[speechlesstx]

And here I thought everyone wanted Gitmo shut down...

When two Tunisian men were sent home after five years in Guantanamo, they thought they would be free. Instead, they faced imprisonment, abuse, threats and solitary confinement. Now they say things were better back in the US prison camp.

Release from Guantanamo Bay may not be the end of the prisoner's ordeal.
Many of the detainees sitting in Guantanamo Bay hail from countries with a terrible record of torturing and abusing prisoners. While they may want to see an end to their ordeal in the US prison camp, they also have reason to dread the treatment they could face back home.

According to Human Rights Watch (HRW), the US government is not doing enough to ensure that prisoners sent back home are not subjected to ill treatment, despite diplomatic assurances from their home countries. The US is continuing to repatriate prisoners, sending home 16 Saudis on Thursday. But in their haste to reduce the numbers at Guantanamo, it seems they are being less than thorough in ensuring that the former prisoners are not mistreated.

Jennifer Daskal in the Washington Compost goes further...

For five days in July, I crisscrossed this steamy capital, trying to learn the fate of these men. I met with local activists, lawyers, government officials and families of Guantanamo detainees. Plainclothes cops followed me around, giving themselves away with their deep stares and white SUVs. While I was unable to meet with Hajji or Lagha, I talked to others who had.

The problem goes beyond these two men. Since 9/11, the United States has been using Guantanamo Bay as a dumping ground for suspected jihadists. As pressure mounts to shut it down -- even Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates has said he would like to see it closed -- efforts to winnow down its population are now in high gear. In July, the Bush administration said that 80 detainees were slated for release or transfer; that number has now jumped to 150.

For most of these detainees, this is good news. But about 50 men have told their lawyers that they fear torture and other abuse so acutely that they do not want to be returned home. These detainees -- citizens of Algeria, China, Libya, Tunisia and Uzbekistan, all countries the United States has accused of mistreating prisoners -- present yet another obstacle to closing Guantanamo Bay.

In some cases, Washington has recognized these fears as legitimate. Eight of the detainees (five Chinese Uighurs, an Algerian, an Egyptian and a Russian) were sent to Albania rather than to their countries of origin. This isn't an ideal solution -- the men are now living apart from their families in a refugee camp in an impoverished country where they don't speak the language and can't find jobs -- but it is better than continued detention at Guantanamo Bay and a forcible return to a country that tortures. The United States is still trying to find a third-party country to accept the remaining 17 Uighurs held at the prison, some of whom have been accused of waging an on-again, off-again separatist struggle against China's central government.

Since we must close Gitmo, can't keep these people and can't guarantee their safety when released, just what exactly should the US do with your run of the mill Jihadist? Anyone willing to start an adopt-a-terrorist program?

[kindj]

OK, let me get this straight:

First, folks want the US to close down Gitmo, because they're being treated "badly" there.

Now, they don't want us to send them back home because they'll be treated badly there, too.

I wonder why this could be?

Hmmmmmmm... could it be because they're CRIMINALS? And in most places, criminals AREN'T treated well?

I tell you what--I'm about ready to give this place back to the Indi... excuse me--Native Americans--and go to Ireland, the land of MY ancestors. Not being a criminal (and still having family there), I'm fairly sure I'll be treated well.

[speechlesstx]

OK, let me get this straight:

First, folks want the US to close down Gitmo, because they're being treated "badly" there.

Now, they don't want us to send them back home because they'll be treated badly there, too.

That about sums it up there buddy.

I wonder why this could be?

Hmmmmmmm... could it be because they're CRIMINALS? And in most places, criminals AREN'T treated well?

Except at Gitmo, where they get:

"three culturally appropriate meals a day"

"one sheet, two towels, one washcloth, one orange bottom (pants), one orange bottom (shorts), one orange bottom top (shirt), a sheet and two blankets. They are also provided a prayer cap, flip-flop shoes, a foam sleeping mattress, a blanket, a 1/2 inch thick prayer mat, soap, shampoo, a toothbrush, toothpaste, and a one-quart canteen."

"a Koran in their language, and a surgical mask...used as storage for the Koran."

"a recorded call to prayer that is broadcast five times a day. During the broadcast, a yellow traffic cone, with a big "P" stenciled on it, is placed at the center of each cell block. This is a signal to the guards to maintain a respectful silence while the detainees are praying."

"arrows around the camp that point in the direction of Mecca."

