# Gitmo detainee murders after his release....



## billc (Jul 19, 2012)

Well, it appears that releasing detainees from gitmo is a bad idea...

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/07/19/anti-Israel-bomber-Bulgaria-released-Gitmo



> [h=2]Leftists who hate Israel can rejoice; their efforts at securing the release of a Gitmo detainee and their subsequent lionizing of him allowed him to murder five Israelis in the bombing Wednesday in Burgas, Bulgarian. The bomber has been identified as Mehdi Ghezali, who was detained at Gitmo Bay in Cuba from 2002 to 2004.[/h]According to Wikileaks documents, Ghazali was &#8220;uncooperative, unforthcoming and deceptive during interrogations.&#8221; His father had met with Abdolrahman Barzanjee, an Al Qaeda associate and possible Ansar Al-Islam coordinator for Europe (Ansar Al-Islam is a group of Sunni Muslims trying to turn Iraq into an Islamist state), and Ghazali was friends with a Swedish operative who was a close associate of Abu Zubadayah, a high-ranking official with Al Qaeda.
> Ghazali, who was a Swedish citizen, was visited by members of the Swedish government frequently while he was in custody at Gitmo, and the Swedish media played up his incarceration. While Ghezali was detained at Gitmo, he was featured in the documentary_Gitmo &#8211; The New Rules of War_, a film that savaged Guantanamo Bay detention camp by film directors Erik Gandini and Tarik Saleh.
> In February of 2004, Ghazali was reassessed and regarded as an enemy combatant who had gone to Afghanistan to support the Taliban, but although Gitmo concluded that he was a &#8220;medium risk, as he may possibly pose a threat to the US its interests and allies,&#8221; the decision to release him to Sweden followed: &#8220;Recommendation: JTF Gitmo recommends that this detainee be transferred to the control of another country for continued detention.&#8221;


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jul 19, 2012)

billcihak said:


> Well, it appears that releasing detainees from gitmo is a bad idea...
> 
> http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/07/19/anti-Israel-bomber-Bulgaria-released-Gitmo



Releasing terrorists is a bad idea.  Locking them up in Gitmo without charge or trial perpetually is a bad idea.  It's not an 'either/or' situation.

But let's not let that get in the way of a good lefty-bashing.

And it's interesting that Brietbart levels charges against the media (presumably the US media, although they didn't say explicitly) but the only news articles I can find prior to today with 
Ghezali's name in them appear to be articles from various news organizations pointing out the problems caused by Gitmo detainees who are released and go back to terrorist ways.  He's repeatedly held up as a bad example; I can't find any articles holding him up as a victim of some sort.  There may be some of them, I haven't read them all.

But what the hell.  Why ruin a good smear with facts?


----------



## billc (Jul 19, 2012)

Well here is a little more from the article...



> He was released to Sweden on July 8, 2004. And guess how much he meant to the Swedish? He was flown home to Sweden by the Swedish Air Force on a Gulfstream IV jet, at the expense of the Swedish government.
> Ghazali joined a July 4, 2006 demonstration held outside the U.S. Embassy in Stockholm, Sweden calling for the closure of the Guantanamo Bay facility.
> But the liberal Swedes weren&#8217;t done with nurturing Ghazali yet. He was arrested in September of 2009 in Punjab, Pakistan, on suspicions of having ties to al-Qaeda; Pakistani police chief Mohammad Rizwan described Ghezali as "a very dangerous man". But the Swedish newspaper The Local described his actions as "a harmless meeting with a Muslim revivalist movement, Tablighi Jamaat."
> One month later, Ghezali was released to Sweden. The Swedish Ambassador even accompanied him on the flight home.



I hope you enjoy this as much as the first bit...

Here is a little more...

http://www.timesofisrael.com/bulgar...-bomber-who-killed-israelis-as-mehdi-ghezali/



> Following a lobbying effort by Swedish prime minister Göran Persson, Guantanamo authorities recommended Ghezali be transferred to another country for continued detainment, and he was handed over to Swedish authorities in 2004. The Swedish government did not press charges.
> A 2005 Swedish documentary about the Guantanamo Bay detention camp starred Ghezali, who detailed his experience in American custody.



From wikipedia...



> *Hans Göran Persson* (Swedish pronunciation: [&#712;&#669;&#339;&#720;ran &#712;pæ&#720;&#642;&#596;n]) (born 20 January 1949) was the Prime Minister of Sweden from 1996 to 2006 and the leader of the Swedish Social Democratic Party from 1996 to 2007. He was Minister for Finance from 1994 to 1996.





