the only problem with this is there is absolutely no way for any of us to know. in this situation, i think you kinda have to assume that he had the relevant information or else this wouldn't have happened so quickly.
Let em all go in Kenwood. Obama doesn't live there anymore. They're obviously no threat to anyone. Oddly, nobody's actually responding to the fact in the first post (the news story).
The morale of the story is that Guatanamo Bay and HMP Belmarsh are both inhumane prisons and should be closed down. I don't know what to make of this guy, but good for him.
Gitmo didn't prevent that guy from doing bad things. Apparently, Gitmo wasn't making the right decisions about who to keep and who to release. barfo
So release 'em all is the answer? My take is that these guys are a military threat to us, are not criminals but something closer to POWs, and that when the military decides they're no threat to us on the battlefields they should be let go. When we first opened Gitmo, I was appalled at the conditions there. It wasn't the torture, but the crude chain link cages the guys were put into. That was made a lot better over time and it's now something like a reasonable prison. It's not a particularly inviting or easy target for their friends to organize an attack against or a jail break. The bottom line is that Obama IS commander in chief and it's perfectly fine for him to make this kind of decision. But when we let these guys go, they're going back go Al Qaeda.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hZfIcWnHqBz4kQR90lC_pXaHeW4Q Two ex-Guantanamo inmates appear in Al-Qaeda video 2 hours ago WASHINGTON (AFP) — Two men released from the US "war on terror" prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba have appeared in a video posted on a jihadist website, the SITE monitoring service reported. One of the two former inmates, a Saudi man identified as Abu Sufyan al-Azdi al-Shahri, or prisoner number 372, has been elevated to the senior ranks of Al-Qaeda in Yemen, a US counter-terrorism official told AFP. Three other men appear in the video, including Abu al-Hareth Muhammad al-Oufi, identified as an Al-Qaeda field commander. SITE later said he was prisoner No. 333. A Pentagon spokesman, Commander Jeffrey Gordon, on Saturday declined to confirm the SITE information. "We remain concerned about ex-Guantanamo detainees who have re-affiliated with terrorist organizations after their departure," said Gordon. "We will continue to work with the international community to mitigate the threat they pose," he said. On the video, al-Shihri is seen sitting with three other men before a flag of the Islamic State of Iraq, the front for Al-Qaeda in Iraq. "By Allah, imprisonment only increased our persistence in our principles for which we went out, did jihad for, and were imprisoned for," al-Shihri was quoted as saying. Al-Shiri was transferred from Guantanamo to Saudi Arabia in 2007, the US counter-terrorism official said. The other men in the video are identified as Commander Abu Baseer al-Wahayshi and Abu Hureira Qasm al-Rimi (also known as Abu Hureira al-Sana'ani). The Defense Department has said as many as 61 former Guantanamo detainees -- about 11 percent of 520 detainees transferred from the detention center and released -- are believed to have returned to the fight. The latest case highlights the risk the new US administration faces as it moves to empty Guantanamo of its remaining 245 prisoners and close the controversial detention camp within a year.
^^^ so now the count is 2 in the latest video and something like 61 in total who have been freed to go back to the battlefields.
First, they aren't American citizens. They aren't subject to the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, or any other American right. Second, they aren't uniformed members of a military service and there is "ambiguity" about their ability to be considered POWs under Article 3 and Article 5. They weren't subject to Geneva Protection, until 2006 when the Supreme Court decided they had the ability to interpret International Conventions in addition to American Legislation. It seems that in most interpretations, the money quote they use to defend treating them as POWs is the following: In the 7+ years since 9/11, I don't know how many "trials", "evidentiary hearings", etc. have occurred. When these gentlemen were let go, who was the trial authority that examined the evidence and allowed to go free? Obviously a not-insignificant number have been proven to take up arms against us again. So once the "competent tribunal" finds that men who go back to terrorist acts aren't really terrorists, are they then "competent" enough to judge the rest? And where do you find such a tribunal? And what's the point of closing Gitmo if we're going to detain them somewhere else? Why should they be afforded the same rights American prisoners have? Someone please explain to me why we care about what other countries think about our "morals"? The changes to extradition that have occurred...do you think that it's b/c other leaders think that Americans have suddenly become corrupt over the last 7 years?
Where was McCain's trial in Vietnam? When have our "prisoners" been given trials prior to decapitation? Prisoners of war are prisoners until cessation of hostilies. If they want to go home, they should hope their comrades stop blowing things up, kidnapping, or plotting against governments (theirs or ours). Are rednecks the only ones allowed to believe in justice, or that law are followed?
Where was the trial when Morg the caveman bashed Drog the caveman in the head with a rock and took his woman? Well, if the cavemen didn't have trials, then we don't have to either. And how will we know when hostilities have ceased, in this case? Who is going to formally surrender to us? Yes. barfo
Them thinking that we are immoral makes it easier for them to attack us (easier to recruit, easier to raise funds). That's why we (should) care. I don't know about extradition - maybe that's part of this thread but I'm too lazy to look - but as far as what others think, I don't think they'd say we've gone from 0% corrupt to 100% corrupt (and now back to 0% corrupt). It's more a matter of emphasis. Since you write about military issues a lot, I think of you as a soldier. If you wrote about how adorable your kids are instead, I might think of you as a dad. You might be both (or neither), but if you show me one face that's the face I'm likely to focus on, even if I'm aware there is another aspect. We've been showing our corrupt side, so that's what people are going to think of us. Even if it isn't the whole truth. Lots of people prefer their world to be black and white, and to choose sides. Blazers rule, fakers drool. barfo
Let me tell you something. I would LOVE for Chicago cops to be responsible for these detainees. The U of C police force is one of the biggest in Illinois. It's all off-duty Chicago cops who are pissed they have to pull extra shifts for the U of C to make ends meet. They don't take shit from anyone.
A couple of things regarding this thread. First, I find it naive that we could do anything that would make Islamic extremists suddenly love us other that just giving up and following the way of Allah. Desperate people who are the losers in the race for modernity are going to listen to anyone who can assign blame for their plight. Second, Gitmo is window dressing. I'm fine with closing it because I'm convinced we have REAL hell holes where we send the worst of the worst. I hope they enjoy their new digs. And if they happen to be sent to maximum security prisons here, I hope they enjoy tossing salad--for some reason prisoners are really patriotic.
it's pretty interesting that 89% of the former detainees have not "returned" to fight. one could say they were there for no reason at all..
Or that they were kept there long enough that they became irrelevant (the rest of the guys they fought with are dead). Or that they all are back to fighting or helping, just we don't know for sure.
Entice them how? They want to get caught and come back. Or would you expect 100% of them to go join the terrorist organizations, even the "innocent" ones.
