Guantánamo detainee resurfaces in terrorist group

Laila · Jan 23, 2009

zimmer said:
Sorry, I failed to understand your point. A and B.

How about re read my post ... SLOWLY

It might help in your understanding

Indy · Jan 23, 2009

Pentagon: 61 ex-Guantanamo inmates return to terrorism

Rights advocates contend that many Guantanamo detainees have never taken up arms against the United States and say the Defense Department in the past has described former detainees as rejoining "the fight" because they spoke out against the U.S. government.

Goobieman · Jan 23, 2009

Laila said:
I'd bet alot he wasn't a terrorist before he entered the prison ...

Do you have anything other than your prejudices to support this bet?

JMak · Jan 23, 2009

PeteEU said:
Quit playing stupid yourself. Just because fuhrer Bush and his minions claim that the people at Gitmo were or are terrorists does not mean they are. In the western world we still try to live after the rule of law, including the principle that you are innocent until proven guilty.

Why do you insist on totally diluting the evil of Hitler so you can smear Bush? You know, Hitler is supposed to represent the furthest extremes of evil, like Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and others. But you think Bush is properly included in that distinguished class that saw tens and tens and tens of millions of people imprisoned and murdered?

What kind of jerk-off, are you? You one of the Holacaust deniers?

Sorry, but combatants picked up on the battlfield are not entitled to the innocent until proven guilty concept. They are not ordinary citizens.

Also it seems to me, that you are willing to give a child rapist, a mass murder and other criminals far more legal rights and access to the legal system, than you are a bunch of men that you have only the word of a fascist Bush administration that they are "dangerous"..

So not only are you foolish enough classify Bush as Hitler, but to totally bastardize the word, "fascist," too?

Secondly, yes, I am ready to grant ordinary American citizens the consitutional rights and protections that they are entitled to. If there are greater than those rights and protections available to non-citizens picked up on a battlefield engaged in killing American soldiers, so be it. I'm not sure why you want to treat such combatants as ordinary citizens, though, when, by their own free actions, have completely disregarded the laws and customs of war to kill civilians, intentioanlly place civilian's in harms way, or kill Amrican soldiers.

Fact is that out of the 500+ men and boys held at gitmo (yes there have been children held there and still are), a majority, yes a majority have been released, without charge but also labelled as innocent of any "terrorist activities". It is funny how this, to a right winger, who supposedly is the staunch defender of the rule of law and the ideals of the USA, suddenly totally ignores these facts.

I'm not ignoring them. I do acknowledge, though, that due process was granted to these individuals to challenge their detainment and, ultimately, be released without prejudice if they successfully challenged that status.

Yes there are bad men at Gitmo, but if the US has proof that they are bad.. put them on trial.

On trial where? They were granted combatant status review tribunals to challenge their combatant status. These were the CSRT's set up by the Detainee Treatment Act in 05.

Maybe we're talking about different groups of people here, I don't know.

If you believe in the principles of the USA, then you should never ever accept that your government hold people of any nationality, in prison without charge, without any legal access or any access at all for long periods of time, and let alone let them be tortured by your own government.

First of all you're arguing then that the US should not have ever become a signatory to Geneva as Geneva permits nations to detain combatants, without trial, for the duration of hostilities.

Second, the problem with your torture statement is that we're all arguing different concepts of torture. Some have declared waterboarding, varying the room temperature, blasting loud music, using female interrogators, using dogs as torture while others, like me, say that such treatment neither satisfies the definitions in US law nor is equivalent to unquestioned torture like murder, rape, amputation, mutilation.

You should be up in arms defending the very principles that your troops, your father, grandfather and others died defending in WW2 and other wars.. and yet you are not only silent, but actually supportive of such fascist acts by your own government.

Oh, please, enough emotional pleas.

zYou've not established what these principles, hence, you're appealing to undeclared principles and demanding that I adhere to them. Sorry, that dog don't hunt.

As for this guy. This happens in a world where we believe in the principle of the rule of law. Murders do get off free because we can not prove they did it. It is the price we have to pay for not having a dictatorship that locks up undesirables in gulags for most of their lives. It is the price of freedom and the difference between us and them..