> The *Swedish Social Democratic Workers' Party*, (Swedish: _Sveriges socialdemokratiska arbetareparti_, *SAP*; literally, "Social Democratic Workers' Party of Sweden"), contesting elections as 'the Workers' Party &#8211; the Social Democrats' (_Arbetarepartiet-Socialdemokraterna_), or sometimes referred to just as 'the Social Democrats' (_Socialdemokraterna_) and most commonly as _Sossarna_(plural of _sosse_); is the oldest and largest political party in Sweden. The party was founded in 1889. In 1917, a schism occurred when the left socialists split from the Social Democrats to form the Swedish Social Democratic Left Party (now the _Left Party_). The symbol of the SAP is traditionally a red rose, which is believed to have been Fredrik Ström's idea.[SUP][_citation needed_][/SUP]
> The Social Democratic Party's position has a theoretical base within Marxist revisionism. Its party program interchangeably calls their ideology democratic socialism, or social democracy.



Hmmmm...I wonder if this is a party of the "left" or the "right?"

I hope the people who made this documentary are also proud...they used this guy in the film...



> A 2005 Swedish documentary about the Guantanamo Bay detention camp starred Ghezali, who detailed his experience in American custody.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jul 19, 2012)

billcihak said:


> Well here is a little more from the article...
> 
> I hope you enjoy this as much as the first bit...



From the article you quoted in your OP:

_"With all the help Ghezali received from *the liberal media* and liberal governments, it&#8217;s obvious they have blood on their hands. But the blood is Israeli, so don&#8217;t expect the Left to shed a single tear."_

What media?


----------



## billc (Jul 19, 2012)

Hmmm...from wikipedia...media coverage of gitmo...



> *Media representations*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


*[edit]
*
Perhaps these few examples of the slanted coverage by American and international media on just what Gitmo is, is what the article is referring to...

And...



> _and liberal governments_



I believe at least one liberal government was covered in my previous post, the one that kept releasing this guy...


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jul 19, 2012)

billcihak said:


> Hmmm...from wikipedia...media coverage of gitmo...
> 
> *[edit]
> *
> ...



_"With all the help *Ghezali received* from the liberal media and liberal governments, it&#8217;s obvious they have blood on their hands. But the blood is Israeli, so don&#8217;t expect the Left to shed a single tear."_

Any of that aimed at Ghezali?  Hmmm?

Lots of media focused on Gitmo, including right-wing publications and libertarian media that believed that Gitmo was not lawful according to the rules of war, and those who had a problem with torture.  Funny you're not blaming them also for Ghezali.

I have and continue to be opposed to torture - not that this is about torture, but you dragged it in with your links to the media stores against it.

I have and am also opposed to indefinite detention without trial.  I have always said try them and put them in prison if guilty - hell, stand 'em up and shoot them if guilty - and let them go if innocent,  but give them TRIALS.

So I suppose I'm guilty of this bombing as well?  Maybe just a little bit?

So if I'm not in favor of indefinite confinement without trial and against torture, I'm in favor of terrorists blowing up buses filled with Israelis, eh?

Go on, make that case.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jul 19, 2012)

It will be interesting to see if this is really the guy in any case:

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diploma...hdi-ghezali-is-burgas-suicide-bomber-1.452314



> Swedish and Bulgarian officials denied Thursday that Mehdi Ghezali, a Swedish citizen of Algerian descent, is responsible for the attack against Israelis in Bulgaria a day earlier.
> 
> Bulgarian media reported earlier Thursday that the suspected suicide bomber who blew up a bus of Israeli tourists in Burgas, which killed seven people and wounded 34, was Ghezali, who is a 33-year-old former detainee of Guantanamo.
> 
> ...



Not saying that is isn't this guy, but at the moment, it appears that earlier reporters are backing away from that and saying it was a mistake.  We'll see.


----------



## billc (Jul 19, 2012)

Yes, there was no bias in the coverage of what gitmo was and is and who the detainees were.  The "peaceful shepard," scooped up by thuggish American troops was how the detainees were portrayed, and the actual process of getting these guys to trial was always covered in a biased way.  These guys represent a new kind of threat and the media refused to see that.  They do not belong to a country, so releasing them back to a country will not control their behavior when they are released.  Prisoners from war, who are lawful combatants, cease fighting and killing when the war is concluded and they are sent home.  That isn't possible with these guys, and the media never covered that aspect fairly.  That is what this guy is pointing to with his comment on the liberal media.  Well, this "Peaceful Shepard tending his flock," went home, went to Bulgaria and killed people.

Hmmm...considering the effort the Swedish government went to to get this guy released, it is funny that they would deny he is the killer isn't it?


