• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ex-Bush admin official: Many at Gitmo are innocent

They didn't have to be dislike by the neighbors it was enough that neighbors cared more about getting a big bounty reward then their neighbor. Money goes a long way ecpecially in a poor country like Afghanistan. That is why it is really sad that the USA goverment didn't do more to check out if the person arrested was a terrorist or just an easy profit for a farmer.

If this is the way it was done there'd be slews of these people at Gitmo. Can this be proven? Has what this guy is saying been proven?

I'm skeptical that we'd want to support these people for this many years for nothing, and if it's true why isn't Obama moving them somewhere else, he's had time. This would be fantastic news for Obama if he could prove that these guys have been illegally gathered and imprisoned, but if it's just a couple guys it may not be big enough for him to want to bother with it, either.

I think some of them may be accessories to the fact. They could be accessories before or after the fact. They may have known of the intent for criminal activity and did nothing, or known after criminal activity had occurred and failed to report that activity. This sort of thing can be legal grounds to imprison someone.
 
I wonder if those who seem flippant would feel the same had one of those innocent detainees were a family member.

Don't think anybody is being flippant, but it seems off that Obama isn't rushing in to rescue all these poor souls if it's true. He could do it, he's the Prez now.
 
If this is the way it was done there'd be slews of these people at Gitmo. Can this be proven? Has what this guy is saying been proven?

I'm skeptical that we'd want to support these people for this many years for nothing, and if it's true why isn't Obama moving them somewhere else, he's had time. This would be fantastic news for Obama if he could prove that these guys have been illegally gathered and imprisoned, but if it's just a couple guys it may not be big enough for him to want to bother with it, either.

I think some of them may be accessories to the fact. They could be accessories before or after the fact. They may have known of the intent for criminal activity and did nothing, or known after criminal activity had occurred and failed to report that activity. This sort of thing can be legal grounds to imprison someone.

Exactly. This thread belongs in the Conspiracy Theory section.
 
What so many people already know? What people?
Don't be obtuse.

Major problem? What problem?
See above.

What we have is the typical rhetoric from the left wing nut attack machine that has been debunked every step of the way in regard to Gitmo.
That is ridiculous. In no way has it been debunked "every step of the way." What we have here is an apologist for failed strategies making broad and ambiguous statements in defense of the indefensible.

Of course you don't care, you've formulated a biased left wing opinion without any facts, so naturally you're going to cling to any anti Bush conspiracy theory.
Typical GottaHurt non-reality. I've provided prima facia evidence to support the case. Unless you subscribe to the notion that our military and intelligence folks are dolts who are incapable of examining evidence and coming to reasonable conclusions.
You have priors.
And you're full of ****.
You claim there's "evidence aplenty", yet provide none. :doh
See above.

Nothing like being an emo kid with this POS statement.
Hey, at least the quality of your trolling is consistent with your lack of intellect.
Let the military tribunals judge whether or not they're innocent. The tribunals are privy to the classified information to make a such decision.
And that's being done, witness so many detainees being released having been found to be non-combatants. You really don't get it.
 
I wonder if those who seem flippant would feel the same had one of those innocent detainees were a family member.

And I bet if your family had been killed by someone who was associated with one of these people, you'd feel quite differently.

Personalizing these decisions is always a bad idea. Everyone would do something differently if it affected them personally, but that doesn't mean that it's a good way to evaluate decisions.
 
Ex-Bush admin official: Many at Gitmo are innocent





And so Colin Powell and his people continue to be a thorn on the side of the Bush administration. I wonder if as time goes by more and more stories like this will surface.

**** Somebody please move this to Breaking News. Thanks. Didn't see where I was posting.

Most of Gitmo was innocent...yeah right; and gravity is keeping me pinned to the surface of the earth!
 
Lerxst said:
Unless you subscribe to the notion that our military and intelligence folks are dolts who are incapable of examining evidence and coming to reasonable conclusions.

