2

This question is related to Why require a stable home country for release from Guantanamo Bay? .

The United States has released some Guantanamo detainees to countries from which they originated. In Australia, this happened to David Hicks. (He spent some some time in jail in Australia, but is now living free)

I have a recollection that some other detainees were released into countries that weren't associated with their place of birth, but that those countries needed some "inducements", and tended to be countries that were very dependent upon the USA.

Have any countries' governments friendly to the USA indicated a willingness to accept Guantanamo detainees?

Criteria:

  1. On friendly enough terms with the USA that they have no active desire for these detainees to make violent attacks against the US or its allies.
  2. Willing to do so without any inducements from the US.
  3. Not wanting the detainees for the purposes of extracting information from them, or at least willing to not abuse their human rights while doing so.
  • This seems prone to subjectivity in #1, IMHO. Is Turkey "friendly" with USA? Depends on who you ask. Is Saudi Arabia? There are plenty of factions in EU that would be happy for the detainees to make violent attacks against the US, no matter what official EU stance is. – user4012 Oct 22 '14 at 11:25
  • 2
    @DVK Turkey's a concern. Saudi Arabia is a really really big concern. But the EU? I don't quite see French mimes attacking the pentagon with baguette explosives. And EU "factions"? EU parliamentary parties could put a horse to sleep. The only "factions" with a track-record of espousing violence are far-right groups focusing on domestic concerns rather than US foreign policy. Lunatic imams aren't a EU faction per se, and protected by much the same liberties as in America. – LateralFractal Oct 22 '14 at 11:47
  • @lateral there is a big gap between being a violent faction and being not unhappy with someone else attacking usa. – user4012 Oct 22 '14 at 13:26
1

Have any countries' governments friendly to the USA indicated a willingness to accept Guantanamo detainees?

I think so, but with a little inducement (though not really a favour to the country in particular): only if Guantanamo Bay gets closed down.

The country I'm talking about is the Netherlands. They have shown a willingness (though no hard promises) but conditioned on the closing of Guantanamo Bay. The Volkskrant reported (in Dutch, my translation can be found below):

De Amerikanen moeten 'eerst hun eigen huiswerk' doen voor een nieuw verzoek tot het opnemen van Guantánamo-gevangenen in overweging zal worden genomen. Zo luidt het dinsdag in kringen rond het kabinet. Eerst moeten Obama en het Congres het dus eens worden over een sluiting van Guantanamo. En zelfs dan zullen de Nederlandse inlichtingendiensten eerst moeten vaststellen of de vrijgelaten gedetineerden geen gevaar voor de veiligheid vormen, zo wordt gezegd.

My translation:

The Americans need to do 'their own homework first' before a new request for taking in prisoners from Guantanamo Bay will be considered. That seems to be the story among those close to the cabinet. So, first Obama en the Congress need to agree on closing down Guantanamo. And even then will Dutch intelligence agencies need to conclude that the detainees don't pose a danger to safety, so it's said.

|improve this answer|||||
1

US transfers two Syrian Guantanamo detainees to Portugal, according to DW (dated 29-12-2009):

Two Syrian detainees held at the US detention center at Guantanamo Bay have been handed over to Portuguese authorities.

The US Department of Justice said in a statement that the transfer had been coordinated between the two governments to ensure security, and that there would be continuing communication between the two.

I'm not aware of any "inducements".

|improve this answer|||||

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for?Browse other questions tagged .