More Ex-Detainees Resort to Terror, Officials Say

roderic said:

There is nothing extremist about logic, and no, I am not dishonest.
It's not that I "may have" one case, but I pointed at an obvious one which recently made headlines

...and?

Something you wish to say, or just blathering?

Click to expand...

How many days are you going to go without saying anything? :lol:

You are welcome to add me to your ignore list, it would save you from making yourself look stupid with your responses.

roderic said:

You are welcome to add me to your ignore list, it would save you from making yourself look stupid with your responses.

Click to expand...

I don't ignore people..... Please compose yourself, your insults are not necesary. :lol:

hazlnut said:

Just out of curiosity, I wonder how many terrorists who have been tried and convicted of terrorism in U.S. Federal courts have gone back to committing terrorists acts while in Maximum Security Prisons.:2razz::lol:

Click to expand...

Two things here. Should Obama proceed with making the order of the day that the War on Terror is not a military action, but rather a civil criminal one, and our prisons fill with known radicals from around the world, a couple of unintended consequences arise that are real.

First, the danger of radicalization of American Prisoners they are held with. Second, the moral boost given to our enemy by knowing that they have us on the run back home.

There are a group of Federal Prosecutors and investigators who have become experts at convicting terrorists in the U.S. while not compromising national security. The Judges who hear these cases follow the law. The Marshals who manage these prisoners are extremely competent and well-trained.

Click to expand...

Wo it's fool proof then? IOW, like Obama said "We will give them a fair trial,.....And they will be found guilty"?

You see nothing wrong with that statement? Really?

I don't have a problem with Gitmo, enhanced interrogations, or electrocuting someone's testicles if it will save American lives. The mistake was trying to codify it--writing memos, trying to make it legal and on the books.

Click to expand...

Really? So in other words, as long as they keep it secret, they can break the law eh? I don't think this statement is honest.

Regarding the story in the OP -- I had already heard this 1 in 5 stat. How many people total are we talking about? What was the circumstances of their release from Gitmo?

Click to expand...

Is not OBL one man? Are not the two Gitmo released detainees in AQAP but single individuals? Is there some magic number that causes you to rethink your stance?


j-mac

Reverend_Hellh0und said:

So shoud we close it as planned? 20 percent is very high. Is it best to move these guys to CONUS? What say you?

Click to expand...

20 percent is very high? Are you kidding me???? But, I'll get back to this point in a minute.

First of all, I feel as if I'm reading a repeat from 2006 or 2007. Just a bare assertion by the Pentagon/Justice Department with nothing to back it up. They were asked for sources, names, etc., and could only produce about 20 names out of an original total of some 140 detainees they say were released, and then returned to terrorism. Then the number was cut to 70-some, and then 40-some.

This is the same kind of thing. No sources, no citations for how they came up with this percentage, just a number thrown out there, take it or leave it. And it will probably end up being just as bogus as the last set of numbers.

But, let's go back to the original article, and let's further assume that the percentage is correct. After 8 years, they give us a recidivism rate of terror detainees at 20 percent, and you think that's very high?

Hell, the criminal recidivism rate in this country is 44 percent after only one year, and damn-near 70 percent after 3 years. And yet you consider a 20 percent recidivism high.

MrVicchio said:

This is just more proof we should have never detained them, of course they want revenge for the violations of their civil rights!

Click to expand...

Ikari said:

There is some amount of truth to that. Certainly there were terrorists in GITMO, but we picked them up and had people turn in others for rewards and such; so not all the people there were terrorists. We took no precaution as to which group we snatched and threw in prison with no means of defense. Those who may not have been terrorists were first kidnapped basically and unlawfully imprisoned and were in contract then with actual terrorists. It is not inconceivable that when released, some that were not terrorists would resort to such as a method of retribution.

Click to expand...

As of July 1, there were about 230 prisoners left at Guantanamo, although over the past eight years a total of nearly 800 men have been held in the camp, mostly without charge or trial.[2] Of the total, 544 have been released, repatriated or otherwise transferred to one of about 40 countries, including at least 194 to Afghanistan and 120 to Saudi Arabia.