I would subscribe that some former military would fall into this category.

You're ex Army, right?

Lerxst said:
And that's being done, witness so many detainees being released having been found to be non-combatants. You really don't get it.

Actually I do get it. Precisely why I said:

Let the military tribunals judge whether or not they're innocent. The tribunals are privy to the classified information to make a such decision.

I let the people in the know make the decisions, the real experts.

They've made the tough decisions on who to keep, and who to release.

Just because you think that their incarceration is beyond reasonable doesn't mean SQUAT.

The left wing has thrown their best litigaters at Gitmo and have been Epic Fail.

Lerxst said:
I've provided prima facia evidence to support the case

Then please step forward with your prima facia evidence and argue it before a court of law.

I'm sure the American Bar Association - Defending Liberty, Pursuing Justice will be waiting with baited breath as Lerxst the LEO® comes forth with such a compelling case.

Lerxst said:
And you're full of ****.

Wow, you're memory is short. You got laughed out of the "phantom memo" thread.

Yep, clinging to yet another conspiracy. That memo investigation really panned out well. :lamo

http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaking-news/34460-top-cia-official-confesses.html#post1057691742
 
Balderdash! :mrgreen:

Again, in all of your following examples you're still conflating two completely different things. You're saying "They were captured in XXX and cleared X years later, meaning they were innocent all along. That's beyond reasonable." You can't apply present knowledge ex post facto on a past situation. That's not how it works, nor is it what this thread is about.

This guy is claiming that the US captured people, concluded that they were innocent, and then knowingly kept them in Guantanamo anyways, for no apparent reason. There is no evidence that that happened in any of the cases you mentioned, (beyond the second one, to some degree).

Who were captured in 2001 and cleared four years later (meaning they were innocent all along). That's beyond reasonable. The fact that we can't send innocent men back to their nation is no reason to keep them in custody. You relocate them somewhere outside of Gitmo and work to place them somewhere they can live in poeace to make up for the fact that you took their freedom for four years.

No country on the planet will take them. Albania took 5 of them, but the rest don't have anywhere to go. The fact that they're not classified as enemy combatants doesn't make them the kind of people you'd want as your neighbor. They were all involved in training at Islamic terrorist camps, but they aren't considered enemy combatants because they didn't engage in active hostilities against the US.

Who was captured in April of 2002, information was available within days that a mistake had been made in his capture, yet he was detained for over a year. That's beyond reasonable.

A local politician claims that he told an American official that the guy was innocent shortly afterwards. Assuming that's true, and that he was someone that the US should have believed, then yea, I'd say that's an overly long time, albeit not totally unreasonable. This is the only one that could possibly qualify as anything like what this guy is talking about, but he's obviously not referring to him so the point is moot.

I'm sorry but you are incorrect. He was released because the British government requested his release, just like they did scores of other British nationals being held in Gitmo. The Spanish indictments were dropped. That speaks volumes about just how big of a threat these men were. The fact that they were in U.S. custody from 2002 to 2007 and they were never found to be actual enemy combatants or threats to America is appalling. Five years and no case. You're imprisoned for a half-decade on allegations that you are a terrorist/enemy combatant, then release without charges, sent home, arrested again, and then all charges are dropped. You don't have to say "they're innocent"...if they were guilty they'd still be in custody or at least have gone through and actual trial. That's beyond reasonable.

Again, you're conflating "not enemy combatant" with "innocent" (and "innocent" in the criminal sense with actual innocence). The fact that these people were determined not to be enemy combatants does not in any way indicate that the US government didn't believe they were involved in terrorist activities. There are simply very strict regulations for who can and cannot be classified an enemy combatant. In these cases they were released for the express purpose of being prosecuted in their home countries. The fact that they were not convicted does not mean they're "innocent." OJ was "innocent" in the criminal sense, but he was a guilty mother****er.

What is prompt about a four year imprisonment of an innocent man in Gitmo? He was captured in 2002 and cleared in 2005 (meaning he was innocent all along), released in 2006. That's beyond reasonable.

