Was he released (and maybe even compensated) as a free man or is it a form of house arrest similar to the former deal with Uruguay?
If he didn’t hate the US initially he sure as heck does now – sounds like a good enough reason to keep him locked up for good. </ s>
This is a win-win for the Department of Justice. If Mr. Obaidullah goes home and we never hear from him again, the DoJ can say, “See? We knew he wasn’t a terrorist.”
But if Mr. Obaidullah pays us back with a bombing or shooting spree, the DoJ can say, "See? We knew he was a terrorist!
So, it works out.
This guy must be “the best of the worst”. Or something.
Can we start a petition to rename Guantanamo “Omelas”?
Even if you think those prisoners are incredibly dangerous and deserve to stay in prison it’s hard to imagine how this is supposed to be the most cost effective way to detain them. How many people does it take to run Guantánamo prison? How much extra are we paying to send food, medical care, legal counsel etc. to Cuba instead of just putting them in some supermax prison within the US?
All this could be solved if USA only returned Guantanamo to Cuba. It was after all “rented” at gunpoint after the Spanish-American war, really an occupation.
CUBA: "But what are we supposed to do with all these pris—"
If the detainees were in the United States, we’d have to give them the legal protections we give all prisoners–including, you know, the right to a speedy trial.
The prison at Guantánamo was specifically designed to be a “law-free zone”–outside the protections of the Constitution–in which prisoners are tortured, denied legal and human rights, and kept indefinitely incarcerated in “the legal equivalent of outer space” because September 11, axis of evil, support the troops, freedom, God, America.
Maybe they’ll drop him off on a desolate road at night in the wrong country with no ID or money or apology. They do that too.
Hardly. They’ve been releasing their kidnapping and torture victims - with an “er, never mind” - since 2003.
I remember this case. My (and his) fucking government let him hang out to dry, and they were informed about the abduction early and had no reason to assume he was connected to terrorism.
“Human dignity shall be inviolable. To respect and protect it shall be the duty of all state authority.” is not a guideline but the fucking foundation of the German legal framework.
As with Italy, the US warned Germany not to try to enforce arrest warrants against the CIA personnel doing the kidnappings. It’s estimated that the US kidnapped more than 200 people from EU soil alone. And there were others around the world.
It makes you wonder if there was a quid pro quo on that. Because whether American officials agreed to one, turn-about is fair play. Germany, Italy and others can now kidnap someone - even an American citizen - off American streets if they consider that person to be a security threat. Or if they have a vague suspicion that the person might know someone who might be a security threat. No warrant, no day in court, no rights. And the US couldn’t complain, because they’d be playing by American rules.
Also, as soon as somebody suggests moving the Invisible Men to someplace the rule of law applies, TV commercials run about how they “wanted to being terrorists to America.” Career = over.
It’s a misconception that they would need trials or habeas corpus rights if brought to the U.S.
The right to a speedy trial has always been about crimes, not wartime detention. The Constitution and Bill of Rights even make that distinction. As for habeas corpus, the Supreme Court already gave them that, numerous times, although that only applies to Guantanamo, not detainees elsewhere (who have fewer rights). Guantanamo detainees have already had habeas reviews by federal judges years ago.
Every detainee is being legally held right now, and this would not change if brought to the U.S. Most detainees would be happier in Guantanamo. There are other reasons not to want to bring them here, but getting them trials or new rights is not one of them.
but wasn’t one part of the argument that they are not prisoners of war (i.e. withs rights according to international law) but unlawful combatants (i.e. a totally new out-of-the-hat classification, conveniently without any rights)?
You’re mixing two things here.
Not being a POW simply means they don’t get POW rights under the Geneva Convention. It doesn’t mean they must get transferred to civilian courts that give them the rights of a criminal defendant. They’re still combatants.
It’s not necessarily a crime to be an enemy of the U.S. And if it’s not a crime, then it’s simply not possible to charge them with one. Even when they can find something to charge them with, it’s usually not possible to bring sufficient evidence for a real trial.
And even when they do have the evidence to charge them with something, it may not be a serious enough to put them away for very long.
Even the conservative figures are ridonkulous.