Click to expand...

Guantanamo: Who Really 'Returned to the Battlefield'? | NewAmerica.net

If we can trust this link, "nearly 800" total were detained of which 544 have been released as of July '09. 20% of 544 = 108. That means about 256 are deemed to be too supicious to warrant release.

I see no problem believing sum 350 out of about 800 captured are actual enemy combattants. I can allow that a handful might be innocents corrupted by their imprisonment and treatment. But let's keep the 250 or so in detention at G-Bay until they die of a ripe old age.

NiteGuy said:

20 percent is very high? Are you kidding me???? But, I'll get back to this point in a minute.

First of all, I feel as if I'm reading a repeat from 2006 or 2007. Just a bare assertion by the Pentagon/Justice Department with nothing to back it up. They were asked for sources, names, etc., and could only produce about 20 names out of an original total of some 140 detainees they say were released, and then returned to terrorism. Then the number was cut to 70-some, and then 40-some.

This is the same kind of thing. No sources, no citations for how they came up with this percentage, just a number thrown out there, take it or leave it. And it will probably end up being just as bogus as the last set of numbers.

But, let's go back to the original article, and let's further assume that the percentage is correct. After 8 years, they give us a recidivism rate of terror detainees at 20 percent, and you think that's very high?

Hell, the criminal recidivism rate in this country is 44 percent after only one year, and damn-near 70 percent after 3 years. And yet you consider a 20 percent recidivism high.

Click to expand...

The recidivism rate for the detainee that succeeds in a major terror attack is 100% no?


j-mac

And that for a detainee who does not get involved in any terrorist activities is 0%.

What's your point, if any?

roderic said:

And that for a detainee who does not get involved in any terrorist activities is 0%.

What's your point, if any?

Click to expand...

the point is that in this war, we have to be 100% on top of any possible attacks, they only have to be successful 1 time. This danger is now off the map with the recent treating these attacks as criminal endeavors instead of terrorism.


j-mac

j-mac said:

Wo it's fool proof then? IOW, like Obama said "We will give them a fair trial,.....And they will be found guilty"?

You see nothing wrong with that statement? Really?

Click to expand...

It worked for W.

Oh, I see... you're someone who is not aware that we've been successfully convicting terrorists in Federal Courts for some time. You're caught up in the anything-Obama-does-is-wrong mentality. Even if it's exactly what Bush had been doing.

Repost when you are all caught up on the current facts regarding DOJ prosecutions of terrorists 2001 - present.

Notable Terrorism Prosecutions in Recent Years

• Toledo Terror Cell (Northern District of Ohio) -- In June 2008, Mohammad Amawi, Marwan El-Hindi and Wassim Mazloum were convicted of conspiracy to commit terrorist acts against Americans overseas, including U.S. armed forces in Iraq, and conspiracy to provide material support to terrorists. Amawi and El-Hindi were also convicted of distributing information regarding suicide bomb vests and Improvised Explosive Devices.
• Christopher Paul (Southern District of Ohio) – In June 2008, Paul pleaded guilty to conspiring with members of a German terrorist cell to use a weapon of mass destruction (explosive devices) against Americans vacationing at foreign tourist resorts, against Americans in the United States, as well against U.S. embassies, diplomatic premises and military bases in Europe.
• Hassan Abujihaad (District of Connecticut) – In March 2008, Abujihaad, a former member of the U.S. Navy, was convicted of providing material support to terrorists and delivering classified information on the movements of a U.S. Navy battle group to Azzam Publications, a London-based organization alleged to have provided material support to persons engaged in terrorism.
• Mohammed Jabarah (Southern District of New York) – In Jan. 2008, Jabarah was sentenced to life in prison after pleading guilty to terrorism charges stemming from his participation in a plot to bomb U.S. embassies in Singapore and the Philippines. Jabarah trained in al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan and spent time with Usama bin Laden, to whom he swore an oath of allegiance.
• California Prison Plot (Central District of California) – In Dec. 2007, Kevin James, who formed a radical Islamic organization while in California state prison, and two of his recruits, Levar Washington and Gregory Patterson, pleaded guilty to terrorism conspiracy charges, admitting they conspired to attack U.S. military facilities and Jewish facilities in Los Angeles.
• Jose Padilla and co-defendants (Southern District of Florida) -- In Aug. 2007, a federal jury convicted Padilla, Adham Hassoun and Kifah Jayyousi of conspiracy to murder, kidnap and maim individuals in a foreign country, conspiracy to provide material support, and providing material support to terrorists. Padilla was sentenced to more than 17 years in prison.
• Zacarias Moussaoui (Eastern District of Virginia) -- In May 2006, Moussaoui was sentenced to six consecutive life terms after pleading guilty in April 2005 to various terrorism violations, admitting that he conspired with al Qaeda to hijack and crash planes into prominent U.S. buildings as part of the 9/11 attacks.
• Ahmed Omar Abu Ali (Eastern District of Virginia) – In Nov. 2005, Ali was convicted on all counts of an indictment charging him with, among other violations, providing material support to al Qaeda, conspiracy to assassinate the U.S. President, and conspiracy to commit air piracy and conspiracy to destroy aircraft. Ali was sentenced to 30 years in prison.