"Certain "comfort" items are provided to detainees that comply with the rules of the camp. These items include a prayer rug, perfume oil, and prayer beads."

a "Detention hospital...comparable to a full-service, medical facility with state-of-the-art equipment and professional medical staff"

No wonder these guys would rather be at Gitmo.

[tomder55]

Did you catch Duncan Hunter's comments on GITMO during the debate this week ? He said that the prisoners in Guantanamo are in better conditions than prisoners in our U.S. prisons located in cities under Democrat leadership. Not a single prisoner at Camp GITMO has been killed in prison, which is more than can be said about U.S. prisons, and they receive meals like "honey-glazed chicken and rice pilaf" and taxpayer-funded prayer rugs.
He also said

“They've got health care that's better than most HMOs. "

The US decided to scrap plans to build an expensive court building and will instead erect a large tent complex for the purpose of expediting the tribunal system. Perhaps soon we will be releasing more of these jihadist terrorist to the capable hands of their native nations. The fact is that we had 759 detainees ,and now the population of GITMO has been reduced to 340;those who have been deemed the hard cores with links to terrorism.

[speechlesstx]

Did you catch Duncan Hunter's comments on GITMO during the debate this week ? He said that the prisoners in Guantanamo are in better conditions than prisoners in our U.S. prisons located in cities under Democrat leadership.

Tom, I have a family member in prison in worse conditions than Gitmo. I'd rather she be in Gitmo than the overcrowded California prison she's in, where her "health care" is usually by video conference with the doctor.

Did you catch this today?

A Saudi suspected of being the "20th hijacker" in the Sept. 11 attacks has recanted his confession, saying he made false statements after he was beaten, abused and humiliated at Guantanamo, according to documents obtained Friday by The Associated Press.

Mohammed al-Qahtani — who U.S. officials have said previously was subjected to harsh treatment authorized by former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld — denied knowledge of the Sept. 11 attacks in his first appearance before a military panel at Guantanamo Bay in October.

"I am a businessman, a peaceful man," al-Qahtani testified under oath, nearly five years after he was taken to the detention center in Cuba. "I have no connection to terrorism, violence or fighters."

The AP obtained a transcript of the hearing from the government under the Freedom of Information Act. This is the first extensive statement by al-Qahtani ever released.

An unidentified military officer at the hearing said the detainee admitted traveling in 2001 in Afghanistan, where he received terrorist training, met with Osama bin Laden and agreed to participate in a "martyr mission" for al-Qaida.

Al-Qahtani said the statements were not true and he only admitted to them while was being "tortured" at Guantanamo.

The alleged torture, which he details in a separate statement, included being beaten, restrained for long periods in uncomfortable positions, threatened with dogs, exposed to loud music and freezing temperatures and stripped nude in front of female personnel, he said.

"Once this torture stopped, I explained over and over that none of what I said was true," he told the Administrative Review Board panel, convened to determine whether he could be released.

"I have no intent to kill innocent people or anything like that," he said.

Al-Qahtani is one of the most notorious prisoners at Guantanamo, where the U.S. now holds about 340 men on suspicion of terrorism or links to al-Qaida or the Taliban.

The U.S. has alleged that al-Qahtani, who military records show is about 28, barely missed becoming the 20th hijacker on Sept. 11, 2001. The Saudi was denied entry into the country by immigration agents at the airport in Orlando, Florida.

At the time, he had more than $2,400 in cash, no return plane ticket and lead hijacker Mohamed Atta was waiting for him, said Navy Cmdr. Jeffrey Gordon, a Pentagon spokesman.

"We think he is a dangerous terrorist," he said.

The U.S. treats detainees humanely and denounces the use of torture, Gordon said, but military investigators in 2005 concluded that al-Qahtani had been subjected to harsh treatment approved by Rumsfeld because he would not crack under interrogation.

The investigation led by Air Force Lt. Gen. Randall M. Schmidt confirmed, among other things, that al-Qahtani was forced to wear women's underwear, was threatened with dogs, and kept in solitary confinement for 160 days. At one point, he was interrogated for 18-20 hours per day on 48 of 54 days.

Harsh or torture? I'm sure we have congressmen that think dressing in women's underwear would be a treat...

[excon]

Hello:

Are you rightwingers done congratulating yourselves? Seems to me that if Gitmo was so wonderful, you wouldn't have to be saying it. And of course, we know it isn't.

Oh, I'm sure they're given a delicious home cooked meal in between torture sessions. Bwa ha ha ha.

excon

[CaptainRich]

Hello:

Are you rightwingers done congratulating yourselves? Seems to me that if Gitmo was so wonderful, you wouldn't have to be saying it. And of course, we know it isn't.

