Introduction
Bush government efforts to repatriate many of the terrorism suspects who are being held at Guantánamo Bay in Cuba, have been thwarted in part due to the concern that these detainees may possibly not be treated humanitarianly by their own administrations. However the government officials said that in due course they hope to relocate or discharge the approximately four hundred and ninety suspects who are being detained in Guantanamo. Military representatives said that the Pentagon was prepared to repatriate at least one hundred and fifty detainees once good preparations are made in their home countries. These arrangements have however been more intricate to agents than the officials [ ]. Due to these difficulties, Pentagon does not have any plans to repatriate ant detainees in the near future. The spokes person of defense department, Jeff Gordon said that conference with the foreign administrations have turned out to be very intricate, lengthy and a complicated process. Some organizations however supports that the government ought to continue with repatriating these detainees [ ].
Cons
Some of these Guantanamo detainees are unable to return home [ ]. Some of these detainees have fear of returning back to their homes because of being abused. Others have some ties in the particular countries of abduction. Some detainees who are being released are continuing with their terrorism and causing major problems elsewhere. Some detainees are being tortured in their homelands after their return; there is so much abuse.

Pros
Guantanamo detainees should be repatriated because they have rights to live freely just like other human beings. These detainees are also being tortured and so they should be freed to their own countries for legal measures. Most of these detainees were wrongly detained and they should be repatriated [ ]. Hundreds of these detainees have been locked up with no trial just because they were associated with friends or relatives who are or were suspected cohorts of terrorist groups; this is unjust and human rights should be followed. The government should continue repatriating these detainees to be put on trial in their own countries. Human civil rights concerns have also been a fastening point in the probable shift of Guantánamo detainees to their own countries.
Discussion
Detainees who need humanitarian fortification come from different countries that have documented accounts of abuse of political captives, minorities and some other detainees. Captives who fright from this return are from countries like China, Russia, Tunisia and Algeria. In some of these nations risks of repatriation have been individualized such-that in some countries detainees can return unharmed while in others they can not [ ]. Many convectional receiving nations of asylees, as well as USA, often offer protection and security to many people from these nations because of dangers that they may face during their return.
At times when the government is repatriating detainees they should bear in mind that these captives held in Guantanamo left their homelands long-before they were seized by the US government because they were in danger of persecution. In some instances, danger of return is augmented because of the detainee confinement in Guantanamo or his appliance for refuge (Brown, 2009). A certain man’s father, well-known lawyer was tormented and murdered by government armed forces and the family endured continuous persecution until they run off from their homeland and they were given place of safety in EU nation.
The man was seized and shifted to Guantanamo after 15 years in his refuge country. When he was in Guantanamo, he was endangered by security officers from his homeland. There was another Libyan, who had escaped from his homeland for ten years because of his seizure; he lived with the wife and the daughter before his abduction and his transfer to Guantanamo [ ]. Despite validated and acknowledged fears of torment if by force repatriated to his homeland, the government of USA had twice attempted to take this man to his country Libya.
These two men and so many others at peril, there is a probability that if they are returned to their homelands, they would be in danger of greater harassment and torture. The USA government has practically sent approximately 40 men who were detained at Guantanamo to nations which have documented records of persecution and abuse of human rights. Among these counties are Libya and Tunisia. Although, not all of these detainees had individualized frights of repatriation, the US set up the obligatory process for determining whether any detainee has reason for fright return.
There is escalating pressure on the US to put into practice a process for determining where persons fright repatriation and stop transferring detainees to torture in infringement of intercontinental law. For instance, the government of USA transferred two abducted men to Libya. They have allegedly been detailed with no trial since their come back regardless the promises made by the administration of Libya to free them. Nearly nobody outside the government of Libya has been able to talk to them since their come back and so their living conditions and maltreatment remains indefinite [ ].
The USA government repatriated seven captives to Russia despite these frights experienced by detainees during their return, however their torture during return has been acknowledged. In June in the year 2007, the government of US repatriated two men from Tunisia even if one had beforehand been condemned in absentia. Ever since their return, they have been experiencing long-drawn-out solitary incarceration, physical maltreatment, intimidation and threats against their relatives and themselves. Few Guantanamo detainees that have fear of refoulement have a past bind (tie) to a European nation.
For example, some have made application to be offered asylees or expatriate status by a European nation, stayed in the country for some time or have also created family ties (Khan, 2009). The US has permitted these men to continue being indefinitely held for many years even though it has accredited their eligibility for discharge, and also the US has been ready and prepared to repatriate detainees to countries regardless of the provable and undeniable fears of harassment or maltreatment on their return [ ]. However, the US has always been reluctant to accepting Guantanamo detainees who have fright of refoulement in the US.
At the moment, USA is litigating this matter in result to a challenge of seventeen Chinese men who were recognized by US long-ago were not appropriately imprisoned and ought to be freed [ ]. In very many different ways, the USA government is a hostage of its own untenable potent rhetoric due to the formation of Guantanamo and the many years of its rationalization by eminent officials, US has fervently stood firm of providing entry of captives within its borders. Nevertheless, the USA administration now is aware of the great importance for humanitarian security of detainees who are supposed to be released, but those who can’t be repatriated.
Due to the government operations, detainees who can’t return home safely are at the moment trapped in Guantanamo even if there are no reasons for their continuous imprisonment or they are by force repatriated regardless of the danger of torture or harassment upon returning. Many of them are in solitary incarceration twenty three hours in a day without definite ending to their confinement [ ].All these men in danger if by force are returned, are being confined for years with no indict or trial and, lacking the intercession of global actors, go through an even unwelcoming future.
Guantanamo predicament needs assiduous and shared or joint efforts of the global community. As proven by the government of USA’s own accounts, most of these detainees were faultily detained and they do not present any threat to the US or any other nation. They are not supposed to face any unattainable choice of sustained blurred detention or any kind of forcible repatriation to torment and persecution [ ][ ].
Conclusion
Guantanamo detainees who are not supposed to be detained should be taken home safely. The US government should make sure that they are well protected with their families after their return. They should continue repatriating the Guantanamo detainees but should make sure that they are not tortured and maltreated on their return. Countries may also consider taking in detainees from the bay as expatriates or asylees or with some kind of impermanent entrance and an appliance for expatriate status to be made possible afterward.
Other detainees may eligible for family reunification or any other lawful status in the nation, depending on binds of family or previous residence. Still others may possibly be offered some other kinds of lawful protection. Where they are connections, for instance previous residence or family bonds, it could be reasonable for earlier detainees to be shifted to nations where such connections exist.
Other considerations that can be used to determine the nation to move can include collective language or background or the occurrence of groups of the individual’s ethnic group that can offer support to the earlier detainee. It can be rational for different countries to take steps they normally utilize in processing an expatriate claimant. Nations can play a critical role in solving this predicament at Guantanamo. The most pressing need is for these states to offer to take in detainees who can’t be repatriated and take up ambassadorial pressure to the US to support the discharge of the detainees and the shutting down of the detention center at Guantanamo.