Click to expand...

LOL -- Shucks, ma, we can't let them Terrorizors on American soil. They'll git in our prisons and impregnate our inmates with Muslim spells.

j-mac said:

the point is that in this war, we have to be 100% on top of any possible attacks, they only have to be successful 1 time. This danger is now off the map with the recent treating these attacks as criminal endeavors instead of terrorism.

Click to expand...

But wouldn't the first part of your statement be true, whether the attack was by some recidivist, or a first-timer?

And I'd sure like you to be able to prove that the danger from terrorism is now "off the map". really, you need to stop listning to Dick Cheney. He hasn't been right about anything since 1927, I think it was...

You claim that we're now treating all attacks as crimes instead of terrorism, but that's not true, or:

1. We still wouldn't be using predators to fire missles in Afghanistan and Pakistan. And,

2. What would you have done with the Christmas Bomber? Walk him down the aircraft stairs, and put a bullet in his head right there on the tarmac?

3. Even if we had executed him right there at the airport, do you really think that that kind of action is going to make the terrorists think twice about trying something here again? Please.

j-mac said:

the point is that in this war, we have to be 100% on top of any possible attacks, they only have to be successful 1 time. This danger is now off the map with the recent treating these attacks as criminal endeavors instead of terrorism.


j-mac

Click to expand...

It's not ever going to be 100%. And the only way to get really high is through some horribly draconian means which I wouldn't support. In the end, terrorism is a low probability event. There are far greater dynamics which can end my life well before terrorism even makes it up on the list. We can take reasonable action, yes. But we should keep our reason and wit about us.

NiteGuy said:

But wouldn't the first part of your statement be true, whether the attack was by some recidivist, or a first-timer?

And I'd sure like you to be able to prove that the danger from terrorism is now "off the map". really, you need to stop listning to Dick Cheney. He hasn't been right about anything since 1927, I think it was...

You claim that we're now treating all attacks as crimes instead of terrorism, but that's not true, or:

1. We still wouldn't be using predators to fire missles in Afghanistan and Pakistan. And,

2. What would you have done with the Christmas Bomber? Walk him down the aircraft stairs, and put a bullet in his head right there on the tarmac?

3. Even if we had executed him right there at the airport, do you really think that that kind of action is going to make the terrorists think twice about trying something here again? Please.

Click to expand...

And what did we do with the Gonad Bomber? We walked him down the stairs, treated him to the best medical care possible, gave him a lawyer, and then told him he didn't have to speak to us....yeah, that sounds like a winning strategy.....:roll:


j-mac

I bet you're more likely to be napped as a terrorist suspect than becoming a victim of a terrorist attack. lol

Reverend_Hellh0und said:

So shoud we close it as planned? 20 percent is very high. Is it best to move these guys to CONUS? What say you?

Click to expand...

I would be interested in investing in a Gitmo Franchise along the Cuban coast.
Or the expansion of Hotel Spa & Resort Gitmo.