I see your point. No justice system is perfect. But terrorists and enemy combatants are not ordinary civilians being prosecuted in ordinary civilian courts. No international agreement requires that combatants be treated as ordinary civilians in civilian courts. Military commissions have been the traditional venue for combatants to challenge their detention.

So what are you arguing for? That combatants and terrorists be prosecuted in civilian courts or that they be treated as combatants as international law expects?

Yes the US is at war with this mythical no discript thing called terror.. but where is the limit of what terror is and what you can do to not only prevent terror but punish those that are suspected of this terror.

You can fool yourself into thinking that we are at war with a extremist ideology if you want. I know Bush did, at least as he talked to the American people about it. On the other hand, we are prosecuting an aggressive war against those groups who commit acts of terrorism against the US and the two primary battlefields are Iraq and Afghanistan where they are flocking to fight us.

Do you give up the very principles that so cherish because of fear?

What principles? I'm not going to concede a point to unknown principles that fail to id.

This is what the US has done.. today a woman slapping her own children on an air plane can be charged and convicted of terror... is that right?

No.

Is that what the US has come too?

No.

A person robbing a bank.. is he now a terrorist and can be held under terror laws?

No.

A person smuggling drugs.. is she a terrorist and be held under terror laws? Where do you stop?

No.

Hence, since there is no start, there is no stop.

Now we know that you are a bad faith participant in this debate. Please do not make up the facts you need to present your perverted perception of what the US has become.

JMak · Jan 23, 2009

Arch Enemy said:
No. I am merely arguing against political jargon that no longer has any sort of ethical meaning. Our foreign policy uses the term "terrorism" when they really mean "someone who has a different opinion than we do". The term dilutes the fact that our foreign policy is just one view of the world, and it turns them into some sort of machine that kills people because it wants to kill people.

Orwell argued in "Politics and the English language" that one of the biggest problems facing modernity is the usage of words to either intensify or chill the problem for political agenda. Al Quedia calls us Infidels and we call them Terrorists.

What warped world do you live in?

We call people terrorists because they think differently than we do?

And we don't call them terrorists because they use airliners to bomb skyscrapers, use cars to bomb embassies, use men and women to conduct suicide bombings, etc., etc., etc.?

Where do you get off reinventing history here?

I always like the cliched Orwell stuff, it's so much easier for you people to speak in cliches rather than address actual issues and arguments.

JMak · Jan 23, 2009

Indy said:
Pentagon: 61 ex-Guantanamo inmates return to terrorism

Those same "rights activists" that falsely claim Israeli troops killing beachgoers? Those same "rights activists" that sit silently as women are murdered because they were raped? Those "rights activists" that uncritically work with the UN human rights commission that seats that world's worst offenders of human rights as commission chairs? Those same "rights activists" that sit silently while the media fawns over doctored images of civilian casualties?

Forgive me if I don't appear to be overwhelmed with the authority of "rights activists." :roll:

JMak · Jan 23, 2009

Kandahar said:
Never said there weren't. But there have also been innocent people there, which is exactly why we need a judge to review each case and, you know, actually JUDGE them.

WTF do you think the military commissions were for? The Combatant Status Review Tribunals?

What world are you living in?

So do you believe that it's OK for the President of the United States to order the indefinite incarceration of anyone, anywhere in the world, with no oversight, simply because he deems them to be a terrorist? If not, what do you suggest?

Of course not notwithstanding your hysterical question.

Geneva says that warring nations may detain combatants until the cessation of hostilities and provides for trials after that point.

What it seems you're demanding is that the US act counter to agreements we have signed on to and treat combatants as ordinary civilians despite the history and laws of war never having treated combatants this way and totally ignoring the practical consequences of doing so.

American · Jan 23, 2009

JMak said:
WTF do you think the military commissions were for? The Combatant Status Review Tribunals?

What world are you living in?

Of course not notwithstanding your hysterical question.

Geneva says that warring nations may detain combatants until the cessation of hostilities and provides for trials after that point.

What it seems you're demanding is that the US act counter to agreements we have signed on to and treat combatants as ordinary civilians despite the history and laws of war never having treated combatants this way and totally ignoring the practical consequences of doing so.

