Dennis Blair Confirms Potential Release of "Gitmo" Detainees into US

Dennis Blair Confirms Potential Release of "Gitmo" Detainees into US

This is a discussion on Dennis Blair Confirms Potential Release of "Gitmo" Detainees into US within the Law Enforcement, Military & Homeland Security Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; The Weekly Standard Here, from the Associated Press, is a partial account of DNI [Director of National Intelligence] Dennis Blair’s first press conference today (emphasis ...

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 17

Thread: Dennis Blair Confirms Potential Release of "Gitmo" Detainees into US

  1. #1
    VIP Member
    Array falcon1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    6,484

    Exclamation Dennis Blair Confirms Potential Release of "Gitmo" Detainees into US

    The Weekly Standard

    Here, from the Associated Press, is a partial account of DNI [Director of National Intelligence] Dennis Blair’s first press conference today (emphasis mine):

    During his news conference, Blair also said the Obama administration is still wrestling with what to do with the remaining 240 detainees at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, which the president has ordered closed.

    Some of the detainees, deemed non-threatening [emphasis added], may be released into the United States as free men, Blair confirmed.

    That would happen when they can't be returned to their home countries, because the governments either won't take them or the U.S. fears they will be abused or tortured. That is the case with 17 Uighurs (WEE'-gurz), Chinese Muslim separatists who were cleared for release from the jail long ago. The U.S. can't find a country willing to take them, and it will not turn them over to China.

    Blair said the former prisoners would have [to] get some sort of assistance to start their new lives in the United States.

    “We can't put them out on the street,” he said.
    Somehow, this does not give me a warm, fuzzy feeling. I'm not certain I trust this administration's definition of "non-threatening."
    If the public are bound to yield obedience to laws to which they cannot give their approbation, they are slaves to those who make such laws and enforce them.--Samuel Adams as Candidus, Boston Gazette 20 Jan. 1772

    Veteran--USA FA
    NRA Benefactor Life
    Tennessee Firearms Association Life


  2. #2
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,885

    The 17 Uighurs

    Quote Originally Posted by falcon1 View Post
    The Weekly Standard

    Somehow, this does not give me a warm, fuzzy feeling. I'm not certain I trust this administration's definition of "non-threatening."
    Per newspaper accounts, Uncle admits that these 17 were caught up in circumstances and were not combatants, terrorists, or anything of the sort.

    The problem with trying to let them go is that CHINA doesn't want them; or rather is expected to abuse them for reasons that have to do with internal Chinese human rights issues and not international terrorism

    So, with no place for them to go, the only option appears to be to admit them to the US unless a 3rd country will take them. So far, no takers. Given they are known to be innocents caught up in circumstances beyond their control, this should not be a big deal and it should pose no risk to us. To the contrary holding innocent people, people we know did nothing, shames us all. The wonder is that Uncle hasn't acted to release them sooner.

    IF you are going to criticize the move to release them, at least make sure you know the facts.

  3. #3
    VIP Member
    Array falcon1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    6,484
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    IF you are going to criticize the move to release them, at least make sure you know the facts.
    And again, that same Uncle is saying that to the newspapers, of whatever administration. I still don't trust their judgment. Thank you for "enlightening" me.
    If the public are bound to yield obedience to laws to which they cannot give their approbation, they are slaves to those who make such laws and enforce them.--Samuel Adams as Candidus, Boston Gazette 20 Jan. 1772

    Veteran--USA FA
    NRA Benefactor Life
    Tennessee Firearms Association Life

  4. #4
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    Per newspaper accounts, Uncle admits that these 17 were caught up in circumstances and were not combatants, terrorists, or anything of the sort.
    Caught up in circumstances?

    They were just innocent Chinese muslims, who just happened to wander onto the battlefield.

    The problem with trying to let them go is that CHINA doesn't want them; or rather is expected to abuse them for reasons that have to do with internal Chinese human rights issues and not international terrorism
    So what? If they are Chinese then send them home. It is no business of ours what the Chinese do to their own people.