Later is could evolve into a convalescent home.

Seems like an opportunity to serve an expanding market of what should be permanent vacationers for some years to come.

Nothing like not having to service repeat customers.
As close as you can get to Buffett's business protected by a wide moat.

.

j-mac said:

And what did we do with the Gonad Bomber? We walked him down the stairs, treated him to the best medical care possible, gave him a lawyer, and then told him he didn't have to speak to us....yeah, that sounds like a winning strategy.....:roll:

Click to expand...

Actually, j-mac, that is the winning strategy.

That's exactly right. We gave him lawyer, told him his rights, and booked him just like any other criminal. Whether he talks at all or not, is his choice, and I don't care if he talks or not. He was in an enclosed environment, and attempted to set off an explosive device in front of dozens of witnesses. Caught, quite literally in the act.

If he speaks or not, he's going to go to prison after the trial, at anywhere from 20 years to life, times the number of passengers on the plane. If the judge has any brains at all, the sentences will run consecutively, and the miscreant will spend the rest of his natural life behind bars.

Quit peeing your pants every time someone screams "terrorist", and treat them like the low-level street-thugs that they are. Quit elevating them to "ZOMFG! It's the Anti-Christ!", and we'll all be better off. kill them or capture them overseas, before they can get to our shores, sure. But if they make it this far, and they are caught anyway, don't give them or their organization the satisfaction of showing them we're afraid of them.

C'mon, j-mac. The Israelis do this every day, and they did it for decades prior to 9/11. Are you telling me that we aren't at least up to their standards in dealing with this threat?


You really have a problem with that scenario?

NiteGuy said:

Actually, j-mac, that is the winning strategy.

That's exactly right. We gave him lawyer, told him his rights, and booked him just like any other criminal. Whether he talks at all or not, is his choice, and I don't care if he talks or not. He was in an enclosed environment, and attempted to set off an explosive device in front of dozens of witnesses. Caught, quite literally in the act.

Click to expand...

Ok, we have a couple of parameters from you now. First, you think it perfectly fine that any terrorism acts be treated as criminal acts, and tried in the US with constitutional rights, and privileges bestowed on those who commit these acts right? Second, even though Obama has said in speeches that gaining 'actionable intel' is of utmost priority, and will be the determining factor on whether or not we succeed in this war, you want the terrorists to exercise their 5th Amendment rights, which is exactly what this guy did. Good job, now the real Whack a Mole can begin.

If he speaks or not, he's going to go to prison after the trial, at anywhere from 20 years to life, times the number of passengers on the plane. If the judge has any brains at all, the sentences will run consecutively, and the miscreant will spend the rest of his natural life behind bars.

Click to expand...

Really? And how many American criminals are freed on technicalities in one form or another? You want to start flooding our court system, an already over burdened system with these guy's and take chances on possibly MY life with some liberal scumbag judge that is just waiting for the chance to make news with letting one of these terrorists off? Thanks man.

Quit peeing your pants every time someone screams "terrorist", and treat them like the low-level street-thugs that they are. Quit elevating them to "ZOMFG! It's the Anti-Christ!", and we'll all be better off. kill them or capture them overseas, before they can get to our shores, sure. But if they make it this far, and they are caught anyway, don't give them or their organization the satisfaction of showing them we're afraid of them.

Click to expand...

Well, when you have Napalitano standing up there proclaiming that "the system worked" when the only thing that averted a disaster were passengers, and a faulty detonator, then what the hell is that?!!! System worked? That would mean I have to rely on people like you to act when you see something like that happening, and no offense, but I can't trust that you would act.

C'mon, j-mac. The Israelis do this every day, and they did it for decades prior to 9/11. Are you telling me that we aren't at least up to their standards in dealing with this threat?

Click to expand...

No....No we are nowhere close to Israeli standards. We can't even begin to move toward that standard until we get over our obsession with PC treatment of these vermin.


j-mac

The big issues, the themes, most visible in this whirling hurricane of almost hyperventilating headlines wildly flying around the Mutallab affair:

1. Close Gitmo. Now? I mean, ok, shut Gitmo, we all understand the rationales in favor of its closure, and they might make some sense---in the abstract. But now? Close Gitmo now? Have you been watching the news?

