Taking the first clause first, where has it been determined they are "former suspects"?  Indeed, many that were suspects were released due to lack of evidence only to wind up on the battlefields again.  But that is an error on the side of the terrorists, not against them.  Clearly some that are innocent are being detained longer.  After all, man, being an imperfect being, is not perfect.

But given the number at Gitmo, and the number released and then either killed or captured again on a battlefield, it is clear that the US Government is erring on the side of human rights, not security.

Second, only suspects, and then suspects deemed to be lethal, are sent to Gitmo.  Again, I am unsure of the source of the innuendo that people were randomly rounded up and sent to Gitmo.  I have no doubts that in Afghanistan 9and to a lesser extent Iraq), people were "rounded up" by both the US and the host governments, but only if there is credible evidence to suspect the person was a major threat were they then sent to Gitmo.  There just was not enough space there to allow for the literally thousands (hundreds of thousands) of detainees to be housed there, and no one has (to my knowledge) even alleged that.

'Basic human rights' are fine conceptually.  The rub comes in the definition.  Right now, they're whatever you want them to be.  The jihadist believes it is his 'basic human right' to slaughter infidels.  I think I have a 'basic human right' not to be slaughtered.

Now what?

Those former suspects I was thinking about are those for whom the US government is looking for someone to take them in, like those Uigures that ended up in some pacific mini islandstate, Palau, I think. If I remeber correctly, and I might be wrong or the sources might be wrong, it had been determined rather quickly that the uigures had no intention to commit terrorist acts in the US or US installations. Still, they had been taken to Gitmo. Why did it take years to release them?

I think in the beginning of the war against terrorism there was a lack of experience and many people had been caught that didn't fit the bill, but due to utilitarian thinking those were sort of considered collateral damage for the greater good. I don't have a problem with hunting terrorists and bringing them to justice, but it had kind of looked like the ends justified the means and that it had taken awhile to formulate the legal ground for those means.

Maybe I just regard some things as strange because some procedures are different in the US legal system. We have a different court system in Germany and military tribunals have not taken place since WW2. Members of the armed forces are under civilian jurisdiction, there are no court martials.

I wish I could go and research all the legal issues that I had looked up but I can't concentrate enough right now to read that much.

 

You answered your own questions - no one would take them.  If they had been released back to their host country, they would have been shot on arrival (again, erring on the side of human rights).

It is not the US Legal system, but again international treaties regarding armed conflicts (war).  Indeed, the biggest debate in the US is whether to move them to the US legal system or not, a move that is controversial in itself since it could very well be a violation of those treaties.

Ok, but hadn't their human rights been violated by the US? They were detained without a trial and without reason because they were never a threat to the US. They hadn't been a part of the war against terror. Doesn't that mean that they should never have been detained in the first place?

I had also read about a few youths who had been detained for ca 2 years in the very beginning. 13 or 14 years old - it had been determined very quickly that they were innocent of any terrorcharges. They have long since been released and had been treated very well while they stayed in Gitmo, probably better than in Afghanistan. But their rights were disregarded even though they were treated well.

It is interesting that nobody wants to admit that mistakes had been made, many just seems to be looking for a way to rationalize or justify instances like that in hindsight.

'Mistakes' are inevitable.  No system or process will be perfect.  Erring on the side of our safety & security isn't the worst thing I can think of in this context. 

Apparently protective custody is now a violation of basic human rights.

The people held in CUBA are illegal combatants. That means that they were caught on the battlefield attacking uniformed troops. People civilian and military witnessed this and signed affidavits that is the only way they can be moved out of the theater of operations and into Gitmo. So they were not detained without cause, it was all done in accordance with the Geneva Conventions. As I pointed out before if a person makes a false claim causing the detention of a civilian they are subject to prison or the death penalty. So no! the people held in Gitmo have not had their rights violated. The Conventions state that you can’t try these people in civilian courts, and that they should not be tried until the end of hostilities except in rare occasions.

That was never established.  All that was established was they were not currently a threat.  They indeed were in the wrong place at the wrong time (Afghanistan) which meant they were not being altruistic.  Once it was determined they would not be a further threat (not no threat), then the trouble of finding someplace to send them was undertaken.  it was not just giving them a plane ticket as no one would have them, so what do  you do?  Hold them until a place is found. Which was done.

Again being in the wrong place at the wrong time. In other words, they were not sitting in a library playing parchesi.  As you also noted, once it was determined they were ok, they were released.

Afghanistan is not some sort of "police action".  it is a war. And you do not know who to trust (as evidenced by the Jourdanian double agent).  And as I have said, and we all know, nothing human is perfect.  The fact that mistakes are corrected as soon as possible when possible is a testament to the "humanity" of the US action, not the inhumanity. 

I dont think anyone has ever said that "no mistakes (or mistaken indentities) have been made".  Only that they are corrected.  But they also dont want to release those that intend to do us harm.  So in war, unlike under normal law (in the US and Germany, surprisingly not in France), they are presumed guilty until proven (or at least indicated) innocent.

Very simple, while they weren't in Afghanistan learning how to fight the US, they were there learning how to fight the Chinese. Had they been returned to China (their home of origin) they would be executed (imagine that). The bleating hearts here demanded that not be returned to China...China wants them. So the US becomes a hypocrite because we protect terrorists as long as they are not terrorizing us. How do we expect help when we refuse to do the same? ...And just because China does what would be expected in the form of punishment for non-uniformed terrorist. People might sympathize with their cause, that's natural. One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter.

Why didn't the US give those uigures a greencard? Or help them - I thought you supported the fight against oppression. And China is oppressive and ruthless at that. Where was it written that you had to release them to China? So the US didn't want to burden diplomatic relations and those guys who were fighting against the evil guys in their homecountry had to suffer for it. How ironic is that? They became the punchline in a really bad joke.

I believe we did.  Help them, that is.  They're still alive.

Under the policy, that was their home nation.  You cannot "deport" someone to a new country, because then they are just illegal aliens in that country.

That's curious, because when I look at it alot of what takes place looked like police action, even if it was done by the military. Search and seizure of weapons and explosives, bomb labs, go on patrol, hunt drug smugglers, terrorists. Normally I'd associate actions like that with the police. I also saw a few episodes of COPS (I hope I'll never be arrested in the US - your police is pretty liberal with those tasers) and quite a few police officers had been former military. I suppose what they do now is not that much different than what they had done in Afghanistan or Iraq.

I mostly associate positive things with the US and also the american military. I assume that everything is done to be humane, and I don't think I said otherwise. Guantanamo wasn't created by the military, it had been a political decision by the american government. As such, the criticism is of a policy and the moral justification of that, not of the US military.

 

You sound like Jack Bauer lol