    So, with no place for them to go, the only option appears to be to admit them to the US unless a 3rd country will take them.
    The only option? How about putting them on a row boat in the middle of the Atlantic. Give them some food and water and let God take care of their well being. It is absolutely NOT my responsibility.

    So far, no takers. Given they are known to be innocents caught up in circumstances beyond their control, this should not be a big deal and it should pose no risk to us.
    I assume, then, that you would be willing to house them as they assimilate peacefully as Amefican citizens. You do want to make them citizens, right?

    To the contrary holding innocent people, people we know did nothing, shames us all. The wonder is that Uncle hasn't acted to release them sooner.
    The wonder is that we did not kill them on the battlefield. Of course, since the pansies do not want to get information from the captured enemy (loud music is torture!) we have no use for detaining them at all. Why do you think we capture the enemy to begin with?

    IF you are going to criticize the move to release them, at least make sure you know the facts.
    Closing Guantanamo is one of the most naive and dangerous blunders of all the bumbling so far. I can't wait to see his inaction when North Korea tests their TD2.

  5. #5
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,885

    Have some decency

    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    Caught up in circumstances?

    So what? If they are Chinese then send them home. It is no business of ours what the Chinese do to their own people.
    Have some decency.

    I just love this, "let the Chinese do what they will with them" coming from someone who often claims to take positions allegedly on moral grounds.

    These particular individuals were determined to be innocents. How that determination was made is not known to me, or to you. But the determination has been made. So now the only question is what to do with them.

    There are two choices. Act humanely or send them back to China.

    I bet you'd be the first one to scream bloody murder if we sent someone back to Cuba knowing that Castro would jail and torture them.

  6. #6
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    Have some decency.

    I just love this, "let the Chinese do what they will with them" coming from someone who often claims to take positions allegedly on moral grounds.
    The United States is not judge as to how other countries adminster justice. Certainly, our righteous application of the death penalty is considered vile by the more 'enlightened' governments like Mexico. :snicker:

    These particular individuals were determined to be innocents. How that determination was made is not known to me, or to you. But the determination has been made.
    Hmmm. Captured on the battlefied and imprisioned for years. Suddenly, because a 'world citizen' is elected they are determined innocent? Please. The determination may not be known to you but it is obvious to many.

    So now the only question is what to do with them.
    Easily answered. They should return to their country of origin. Why that is controversial is a mystery.

    There are two choices. Act humanely or send them back to China.
    How about dropping them EXACTLY where they were captured? That is where the were before we interrupted their peaceful existence.

    I bet you'd be the first one to scream bloody murder if we sent someone back to Cuba knowing that Castro would jail and torture them.
    This is not the thread to discuss the Federal government ripping an innocent child from his relatives and extraditing him to Cuba. I hope we can agree that was despicable.

    The Overseas Contingency Operation should not provide for the coddling of the enemy.

  7. #7
    Moderator
    Array RETSUPT99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Central Florida
    Posts
    45,287
    Send 'em back to the Chinese...justice is justice, not my problem.

    Or should we keep 'em here, give them a house and a car with welfare money...NOT!
    The last Blood Moon Tetrad for this millennium starts in April 2014 and ends in September 2015...according to NASA.

    ***********************************
    Certified Glock Armorer
    NRA Life Member[/B]

  8. #8
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,885

    Immoral position

    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    The United States is not judge as to how other countries adminster justice. Certainly, our righteous application of the death penalty is considered vile by the more 'enlightened' governments like Mexico. :snicker:
    The appropriate viewpoint here is that Mexico won't extradite because of our death penalty. That is from their viewpoint a moral position. Similarly, we will not and can not send these people we are discussing back to China on moral grounds; to do so would be immoral. And there is one important distinction. OUR government has determined that the people we are discussing did nothing wrong and are innocents. You talk like that is either a lie or unimportant. It is neither.