See how the libs bitch if we follow the Geneva Convention, but then cry like babies when Texas doesn't follow that idiot UN convention through the Hague for some Mexican rapist. They're two-faced about everything. :roll:

Kandahar · Jan 23, 2009

JMak said:
WTF do you think the military commissions were for? The Combatant Status Review Tribunals?

Most of the detainees were not entitled to legal counsel, their innocence was not presumed, and there weren't any specific charges to refute.

JMak said:
What world are you living in?

Please familiarize yourself with Boumediene v. Bush and get back to me then.

JMak said:
Of course not notwithstanding your hysterical question.

Geneva says that warring nations may detain combatants until the cessation of hostilities and provides for trials after that point.

It also lays out specific guidelines as to how they can be treated. And surely you would agree that "warring nations" would not include suspected terrorists arrested in Bosnia-Herzegovina, Pakistan, China, and the Gambia?

JMak said:
What it seems you're demanding is that the US act counter to agreements we have signed on to and treat combatants as ordinary civilians despite the history and laws of war never having treated combatants this way and totally ignoring the practical consequences of doing so.

If they're prisoners of war, then we should declare them as such and give them the rights they are entitled to under the Geneva Conventions. If they aren't prisoners of war, then they should be tried with a crime or released.

American · Jan 23, 2009

You remember that some of those bastards were moved to Gitmo to protect them from dangers they would face in Abu Ghraib? They should have left them there.

JMak · Jan 23, 2009

Kandahar said:
Most of the detainees were not entitled to legal counsel, their innocence was not presumed, and there weren't any specific charges to refute.

1) So what if they were not entitled to legal counsel. What right to legal counsel are they entitled to?

2) These combatants are not entitled to such a presumption, they are not ordinary criminals.

3) These tribunals were explicitly conducted so that detainees could challenge their combatant status.

Now, educate yourself about the tribunals here.

Please familiarize yourself with Boumediene v. Bush and get back to me then.

Boumediene granted aliens held at Gitmo a constitutional right to challenge their detention in federal court.

Uh, dawg, detainees could already do so via the 2005 DTA and 2006 MCA legislation which granted detainees access to the 4th Circuit Court in DC.

The order issued today creates tribunals very much like those cited
favorably by the Court to meet the unique circumstances of the Guantanamo detainees, and will provide an expeditious opportunity for non-citizen detainees to receive notice and an opportunity to be heard. It will not preclude them from seeking additional review in federal court.
Notice. By July 17, each detainee will be notified of the review of his detention as an enemy combatant, of the opportunity to consult with a personal representative, and of the right to seek review in U.S. courts.

It also lays out specific guidelines as to how they can be treated. And surely you would agree that "warring nations" would not include suspected terrorists arrested in Bosnia-Herzegovina, Pakistan, China, and the Gambia?

Mine was a general reference to Geneva and shorthand for those engaged in some military action. Geneva's Third Protocol provides an opt-in clause for non-signatories provides those non-signatories adhere to Geneva. As well, wasn't it you and others arguing that terrorists be covered by geneva anyway?

If they're prisoners of war, then we should declare them as such and give them the rights they are entitled to under the Geneva Conventions. If they aren't prisoners of war, then they should be tried with a crime or released.

If they were, I'd agree. But they were not. And even if they were eligible for POW status, they're still not entitled to trial during hostilities, legal counsel, or any other protection granted to ordinary civilians in the US.

Why do you insist on ignoring all of the ramifications of your positions?

Charge these people with what? Prosecute them where?

Truth Detector · Jan 23, 2009

Arch Enemy said:
No. What you do to eliminate an ideology is you make it irrelevant. Shooting weaponry at a person does not kill the ideology it kills the person. How do you make an ideology irrelevant? Well, you take up the cause of the people who are buying into the ideology as an option to make their own lives better. You forget that groups like Hamas and Hezbollah have large wings that do nothing but give aid to the slums of their respective countries. If someone is able to smuggle food into your country, you are not going to immediately turn your back on them.

I'd like to address this specific comment and ask you two questions: "You forget that groups like Hamas and Hezbollah have large wings that do nothing but give aid to the slums of their respective countries. "

Where do you think the MONEY for Hamas and Hezbollah's generosity comes from?

Secondly; why do you think they have to distribute food and aid to the general population?