Oh, I'm sure they're given a delicious home cooked meal in between torture sessions. Bwa ha ha ha.

excon

Reports of kindness and/or torture are probably equally exaggerated.

But, then again, I'd like to find out as much information from those selected for vacation from plotting, before they're sent home to a hero's welcome (you do realize only a sample group wins the trip to GITMO?) Not everything they signed up for, I'm sure.

But, hey, they probably didn't expect to even be alive still...

[excon]

But, then again, I'd like to find out as much information from those selected for vacation

Hello again, Capn:

I think you hit the nail on the head, without actually intending to.

The problem I have, that you don't, is with the "selection" process. You TRUST that your government "selected" the right guys. I don't. It's not even a close call. I don't think your government thinks they did either or they wouldn't be afraid of them having a little bit of due process. And, of course, that's exactly WHY they put them in Gitmo so that they could be kept FROM any due process at all. No?

So, I agree, Capn, that our enemies shouldn't be coddled. But we should make sure that those we "select" really ARE our enemy. That's what "due process" does, and we didn't do that.

excon

[excon]

The fact is that we had 759 detainees ,and now the population of GITMO has been reduced to 340;those who have been deemed the hard cores with links to terrorism.

Hello again:

Weren't we told that Gitmo held the “worst of the worst”? I think we were.

The above looks to me like an admission that 419 men, many of whom were totally innocent, were tortured?? And it disgusts me.

excon

[CaptainRich]

Hello again, Capn:

I think you hit the nail on the head, without actually intending to.

The problem I have, that you don't, is with the "selection" process. You TRUST that your government "selected" the right guys. I don't. It's not even a close call. I don't think your government thinks they did either or they wouldn’t be afraid of them having a little bit of due process. And, of course, that's exactly WHY they put them in Gitmo so that they could be kept FROM any due process at all. No?

So, I agree, Capn, that our enemies shouldn't be coddled. But we should make sure that those we "select" really ARE our enemy. That's what "due process" does, and we didn't do that.

excon

If I'm not mistaken, their involvement is what landed them a trip to GITMO in the first place.

If they hadn't rallied up against us and our efforts, putting themselves in harms way, how'd they get invited to GITMO?

Act's of war against US interests, IMO, eliminates your chances for "due process"!

I'm not a member of the inner circle... I don't have access to the cold hard facts. We have put in place the trained professionals to do a job, and if they deem these guy's bad, I'm going with their trained first hand opinions.

[excon]

If they hadn't rallied up against us and our efforts, putting themselves in harms way, how'd they get invited to GITMO??

Hello again, Capn:

Again, you TRUST what your government told you.

Some of the ones they let loose early, (but not early enough to escape TORTURE), were found to have been snitched on for money because a bounty was offered. Others were just in the wrong place at the wrong time. Others were taken there because some OTHER government said they were terrorists.

These kinds of people would have been weeded out had there been some due process.

Truly, Capn. With that kind of thinking, I suppose you think that everybody in jail here in the US is guilty. Most rightwingers, of course, do think that very thing. Of course, even WITH our protections, innocent people get convicted. That's just so.

So NO. I don't TRUST that the government locks up the right people. ESPECIALLY when the government is trying to prevent these people from ANY due process at all. In fact, that makes me suspect the government even MORE.

excon

[CaptainRich]

... And you're getting your "fact's " first hand..

[excon]

Hello again, Capn:

Well, I don't know any of them personally... But, I trust my research. Certainly, plenty ARE bad guys. They're, NOT my concern. However, the fact that they released 419 of them says that at least that many didn't belong there. That fact alone says they have a failure rate at damn near 50%

But, it's NOT a matter of my facts.

The FACT that the government DOESN'T want these men to have DUE PROCESS OF LAW, speaks LOUDER and raises more RED FLAGS than my facts, or lack thereof. If the government believes these men to be as bad as you do, and has the PROOF to back it up, then they shouldn't mind a little due process, because their imprisonment can stand up to it.

But they don't, and there's a message there. There's an 800 lb gorilla in the room, and you wonder if MY facts are straight??

excon

[CaptainRich]

IMO, due process during this kind of conflict is culling the herd until you can sort the bad guys out.

That can't be an easy task when all there names rhyme!

[Skell]

But then of course you get the other side of the coin.

Hicks: my life of terror and torture - World - smh.com.au

You guys aren't going to try and defend the Military Commissions Act are you? I can't believe after two adverse Supreme Court decisions and numerous other forced changes the process hasn't altered some of you guys confidence in the process.