Hey 800....., you forgot to mention Nancy Pelousy and other democrats who were made aware of plans to use enhanced interrogation, (which is not torture I might add). They did not raise any objection to these techniques. Not to mention the fact that democrats were in lock-step through the whole process of the Afghanistan / Iraq war, until they decided to politicize the war for their own selfish political gain at the expense of the troops and the US as a whole. Never let facts get in the way of scoring cheap political points.

2 or 200 wrongs NEVER make 1 right. Unless it's 1 right winger--perhaps?

But three rights equals one left.

hard, torture is still torture, try the water boarding. Bad for your health.

Sky....., water boarding does not harm you. It is unpleasant for sure but is otherwise harmless. Water boarding is not torture. Ripping out or driving bamboo under finger nails out is torture, electric shock is torture, breaking bones or teeth is torture, beating is torture, arguing with with the left is torture. Comparing water boarding to torture is like comparing a 15 mph breeze to a tornado.

Hummmmmmmmmmmm hardtostarboard Water boarding is not torture? ..LOL ... tell us all that after it is done to you!

Your statement disagrees with the "experts" .. Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding

Waterboarding is a form of torture in which water is poured over the face of an immobilized captive, thus causing the individual to experience the sensation of drowning. Waterboarding can cause extreme pain, dry drowning, damage to lungs, brain damage from oxygen deprivation, other physical injuries including broken bones due to struggling against restraints, lasting psychological damage and death.^[1] Adverse physical consequences can manifest themselves months after the event, while psychological effects can last for years.^[2] The term water board torture appears in press reports as early as 1976.^[3] Although a variety of specific techniques are used in waterboarding, the captive's face is usually covered with cloth or some other thin material, and the subject is immobilized on his/her back. Water is then poured onto the face over the breathing passages, causing an almost immediate gag reflex and creating the sensation that the captive is drowning.^[4][5][6]

In 2007 it was reported that the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) was using waterboarding on extrajudicial prisoners and that the Department of Justice had authorized the procedure,^[7][8] even though the United States government hanged Japanese soldiers for waterboarding US prisoners of war in World War II.^[9] The CIA confirms using waterboarding on three Al-Qaeda suspects, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Abu Zubaydah, and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, in 2002 and 2003.^[10][11] During the presidency of George W. Bush, U.S. government officials at various times said they did not believe waterboarding to be a form of torture.^{[12][13][14][15]} To justify its use of waterboarding, the Bush administration issued classified legal opinions that argued for a narrow definition of torture under U.S. law, including the Bybee memo, which it later withdrew.^[16][17][18]

In January 2009 President Barack Obama banned the use of waterboarding. In April 2009, the U.S. Department of Defense refused to say whether waterboarding is still used for training (e.g. SERE) purposes.^[19][20] John Yoo, former Deputy Assistant Attorney General under President Bush has stated that the United States has subjected 20,000 of its troops to waterboarding as part of SERE training prior to deployment to Iraq and Afghanistan. ^[21] Dr. Jerald Ogrisseg, former head of Psychological Services for the Air Force SERE School has stated in testimony before the U.S. Senate's Committee on Armed Services that there are fundamental differences between SERE training and what occurs in real world settings. ^[22] Dr. Ogrisseg further states that his experience is limited to SERE training, but that he did not believe waterboarding to be productive in either setting. ^[23]

One sided justice.

These Islamic militants can blow up innocents, children and women anywhere they like. They don't follow any laws.

When it comes to them, they want all laws of earth to be applied.

Are there bigger cases of one-way street traffic and justice?

Of 779 men detained at Guantanamo more than 600 have been released - the overwhelming majority without charge.

Of the remaining 168 around half have been cleared for release but remain due to repatriation problems.

48 have been determined 'too dangerous to transfer but not feasible for prosecution'. (Imagine if that same classification was made for an American [civilian or soldier] in a Russian, Chinese or Saudi jail - especially after 11 previous years of uncharged incarceration.)

I acknowledge that there were some serious dangerous hardcore terrorists/ enemy combatants such as Kalid Sheikh Mohammed who deserve to feel the full force of the law but many of the prisoners clearly weren't.