[ ] Jennifer K. Elsea. (2010). Enemy Combatant Detainees: żHabeas Corpusż Challenges in Federal Court. Chicago Jennifer K. Elsea. DIANE Publishing
Ralph D. McPhee. (2006). The treatment of prisoners: legal, moral or criminal. Chicago. Nova Publishers
[ ] Mahvish Rukhsana Khan. (2009) My Guantanamo Diary: The Detainees and the Stories They Told Me. Chicago. Public Affairs
[ ] Andy Worthington. (2007). The Guantánamo files: the stories of the 774 detainees in America’s illegal prison. New York. Pluto Press
[ ]Sacha Oudyn. (2004). The Guantanamo detainees: a discussion of the legal rights of the individuals detained at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. New York. Victoria University of Wellington
[ ] Gregg Barak. (2007). Battleground: A-L. New York. ABC-CLI
[ ] Andrea Bianchi, Yasmin Naqvi. (2004). Enforcing international law norms against terrorism. New York. Hart Publishing
[ ]Michael John Garcia. (2010). Closing the Guantanamo Detention Center: Legal Issues. Chicago. DIANE Publishing
[ ]Mark P. Denbeaux, Jonathan Hafetz, Grace A. Brown. (2009). The Guantánamo lawyers: inside a prison outside the law. New York. NYU Press

[ ]Anna C. Henning. (2010). Guantanamo Detention Center: Legislative Activity in the 11th Congress. Chicago. DIANE Publishing, 2010
[ ]Mark P. Denbeaux, Jonathan Hafetz, Grace A. Brown. (2009). The Guantánamo lawyers: inside a prison outside the law. New York. NYU Press

[ ]Mark P. Denbeaux, Jonathan Hafetz, Grace A. Brown. (2009). The Guantánamo lawyers: inside a prison outside the law. New York. NYU Press