After I see your answers I will give you my responses.

Dr_Patrick · Jan 23, 2009

MrVicchio said:
Guantánamo detainee resurfaces in terrorist group - International Herald Tribune

Gee, this doesn't bode well for Obama's "Close Gitmo" policy and is good evidence that Bush's policies of holding terrorist was right, the sad thing is, if it wasn't for all the screaming and whining about Gitmo this guy might still be in there... and not helping kill people.

But hey, what's ONE guy right? :roll:

So let me get this straight. This guy was released in 2007 while the Bush Administration was in charge and yet you still find a way to blame Obama and people who are against Guantanamo in the first place for it? Are you serious?

Renae · Jan 23, 2009

dclxvinoise said:
So let me get this straight. This guy was released in 2007 while the Bush Administration was in charge and yet you still find a way to blame Obama and people who are against Guantanamo in the first place for it? Are you serious?

I'm not blaming Obama. What I said was this guy was released in PART due to pressure by people LIKE Obama, and those that cheer the closing of Gitmo.

I also stated this doesn't bode well for his plans in the long run.

Rodney · Jan 23, 2009

Laila said:
I'd bet alot he wasn't a terrorist before he entered the prison ... but you are right, what is one terrorist compared to the hundreds of thousands in total.

He couldn`t have possibly been a terrorist before entering camp X-Ray. You are right . All of those poor people were innocent.... Laila ,get some help.

Arch Enemy · Jan 23, 2009

MrVicchio said:
Great, and how do you do that when they keep using guns, bombs and attacks? Hmm?

Please, tell me who is "they". You are generalizing, buddy. There is no one universal approach. It is different for each group.

Yep, and kill enough of them, the ideology dies

You'd make a great fascist. That does not work. You do not understand how ideologies work, apparently; especially in a world where you don't have to be in the same hemisphere to believe in the same one.

What if that ideology hinges on defeating yours and bringing about World Islamic Rule as the path to happiness? Hmm?

Bahaha you think there is a possibility of a World Islamic Rule? Are you completely insane? The world is about balance. Read any dystopian novel and you will see that when the world/human society cannot possibly thrive without a balance.

Yeah, cuase if you turn your back on those groups they might choose your family as their next "human shields"

Why would it matter to you? Apparently you wanted to mow down the lot of them.

JMak said:
What warped world do you live in?

I would love to see you defend an idea that this world isn't warped.

We call people terrorists because they think differently than we do?

And we don't call them terrorists because they use airliners to bomb skyscrapers, use cars to bomb embassies, use men and women to conduct suicide bombings, etc., etc., etc.?

Actually it depends on the reaction of the people who are subjected to it. If America was to go bomb a home, even if it was for politically correct purposes or whatever those possibly could be, and citizens surrounding are terrified from the event then the attack is a terrorist attack and America is a terrorist state. I have a problem with that word applying to one group of people, but not another.

Where do you get off reinventing history here?

Please explain

I always like the cliched Orwell stuff, it's so much easier for you people to speak in cliches rather than address actual issues and arguments.

[/quote]
Who is "you" people?

Truth Detector said:
I'd like to address this specific comment and ask you two questions: "You forget that groups like Hamas and Hezbollah have large wings that do nothing but give aid to the slums of their respective countries. "

Where do you think the MONEY for Hamas and Hezbollah's generosity comes from?

Well, for Hamas I know there was a point in time were America gave them money. You know, we sorta wanted them to win their election, but changed our minds about it as soon as it happened. There's the famous story where Condi is up at 5 a.m. EST doing her treadmill work-out whenever she's informed that Hamas won (no one thought it was going to happen-- they campaigned well, and kept their Anti-Israeli sentiment on the down-low) her reply was an immediate embargo.

Secondly; why do you think they have to distribute food and aid to the general population?

1) To gain popularity.
2) Because no one else is taking the job.
3) Because Gaza is the most densely populated section of the world, and about 8 miles in size, therefore it is practically a slum.

After I see your answers I will give you my responses.

I will be glad to see your responses.

ludahai · Jan 23, 2009

American said:
See how the libs bitch if we follow the Geneva Convention, but then cry like babies when Texas doesn't follow that idiot UN convention through the Hague for some Mexican rapist. They're two-faced about everything. :roll:

Where I am consistent and believe we should abide by and use the rights granted the US in the Geneva Convention while also following the Vienna Convention discussed in another thread.