----------



## WC_lun (Jul 19, 2012)

As vested in the guy not being the guilty party as you claim the Swedes are, you seem to have a more vested interest that he is guilty.  Also, it is the US's own fault the guy was released.  If he was guilty of crimes he should have been tried and convicted, instead of held without trial.  If he was convicted of a crime, it would have been much harder for any country to have him released.  We had a flawed aproach to these men, which long term allowed terrorist to be released.  Terrorism is a crime and therefor those terrorist should have been tried, even if by a military court.  Otherwise they were lawful combatants and cannot be held indefinitley according to agreements we oursleves helped write.  This is why they are being tried now.  You cannot truthfully blame the left or media for this problem.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jul 19, 2012)

I know perspective's something no one wants when doing a good bash but lets put some out there, along with some facts.  *boo* *hiss*

# of people who have been through Gitmo:


> Total number of detainees ever incarcerated at Guantánamo: 779
> 
> Detainees released under President Bush: over 500
> 
> ...


Source: 
[h=3]_Guantánamo_ by the _Numbers_[/h]www.humanrightsfirst.org/.../USLS-Fact-Sheet-*Gitmo*-*Number*...
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View

So, 779 detained, Bush II released 500+, Obama 70

According to CNN, of those released "Contrary to recent assertions that one in seven, or 14 percent, of the  former prisoners had "returned to the battlefield," our analysis of Pentagon reports, news stories and other public records indicates that  the number who were confirmed or suspected to be involved in anti-U.S.  violence is closer to one in 25, or 4 percent."

Meaning out of 570 released inmates, 23 went back to being jackasses.

So because 23 went back to terrorism, should the other 547 been kept in prison indefinitely?

Yes or no to that question. Don't Obama it by writing 400 paragraphs of text that says nothing.

Yes or no?


----------



## elder999 (Jul 19, 2012)

So, I've got one thing to say here.

Put me in Guantanamo for however many years. Don't let me contact my family. Treat me outside of international law and human decency. Play rap and heavy metal to me for 24 hours a day. Waterboard me? Then ......._Let me go?_

I'm gonna go out someplace and kill some mother****ers.


Guantanamo bay detention facility-_making_  better terrorists out of simple terrorists  for 11 years......


----------



## billc (Jul 19, 2012)

No, they should undergo military tribunals to determine if they are guilty since they were captured overseas on battlefields, not in the United States.


----------



## billc (Jul 19, 2012)

Yes, I guess gitmo produced the attack on the World Trade Center the first time, and then on 9/11, and the attack on our embassies in Africa, and the attack on the U.S.S Cole, and the bombings and murders that happened before gitmo was opened...Oh, wait.  Gitmo didn't exist then.  Oh, they were so offended that in the future, in reaction to "alleged" terrorist attacks, the U.S. might open a detention facility to deal with a new brand of war criminal, that they decided to attack all those American targets.  I get it.


----------



## CanuckMA (Jul 19, 2012)

billcihak said:


> Well here is a little more from the article...
> 
> 
> 
> ...




The man is a Swedish citizen, held without proof and trial in a freign prison. Of course Sweden will try to get him released. 

We're geting Omar Kadrh back. And he was convicted. But he is a Canadian.


----------



## billc (Jul 19, 2012)

I'm sure that the victims in Bulgaria will appreciate Sweden's efforts on this guys behalf considering his clear ties to terrorism.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jul 19, 2012)

I guess it's better 1,000 innocent rot in jail than 1 guilty go free to harm again huh?


----------



## billc (Jul 19, 2012)

Hmmm...I believe I said a little something about military tribunals.  This guy didn't go through a military tribunal to determine his guilt it seems, and he was released anyway.  Is that a better system than military tribunals?  It didn't seem to work for those Jewish people in Bulgaria.  It also seems like there were an awful lot of these guys released under Bush, so there was, as I already knew, a program of review for these monsters.  The ones who didn't seem to actually be monsters, and were actually "peaceful sheepherders tending their flocks, on the battlefield," were released, so the 1000 left to rot doesn't quite fit the description of gitmo either.  I have heard accounts of how people were selected to go to gitmo, actual treatment at gitmo and now the release information, and considering the situation, it was a pretty good system.


----------



## Big Don (Jul 19, 2012)

Under the Geneva conventions unlawful combatants may be summarily executed. Had this guy been summarily executed, his victims would be alive and well today.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jul 20, 2012)

It was a great system. Water boards, chains, naked romps, totally legal.


----------



## billc (Jul 20, 2012)

The victims in Bulgaria might still be around.  Who was more worthy of their fate, him or them.  Keep in mind, he should have been put through a military tribunal, where he may have been sentenced and kept.


