmo has been open since Jan 2002.

They must be a "person of good moral character"[2],

Tick, I understand these people are deeply devout.

must pass a test on United States history and government.

Tick I expect the inmates to know quite a lot about the USA.

Most applicants must also have a working knowledge of the English language (there are exceptions for long-resident older applicants and those with mental or physical disabilities), although this requirement is not intended to be an onerous one, since the test requires that they read and write simple sentences in English, such as "The United States is a democracy".

Tick. Well I am sure they could write “The United States is a democracy”.

 

[BPSCG]

*shrug* If their own countries don't want them back, I'm willing to have my tax dollars used to keep them at Gitmo.

The story dances around the probable reason their countries don't want them back. They figure that maybe the US can't prove their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (the standard in US criminal prosecutions), but they're probably guilty, and probably dangerous. If your husband beats you, but the district attorney doesn't have enough evidence to bring him to trial, you still don't want him to come home, do you?

So let the US keep them, they figure; that way the US gets stuck with the bill and the other countries don't have to watch the bad guys for misbehavior when they come home. Win-win for everyone.

 

[The Fool]

*shrug* If their own countries don't want them back, I'm willing to have my tax dollars used to keep them at Gitmo.

What status under US law would you suggest they have?

 

[Lothian]

*shrug* If their own countries don't want them back, I'm willing to have my tax dollars used to keep them at Gitmo.

The story dances around the probable reason their countries don't want them back. They figure that maybe the US can't prove their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (the standard in US criminal prosecutions), but they're probably guilty, and probably dangerous. If your husband beats you, but the district attorney doesn't have enough evidence to bring him to trial, you still don't want him to come home, do you?

So let the US keep them, they figure; that way the US gets stuck with the bill and the other countries don't have to watch the bad guys for misbehavior when they come home. Win-win for everyone.

You are happy for the government using your tax dollars to keep people whose guilt can not be proven beyond reasonable doubt incarcerated for ever, on the grounds that they are probably guilty.

For consistency I suppose are you also proposing that anyone the government thinks are probably guilty should be incarcerated without trail at the tax payers expense, and that you also support all countires right to incarcenate people without trail if they think they are probably guilty.

 

[BPSCG]

What status under US law would you suggest they have?

How's "illegal aliens" tickle your fancy?

You are happy for the government using your tax dollars to keep people whose guilt can not be proven beyond reasonable doubt incarcerated for ever, on the grounds that they are probably guilty.

I prefer they be returned to their own countries. If that can't be done, I don't see what possible sane grounds there are for letting them loose in the US. What else do you propose we do with them? Give them tourist visas?

For consistency I suppose are you also proposing that anyone the government thinks are probably guilty should be incarcerated without trail at the tax payers expense, and that you also support all countires right to incarcenate people without trail if they think they are probably guilty.

1. Stop putting words in my mouth.
2. In this country, we have "trials." "Trails" are things you ski down or hike through the woods on.

 

[Lothian]

1. Stop putting words in my mouth.
2. In this country, we have "trials."

1. You are free to deny what I said and accept that you have double standards.
2. Evidence suggests otherwise.

 

[BPSCG]

1. You are free to deny what I said and accept that you have double standards.
2. Evidence suggests otherwise.

You didn't answer my question, which was, "What else do you propose we do with them? Give them tourist visas?"

 

[Lothian]

You didn't answer my question, which was, "What else do you propose we do with them? Give them tourist visas?"

What do you normally do with people released from American prisons without charge?

I accept your difficulty in that you kidnapped these people and brought them to America.

I suggest that you apologise, compensate them and give them every assistance in rebuilding their lives. If you can’t arrange for them to go to country of their choice then you should offer them citizenship of America.

 

[BPSCG]

What do you normally do with people released from American prisons without charge?

If they're not American citizens and they have no visa showing they are authorized to be in the US? Return them to their home country. What do you think is supposed to happen to Mexicans illegally in the US?

I suggest that you apologise, compensate them and give them every assistance in rebuilding their lives. If you can’t arrange for them to go to country of their choice then you should offer them citizenship of America.

Frankly, I don't think there should be any problem returning them to their home countries. Just fly in, drop 'em off on the tarmac with their passports, and leave. No fuss, no muss. Who could have a problem with that?

 

[WildCat]

The solution is simple: Put them on a boat with a broken engine, and arrange for it to "accidentally" wash ashore in Australia. After all, Australia has much experience in these matters.

 

[Lothian]

If they're not American citizens and they have no visa showing they are authorized to be in the US?

But these people did not choose to go to America. American troops kidnaped them and took them to America. I think that changes the posisiton.

Frankly, I don't think there should be any problem returning them to their home countries. Just fly in, drop 'em off on the tarmac with their passports, and leave. No fuss, no muss. Who could have a problem with that?

So you have no problem with Iran (say) kidnapping American citizens keeping them 5 years without trial then they fly in, drop 'em off on the tarmac with their passports, and leave. No fuss, no muss.

 

[BPSCG]

But these people did not choose to go to America. American troops kidnaped them and took them to America. I think that changes the posisiton.

Even accepting your improper use of the word "kidnaped," if they were improperly taken to America, then we should absolutely return them to their native soil, where they, their families, and their countrymen will weep tears of joy at the reunion.

So you have no problem with Iran (say) kidnapping American citizens keeping them 5 years without trial then they fly in, drop 'em off on the tarmac with their passports, and leave. No fuss, no muss.

The kidnapping part? Sure. The return? Absolutely not. Actually, Iran has some history, both recent and not so recent, of kidnaping foreign nationals and holding them, so there's some precedent there. You didn't see the US or the UK refusing repatriation of its citizens when Iran decided to release them.

 

[Crossbow]

If they're not American citizens and they have no visa showing they are authorized to be in the US? Return them to their home country. What do you think is supposed to happen to Mexicans illegally in the US?

Frankly, I don't think there should be any problem returning them to their home countries. Just fly in, drop 'em off on the tarmac with their passports, and leave. No fuss, no muss. Who could have a problem with that?

Wow!

It sure sounds as if you do not know much about international travel.

Have you ever been out of the USA?