    Hmmm. Captured on the battlefied and imprisioned for years. Suddenly, because a 'world citizen' is elected they are determined innocent? Please. The determination may not be known to you but it is obvious to many.
    If you paid attention to the news you would know that the determination about their status was made long ago, before the election, and the US has been looking for a third country to take them for quite some time now. Don't lay this at the feet of the present administration.

    Easily answered. They should return to their country of origin. Why that is controversial is a mystery.
    Because the United States reasonably believes they will be tortured and killed. It has been policy of the United States to offer all manner of people humanitarian parole and protection from religious persecution. If the 17 are truly innocents, why should they be treated differently and sent to face the Chinese "justice system?"

    How about dropping them EXACTLY where they were captured? That is where the were before we interrupted their peaceful existence.
    I do not know why this can not be done. Probably because the present government of Afghanistan won't re-admit them. That is just a guess on my part. We don't have control over what other governments do, but we do have control over our own actions and our own moral choices.

    This is not the thread to discuss the Federal government ripping an innocent child from his relatives and extraditing him to Cuba. I hope we can agree that was despicable.
    It was despicable. Agreed. But then, we wouldn't presently be able to complain about Brazil not allowing the repatriation of children illegally taken from the USA.

    The Overseas Contingency Operation should not provide for the coddling of the enemy.
    Fine. Except the individuals whose fate we are discussing have been determined to not be the enemy. You see, your logic gets twisted up when you confuse the status of the people being discussed (or deliberately misstate it). If they were the enemy, we wouldn't be having this discussion at all, and the US would not be having the predicament it now faces.

  9. #9
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    The appropriate viewpoint here is that Mexico won't extradite because of our death penalty. That is from their viewpoint a moral position.
    So, if their morals included providing adulation and ceremony to serial killers then that should be tolerated?

    OUR government has determined that the people we are discussing did nothing wrong and are innocents. You talk like that is either a lie or unimportant. It is neither.
    Even if I accept they are innocent (What are Chinese muslims doing consorting with the enemy on the battlefield?) why should the US taxpayers provide for thei well being? Send them home.

    If you paid attention to the news you would know that the determination about their status was made long ago, before the election, and the US has been looking for a third country to take them for quite some time now. Don't lay this at the feet of the present administration.
    No, I don't care about enemy captured by our brave military. They are lucky to be alive. No need to look for a third country.They are citizens of China. Send them back. Just like the illegals that sneak in from Mexicao. Send them back.

    Because the United States reasonably believes they will be tortured and killed. It has been policy of the United States to offer all manner of people humanitarian parole and protection from religious persecution. If the 17 are truly innocents, why should they be treated differently and sent to face the Chinese "justice system?"
    So now they are asking for political asylum? Or are we simply providing the enemy inroads beacuse we feeeel bad for their ultimate disposition.

    I do not know why this can not be done. Probably because the present government of Afghanistan won't re-admit them. That is just a guess on my part. We don't have control over what other governments do, but we do have control over our own actions and our own moral choices.
    And the moral choice, if they are innocent, is to put the back exactly where they were captured. Do you think we lack the technology to insert them into Afghanistan? What? They will not have the protection of the enemy they had when those poor innocents were captured? Oh no!

    If they were the enemy, we wouldn't be having this discussion at all, and the US would not be having the predicament it now faces.
    Why do you think they were captured? Air raiding villages perhaps? Terrorizing women and children in the dark of night?

  10. #10
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,885

    Repeated logical flaw & location of Uighur region

    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post

    No, I don't care about enemy captured by our brave military. They are lucky to be alive.
    You don't listen at all. Our government, the prior administration actually, determined that the people being discussed were not combatants and are not enemy. Yet, you keep referring to them as "enemy captured." You do this either because you can't seem to get it that this is not their actual status, and never was, or you are being disingenuous to provoke the sort of response you are receiving.

    And btw, I don't care about enemy captured either. But, that is not the category these folks fall into.

    As to your implicit question, what were they doing in Afghanistan, take a look at the map.