Wrong again. He was an innocent man who taken into custody in 2003, was detained for three years, and then released because there was no case against him. That's beyond reasonable.

Again, you keep assuming knowledge ex post facto. It just really doesn't work that way.

Say you're investigating the theft of a watch and come across a person who appears to be guilty as sin. The witness ID's him, his alibi doesn't check out, he's been arrested for the same thing twice previously, and he happens to have the exact same watch in his dresser drawer. You put all this together, arrest the guy, and give it to the DA. The DA presses charges, it goes to trial, and it turns out that the jury believes the guy's story that happens to explain all those coincidences.

Now, were you "beyond reasonable" in arresting and holding that guy, simply because he turned out to be innocent in the end? Or were you acting completely reasonably to the best of your knowledge, which turned out to be mistaken?

There was information early on in many of these cases that the men were innocent, we just didn't move to verify it for one reason or another.

There was also information early on in that the men were terrorists, hence their removal to Guantanamo. I'm not in the best position to second guess the investigatory and interrogatory capabilities of the US military, so I'm operating under the assumption that they acted in good faith, absent evidence to the contrary.

Instead they languished in custody, even after cleared. Once those men were found to be non-combatants/non-terrorists we knew they were innocent and they should have been immediately released from the confinement of that camp. Even if we had to put them up in apartments on the island until we could properly relocate them.

Again, "non-enemy combatant" =/= "innocent"

It's as if you have a special cell block that's only for mass murderers. If a guy being held there on charges of mass murder is only convicted of one of the murders, you may determine that he doesn't belong on that particular block anymore, but you don't release him.

I see merit in your assertion that our folks may not have known, but I simply do not believe we are that poor in our ability to gather evidence and make determinations in an expedient manner. We employ some damn good people in our military and intel services.

So because you think we have good people in the military, you'd rather think that they knowingly decided to interrogate and imprison innocent people than that they simply took longer than you feel comfortable with in determining how to deal with particular individuals?
 
I would subscribe that some former military would fall into this category.

You're ex Army, right?
Can't help yourself can you? Don't answer that, it's rhetorical.

I let the people in the know make the decisions, the real experts.

They've made the tough decisions on who to keep, and who to release
.
Detaining people for years only to release them after them being cleared of all wrong doing or given non-combatant status. Man that's really efficient, good work. Keep apologizing.

Just because you think that their incarceration is beyond reasonable doesn't mean SQUAT.
No, it means my opinion is shared by many of my fellow countrymen who include elected leaders, government staffers, human rights groups, judges, and lawyers.

The left wing has thrown their best litigaters at Gitmo and have been Epic Fail.
Yes, because you say so.
Then please step forward with your prima facia evidence and argue it before a court of law.
Great counter argument.
I'm sure the American Bar Association - Defending Liberty, Pursuing Justice will be waiting with baited breath as Lerxst the LEO® comes forth with such a compelling case.
It's already been presented, witness as many detainees are quietly released without charges. This is part of the problem, our government stubbornly clung to bad practices knowing they were bad. The rest of the world sees this, but I understand why you don't.
Wow, you're memory is short. You got laughed out of the "phantom memo" thread.

Yep, clinging to yet another conspiracy. That memo investigation really panned out well. :lamo

http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaking-news/34460-top-cia-official-confesses.html#post1057691742
That's interesting, in revisiting that thread it's quite clear I got laughed out of nothing. This is you once again taking a debate and turning it into your personal obsession with me. In fact you displayed your typical intellectual anemia in that discussion as well. You know how people from both sides of this forum regard you, think about that when you act the way you do.
 
I know you are focusing on specifically what this man said and keying on his exact words, and the problem is that I am elevating this discussion to a broader scope. I have a real issue with Gitmo and how it's been ran. We'll simply agree to disagree. I see merit in your argument, but I also see merit in mine. I believe that what I have presented indicates these men were deliberately held beyond a reasonable time period, you do not. I'll stop in the interest of saving time for both of us.