2. Putting the jingle bells jihadist in criminal court and trying to bribe him with a PLEA. Half of America is agape, the rest laughing. Obama's LEGAL REASONING here would flunk pre law (just like Holder's inability before Lindsey Graham to answer the most basic question of PRECEDENT for moving KSM). Those Obama would KILL if he could via drone in Yemen he'd put before Lance Ito if taken ALIVE. If Mutallab or Awlaki is indeed entitled to our rights, then Obama is obligated to ARREST him and bring him to trial. The police can't just storm Spahn Ranch and execute Charlie Manson.

3. The Awlaki connection, direct from Hasan to the radical, from imam to Mutallab. After Fort Hood the administration demonstrated absolutely zero interest, let alone URGENCY, in following up on the threat painted so vividly in Awlaki's correspondence, too desirous that its rushed considerations of isolated extremism might actually prove accurate.

4. What to do with the 91 Yemenis in Cuba.

5. Though Obama rumbles about accountability and heads rolling, no one's fired.

6. Lack of international cooperation. Obama's security directives for airports abroad are largely ignored. How Obama could think that Iran, Syria, Libya, etc, would cheerfully comply with his commands is beyond anyone who's watched the news more than once in the last 30 years. Saleh of Yemen pushes off Obama's overeager bear hug.

7. The administration's self-described "surprise" that an attack could come from Yemen. Nonplussed Napolitano actually found "most shocking, stunning" "Al Qaeda's determination!" Where's she been? Brennan, author of Obama's rapid review of what went wrong, writes: "caught off guard by the sophistication and strength" of AQ in Yemen. I'll bet Hasan, the Fort Hood hitman, wasn't taken so unawares.

Obama Orders Steps to Stem Terrorism Threat - NYTimes.com

I have never seen a president flail so over any single event as this guy has in the last two weeks addressing this precipitously prioritized ISSUE suddenly back in the center of US politics, TERRORISM.

TERRORISM kills dems.

j-mac said:

Ok, we have a couple of parameters from you now.

Click to expand...

What do you mean you have a couple of parameters from me now? I've been saying the exact same thing for the last 5 years, j-mac. You really should learn to pay better attention.

j-mac said:

First, you think it perfectly fine that any terrorism acts be treated as criminal acts, and tried in the US with constitutional rights, and privileges bestowed on those who commit these acts right?

Click to expand...

Yes. So, by the way, does the Supreme Court. They've said so a number of times in the past several years.

j-mac said:

Second, even though Obama has said in speeches that gaining 'actionable intel' is of utmost priority, and will be the determining factor on whether or not we succeed in this war, you want the terrorists to exercise their 5th Amendment rights, which is exactly what this guy did. Good job, now the real Whack a Mole can begin.

Click to expand...

Bullcrap. If you think that the only way we can get "actionable" intel is by holding detainees extra-constitutionally, and subjecting them to "harsh interrogation techniques", somebody's fed you a pack of lies. And you bought them hook, line and sinker.

Here's a clue. We got, and turned over, actionable intel to the Yemenis just a few days ago, who went in and blew up some 30 members of AQ in Yemen.

And you need to re-read my previous post. If we can kill the terrorists overseas, before they even get here, like was just done in Yemen, or in Pakistan, more power to us. But if they land on our shores, and we capture them before they commit the offense, or they are apprehended in the process, then yes, even the Supremes say they get treated under our laws, given access to representation, etc.

j-mac said:

Really? And how many American criminals are freed on technicalities in one form or another? You want to start flooding our court system, an already over burdened system with these guy's and take chances on possibly MY life with some liberal scumbag judge that is just waiting for the chance to make news with letting one of these terrorists off? Thanks man.

Click to expand...

Your welcome.