Donald Rumsfeld sent a memo as early as 2003 stating "We need to stop populating Guantanamo Bay (GTMO) with low-level enemy combatants ... GTMO needs to serve as an [redacted] not a prison for Afghanistan."

(Be curious to know what was redacted.)

In 2010, Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, a former aide to Secretary of State Colin Powell, stated in an affidavit that top U.S. officials, including George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld, had known that the majority of the detainees initially sent to Guantánamo were innocent, but that the detainees had been kept there for reasons of political expedience. (from Wikipedia)

In the case of the 9 British detainees each has continued to protest their innocence and has proferred reasons for travelling to Afghanistan as being furthering Islamic studies or visiting family - neither of which are considered remotely suspicious if, for example, an Italian-American Catholic visits Italy.

Lastly, why should we (in my case the British) apply the law properly against suspected terrorists or enemy combatants? Because we are 'civilized' and believe in the rule of law and, ultimately, to prove that 'we' are not 'them'.

If they're guilty we have nothing to fear from doing things properly.

txmom said;

If this guy has been cleared for release then why has he not been returned to the UK or Saudi?

Some of the internees at Guantanamo bay haven't been returned to their countries because their countries refuse to accept them back.

They don't know what kind of psychological damage might have been inflicted while their citizen was being held. They don't know if the person has been brainwashed. For some, they were turned over to the Americans as 'terrorists' by their own government because they were political activists or dissidents in their country and their government simply wanted to get rid of them and get some money in return (there were monetary rewards offered for the capture of those who may have had a hand in 9/11).

So for some of the detainees in Guantanamo Bay, they are simply stuck. We refuse to allow them into our country, but their countries won't accept them back, so there is nothing that can be done with them except keep them in indefinite detention, even if they are cleared of all charges and are no longer under suspicion by the government of terrorist attacks/actions.

For some of the people, they may have not been terrorists or even had any opinion of the West before they were captured, renditioned, tortured, kept in prison. Is it at all surprising that they don't like the US or its allies after all that ?

Ah, the George Bush Presidency, it just keeps giving gifts that will continue to bless us for generations to come.

Amanda not really...The reason some have not been returned is that they are guilty of crimes in their home country and they may be facing the death penalty. So we ask other countries to take them. Other countries really do not wish to take the worst case individual.

As far as I am aware no Guantanamo detainee has refused to be released. A number have had problems being repatriated because they are not wanted back (specifically Chinese Uyghur prisoners who want independence for their territory mainly because of the Chinese persecution of them for both their ethnicity and their religion).

More than 600 Guantanamo detainees have been released, mainly, without charge. Rumsfeld himself, in 2003, described them as low-level combatants and, in 2010, Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson (aide to Colin Powell during his time in office) stated in an affidavit that top US officials including George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld, had known that the majority of the detainees initially sent to Guantánamo were innocent, but that the detainees had been kept there for reasons of political expedience.

The last British detainee, Shaker Aamer, wouldn't be worried about the death penalty in the UK as we have long-since dispensed with it.

And neither does torture. Proven fact. All you need do is ask yourself what YOU would do if tortured. You'd say ANYTHING you could possibly think of just to make it STOP. You would. Any human would. Just a fact.

If you don't believe me, be tortured. Then get back to me.

Well, you see, if they close it, then one of President Obama's goals would be fulfilled, and the Republicans can't allow that. They think we are better off spending millions of dollars each year, just to maintain the priority of getting "that man" out of the Whitehouse.

Agreed, still it must costs millions to keep that place open. There is no more information being gathered because most of those guys brains turned to mush long ago, Obama should have fulfilled that pledge and closed that place down and really gave them something to talk about. We have plenty of Prisons on US soil that these people could be sent to.

Pander to the lying weasel Obama much Harle & dirp? He could have closed Gitmo years ago, like he promised, but no he didn't, and I doubt he will. I don't know that even now the republicans could stop him from closing it tomorrow if he chose to. But I see you learned well from the master, blame it all on someone else.

Right on the money skyparrot, let the Brits care for him. I could not imagine being held INDEFINITELY after being cleared of a crime, Obama should have closed this place years ago and sent these people back to their countries of origin, if they decide to become terrorist again that's on them. We free prisoners over here everyday, imagine holding people beyond their sentence because of fear of them committing new crimes?