So because you think we have good people in the military, you'd rather think that they knowingly decided to interrogate and imprison innocent people than that they simply took longer than you feel comfortable with in determining how to deal with particular individuals?
No, I don't think this way. I think some of these men were detained for sound reasons, some were detained for not so sound reasons...their investigations took far too long. Some were detained well beyond the time they were cleared. We aren't talking a weekend in the county jail, we are talking about men who were innocent being locked up in a prison camp and separated from their families for years. Their lives and those of their families are irrevocably altered because of this. Just because we are at war does not mean the lives of these men are any less important than ours. They were not the enemy but we treated them as they were. I'm sorry, there is no justification for this. There is no reason it should have taken two to five years to investigate allegations of activity and make a determination. None at all. You can simply say this is a matter of me not being comfortable with the time frame, but it is well beyond that. Somebody made the decision to sit on these guys, and somebody's boss approved it.
 
Can't help yourself can you? Don't answer that, it's rhetorical.

You ask a question, you get an answer. Someday, maybe you'll learn.

Detaining people for years only to release them after them being cleared of all wrong doing or given non-combatant status. Man that's really efficient, good work. Keep apologizing.

I'm not apologizing, just stating facts. You getting emo over the whole ordeal because it's not going your way, is your problem.

No, it means my opinion is shared by many of my fellow countrymen who include elected leaders, government staffers, human rights groups, judges, and lawyers.

Your opinion is irrelevant.

Yes, because you say so.

No, because they've tried every angle, and have yet to succeed in a court of law.

That's why Gitmo is still open and your "innocent non combatants" are still being detained.

Great counter argument.

Indeed it is. You're the one touting you have prima facia eveidence.

I called you on it, and there you are standing with your beef in your hand.

Yep, you got nothing.

It's already been presented, witness as many detainees are quietly released without charges. This is part of the problem, our government stubbornly clung to bad practices knowing they were bad. The rest of the world sees this, but I understand why you don't.

No, this is the way you and a handful of other conspiracy theorists see it.

That's interesting, in revisiting that thread it's quite clear I got laughed out of nothing. This is you once again taking a debate and turning it into your personal obsession with me. In fact you displayed your typical intellectual anemia in that discussion as well. You know how people from both sides of this forum regard you, think about that when you act the way you do.

Oh no, not The Lerxst Whimper®.

You always resort to this tactic when you get your ass handed to you.

You've proved nothing in this thread. You've given a whiney ass opinion on what you perceive to be an injustice towards a few detainees at Gitmo.

Just like the "phantom memo" in the other thread, you've produced SQUAT in regard to the decision making process at Gitmo.
 
You ask a question, you get an answer. Someday, maybe you'll learn.



I'm not apologizing, just stating facts. You getting emo over the whole ordeal because it's not going your way, is your problem.



Your opinion is irrelevant.



No, because they've tried every angle, and have yet to succeed in a court of law.

That's why Gitmo is still open and your "innocent non combatants" are still being detained.



Indeed it is. You're the one touting you have prima facia eveidence.

I called you on it, and there you are standing with your beef in your hand.

Yep, you got nothing.



No, this is the way you and a handful of other conspiracy theorists see it.



Oh no, not The Lerxst Whimper®.

You always resort to this tactic when you get your ass handed to you.

You've proved nothing in this thread. You've given a whiney ass opinion on what you perceive to be an injustice towards a few detainees at Gitmo.

Just like the "phantom memo" in the other thread, you've produced SQUAT in regard to the decision making process at Gitmo.

258trollspray.jpg
 
Yep, you can't argue your bull**** position, so you cry troll!?!

GottaLoveIt :lamo
 
Yes it is extremely important to keep a persons innocence top secret:roll:

If you are keeping innocents behind bars knowingly you better keep it top secret.
 
Back
Top Bottom