Seriously, you think judges are just chomping at the bit to cut any of these guys loose for a couple of column-inches in the paper? You really need to cut down on your daily intake of WND and Glenn Beck.

j-mac said:

Well, when you have Napalitano standing up there proclaiming that "the system worked" when the only thing that averted a disaster were passengers, and a faulty detonator, then what the hell is that?!!! System worked? That would mean I have to rely on people like you to act when you see something like that happening, and no offense, but I can't trust that you would act.

Click to expand...

And what does any of this have to do with what we were talking about? Oh, right - just more fear mongering on your part.

Looks like even after all the "fixes" to sharing information between agencies since 2001, that those agencies still have a need to "protect their turf". But that has nothing at all to do with how we handle terror suspects once they are caught in this country.

And in case you've missed it, that's exactly the way we have treated a number of terror suspects in this country. We didn't send them to Gitmo. We didn't just take them out back, and have them summarily executed. We arrested them, tried them, and upon conviction, sent them to prison. Hazlnut put together a nice listing of them up in post number 61. Maybe you should read it.

j-mac said:

No....No we are nowhere close to Israeli standards. We can't even begin to move toward that standard until we get over our obsession with PC treatment of these vermin.

Click to expand...

Gee, something I can almost agree with, here.

You're right, we aren't up to those standards... yet. At least not in terms of checks at airports, etc. We should be doing a whole lot more in the way of profiling in those instances, and the PC crowd be damned.

But, they deal with suspected terrorists in the manner I've said we should be using. They don't ship them off to secret prisons to be held indefinitely. They don't turn them over to the military to be interrogated.

They arrest them, indict them, try them and imprison them. In fact, just last year they stopped a plot by seven Arabs in Israel, caught with suicide bomb belts in their homes, and information on their computers that implicated them in a plot to kidnap higher-ups in the Israeli Defense Forces.

Charges against the seven included aiding the enemy during wartime, contacting a foreign agent, conspiracy, and multiple weapons charges. And yet, they were arrested by civilian police forces with the assistance of the Shin Bet Security Service, they were indicted in Israel's civilian courts, and are awaiting trial in those same courts.

The difference between then and us? They don't inflate these guys into some kind of super-evil masterminds. They are just criminals there. They don't give the terrorists the satisfaction of having every incident blown all out of proportion, with politicians running around proclaiming "the sky is falling" every time they catch somone inside their borders.

Ikari said:

It's not ever going to be 100%. And the only way to get really high is through some horribly draconian means which I wouldn't support. In the end, terrorism is a low probability event. There are far greater dynamics which can end my life well before terrorism even makes it up on the list. We can take reasonable action, yes. But we should keep our reason and wit about us.

Click to expand...

Agreed. We shouldn't lose our minds. Be wise, take rational action, but keep it in perspective.

Terrorism is a low probablity event?

Oh, I forgot one. Ahmed Omar Abu Ali was an American as well.

So no, we have no precedence of successfully convicting ANYONE who is captured abroad by our military in federal courts, Hazelnut is full of ka ka here. We may successfully prosecute homegrown terrorists.......we may have prosecuted some in court prior to 9-11 when we were admittedly unaware of the threat facing us....but once the military is engaged....and it's the military capturing enemy combatants abroad..on battlefields....we have no precedence whatsoever. look everyone of these Cats up that Hazelnut is submitting here.

1) Are they enemy combatants captured abroad?
2)By our US military?
3) Are they US citizens?

You forgot a useful example, John Walker Lindh you'll remember the American Taliban. After 9-11, he was sentenced to prison as well, many felt he didn't deserve our rights, but he was a US citizena dn so brought home and prosecuted...given due process.

Those captured with him at Qala-i-Jangi....those that weren't US citizens, weren't given access to out courts...or even the right to challenge their detentions.

That IS precedence, see the difference...Hazelnut?

Charles Martel said:

Terrorism is a low probablity event?

Click to expand...

yes, it is a low probability event with lower chances of success. At least as it deals with our everyday lives. There are many many many things which pose greater threat, including gravity, than terrorists pose.

Ikari said:

yes, it is a low probability event with lower chances of success. At least as it deals with our everyday lives. There are many many many things which pose greater threat, including gravity, than terrorists pose.

Click to expand...

I see, and how many terror attacks have we had in the past 20 years?