American · Jan 23, 2009

ludahai said:
Where I am consistent and believe we should abide by and use the rights granted the US in the Geneva Convention while also following the Vienna Convention discussed in another thread.

Are you a lib(eral)?

ludahai · Jan 23, 2009

American said:
Are you a lib(eral)?

No, most certainly not. Just a conservative who does not let political ideology get in my way of knowing what is right and wrong.

Moon · Jan 23, 2009

Arch Enemy said:
Terrorists to us are those who wish to Terrify US.
Why would someone wish to terrify, or cause a terrifying reaction, from us?
Because American foreign policy.
Let me break this down. If it wasn't for the habitual sodomizing of the term "terrorism" then there would be "no terrorists" just militants who have a different world-view then us.

Tell me. You take all of those resurfaced detainees and you kill them all, what did you accomplish?
Let me give you a hint. Not a damn thing. Infact, you probably created more who favor that ideology then you took away from. WE ARE NOT FIGHTING PEOPLE WE ARE FIGHTING AN IDEOLOGY. AND YOU CANNOT KILL AN IDEOLOGY WITH GUNS.

FFS learn something.

Nonsense. Focus on the semantics and ignore the real threat at your peril. You can't kill an ideology with guns, that's true, but you can sure kill the adherents to that ideology. With guns, even!

American · Jan 23, 2009

ludahai said:
No, most certainly not. Just a conservative who does not let political ideology get in my way of knowing what is right and wrong.

Nevertheless, hopefully you feel that your ideology is right.

Arch Enemy · Jan 23, 2009

Moon said:
Nonsense. Focus on the semantics and ignore the real threat at your peril. You can't kill an ideology with guns, that's true, but you can sure kill the adherents to that ideology. With guns, even!

Not killing someone doesn't mean that you are ignoring the threat.
Police officers don't use rubber bullets because they want to keep the threat as alive as possible, they use rubber bullets to not kill the threat (no, I am not suggesting using rubber bullets on Bin Laden, even though it would be funny).

You can't kill an ideology with guns. You said it yourself, then what's the point of mowing down people, and killing innocents in the mean-time, to not kill the ideology (infact it appears as this whole mowing thing increases membership to the ideology).

Moon · Jan 23, 2009

Arch Enemy said:
Not killing someone doesn't mean that you are ignoring the threat.
Police officers don't use rubber bullets because they want to keep the threat as alive as possible, they use rubber bullets to not kill the threat (no, I am not suggesting using rubber bullets on Bin Laden, even though it would be funny).

You can't kill an ideology with guns. You said it yourself, then what's the point of mowing down people, and killing innocents in the mean-time, to not kill the ideology (infact it appears as this whole mowing thing increases membership to the ideology).

You're not listening. You kill the people following the ideology until they no longer want to do harm to you. If us defending ourselves gets more of them out of the house and committing to their messed up ideology, and in the line of fire, then that's a good thing. That will save the next generation from having to deal with them.

Arch Enemy · Jan 23, 2009

Moon said:
You're not listening. You kill the people following the ideology until they no longer want to do harm to you. If us defending ourselves gets more of them out of the house and committing to their messed up ideology, and in the line of fire, then that's a good thing. That will save the next generation from having to deal with them.

If this is the smart thing to do. To go over there and shoot them up, then why the hell are we not safer?

ludahai · Jan 23, 2009

American said:
Nevertheless, hopefully you feel that your ideology is right.

I do, but my ideology is eclectic. I consider myself conservative, but in some areas, I define it a little differently than others.

I am more ecologically conservative, for example, than many other conservatives are. I also believe that a respect for "law and order" does include respect for the international committments the US makes as well as international law.

Guantánamo detainee resurfaces in terrorist group

Phoenecian

Trump Grump Whisperer

Enemy Combatant

Trump Grump Whisperer

Androgyne

Familiaist

Defender of the Faith

Trump Grump Whisperer

Defender of the Faith

Why so serious?

Trump Grump Whisperer

Familiaist

Why so serious?

Familiaist

Defender of the Faith