    The Uighur region either shares a border with Afghanistan or is separated only by a thin, narrow, land mass. I can't tell exactly from my globe. There may be a narrow section of Tajekistan between, but I can not tell with certainty.

    Historically, peoples wandered through those border regions and still do today. (I know an American who walked into China through the back door). It isn't surprising that ethnic Uighur people are found within Afghanistan, and that fact does not mean they were combatants or enemy, or gave a d about the Taliban and Bin Laden.

    In any case, the army made the determination, no doubt with assistance from Justice and the CIA, that these folks were not enemy. So, why do you continue to insist on something you know is not the truth.

    Perhaps if you knew some geography you would be able to comprehend what occurred.

  11. #11
    Moderator
    Array Rock and Glock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Colorado at 11,650'
    Posts
    12,946
    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    Closing Guantanamo is one of the most naive and dangerous blunders of all the bumbling so far. I can't wait to see his inaction when North Korea tests their TD2.
    Sadly, I consider his Stimulus Bill and Budget in a real close tie for second, but Gitmo is just incomprehensible.


    The tyrant dies and his rule is over, the martyr dies and his rule begins. ― The Journals of Kierkegaard

  12. #12
    Member Array SweetSig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Chattanooga, TN
    Posts
    146
    Quote Originally Posted by retsupt99 View Post
    Send 'em back to the Chinese...justice is justice, not my problem.

    Or should we keep 'em here, give them a house and a car with welfare money...NOT!
    +1
    "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." ~Thomas Jefferson~

    "...Be not ye afraid of them: remember the LORD, which is great and terrible, and fight for your brethren, your sons, and your daughters, your wives, and your houses." ~Nehemiah 4:14~

  13. #13
    Senior Member Array luvmyglock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    641
    On the issue at hand, I agree. I am DONE paying for bailouts for companies, illegal aliens' health care and welfare, etc. It's time to stop being so tolerant of everyone. It's time to stop giving our livelihood away. It's time to stop this insanity.

    On this thread, I thought (and correct me if I am wrong) that defensivecarry.com is a no-politics unless they are 2A related board...
    EVIL PREVAILS WHEN GOOD MEN FAIL TO ACT.

  14. #14
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,885

    I wish, really!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by luvmyglock View Post
    On this thread, I thought (and correct me if I am wrong) that defensivecarry.com is a no-politics unless they are 2A related board...
    I wish, really!!! I'll respond to stuff but I have never started a political thread and have no intention of doing so.

    I wish the mods were a tad more diligent in keeping the partisan stuff off this board.

  15. #15
    Member Array SHOOTER13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    PENNSYLVANIA
    Posts
    260

    Lightbulb My 2 cents...

    like the man said...we have the technology to drop 'em right back where we found them...give 'em a bottle of water, an MRE, and a map...C YA !!

    Shouldn't have been where they were and got caught in the first place.

    Other choice...their country of origin / birth.

    Period
    SHOOTER13
    ================
    DoD: Peace thru Superior Firepower

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Good job Judge -- "Judge denies benefits, release"
    By DaveH in forum Law Enforcement, Military & Homeland Security Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: January 15th, 2011, 11:11 PM
  2. BAD: "Any delivery is the potential for a robbery." Portsmouth, VA
    By paramedic70002 in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: April 29th, 2008, 06:14 PM
  3. "potential bad guys are good guys until they do something wrong"
    By RidemCowboy in forum General Firearm Discussion
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: April 14th, 2007, 06:40 AM
  4. Potential Terror "PROBE" at BARRETT Manufacturing?
    By ExSoldier in forum Law Enforcement, Military & Homeland Security Discussion
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: February 3rd, 2007, 04:15 PM
  5. A True Texas Tale: "Bad Guy" "One", "Old Man" "Zero"
    By Rock and Glock in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: March 17th, 2006, 09:50 AM

Search tags for this page

us releases dangerous detainees country of origin wont take them back

Click on a term to search for related topics.