----------



## WC_lun (Jul 20, 2012)

So what will you say when it turns out that the Swedish citizen was not the person responsible for the attacks as is being reported now?  Should we still have killed him?


----------



## billc (Jul 20, 2012)

I believe I have mentioned using military tribunals to determine this guys fate, and that would be wether or not he killed those innocent people in Bulgaria or not.  Why a military tribunal over a civilian court?    Because there is tighter control over who has access to secret information over infromants, methods and evidence gathering that you don't have in civilian courts.  Why is this important?  Here is one reason...



> LegacyAbdel-Rahman&#8217;s imprisonment has become a rallying point for Islamic militants around the world, including Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. In 1997, members of his group Al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya conducted two attacks against European visitors to Egypt, including the massacre of 58 tourists at Deir el-Bahri in Luxor. In addition to killing women and children, the attackers mutilated a number of bodies and distributed leaflets throughout the scene demanding Rahman&#8217;s release.[SUP][_citation needed_][/SUP]
> In 2005, members of Rahman&#8217;s legal team, including lawyer Lynne Stewart, were convicted of facilitating communication between the imprisoned Sheikh and members of the terrorist organization Al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya in Egypt.



In a disturbing side note,  members of





> Al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya in Egypt.


 just met with the obama administration as part of the new Egyption government and are pressing for the release of the blind sheik.

Another reason for tribunals, the Pakistani Doctor who verified bin laden for us, who the obama administration named and is now seerving 30 years in a Pakistani prison.

If he isn't the murderer, then he is still this guy and should have been brought before a military court.



> According to Wikileaks documents, Ghazali was &#8220;uncooperative, unforthcoming and deceptive during interrogations.&#8221; His father had met with Abdolrahman Barzanjee, an Al Qaeda associate and possible Ansar Al-Islam coordinator for Europe (Ansar Al-Islam is a group of Sunni Muslims trying to turn Iraq into an Islamist state), and Ghazali was friends with a Swedish operative who was a close associate of Abu Zubadayah, a high-ranking official with Al Qaeda.
> Ghazali, who was a Swedish citizen, was visited by members of the Swedish government frequently while he was in custody at Gitmo, and the Swedish media played up his incarceration. While Ghezali was detained at Gitmo, he was featured in the documentary_Gitmo &#8211; The New Rules of War_, a film that savaged Guantanamo Bay detention camp by film directors Erik Gandini and Tarik Saleh.
> In February of 2004, Ghazali was reassessed and regarded as an enemy combatant who had gone to Afghanistan to support the Taliban, but although Gitmo concluded that he was a &#8220;medium risk, as he may possibly pose a threat to the US its interests and allies,&#8221; the decision to release him to Sweden followed: &#8220;Recommendation: JTF Gitmo recommends that this detainee be transferred to the control of another country for continued detention.&#8221;


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jul 20, 2012)

Bob Hubbard said:


> It was a great system. Water boards, chains, naked romps, totally legal.



Let's not forget that we also kept US citizens at Gitmo until the court system forced the government to behave as if they actually had rights.  And that not all Gitmo detainees were picked up 'on the battlefield'.

Of course, I don't let Obama off his pledge - he said he would close Gitmo - he actually ordered it closed within a year - four years ago.  Nada.  He's a crook, a liar, and a monster just like Bush as far as that goes.  Worthless.

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/.../BattlefieldAnalysis121007.pdf

_"Implicit in the Government&#8217;s claim that detainees have &#8220;returned to the battlefield&#8221; is the
notion that those detainees had been on a battlefield prior to their detention in Guantánamo.
Revealed by the Department of Defense data, however, is that:
&#8226; *only twenty-one (21)&#8212;or four percent (4%)&#8212;of 516 Combatant Status Review
Tribunal unclassified summaries of the evidence alleged that a detainee had ever been
on any battlefield;*
&#8226; only twenty-four (24)&#8212;or five percent (5%)&#8212;of unclassified summaries alleged
that a detainee had been captured by United States forces;
&#8226; and exactly one (1) of 516 unclassified summaries alleged that a detainee was
captured by United States forces on a battlefield."_


So...picked up on the battlefield...pure lies.  And this is the heart of the DoD's demand that detainees be kept at Gitmo - they're POWs picked up on the battlefield.  Except they weren't.  Everything they claim is based on lies.

Are they bad people?  I"m going to guess yes.  Are they dangerous to us?  Again, I'll go with yes.  I'm not into molly-coddling criminals, and especially not terrorists.  But we have legal ways to deal with both, and if it means we give them trials, find them guilty, and shoot them dead, then I say YES!!!  But holding them forever without trial (military tribunals, pfft, WHERE ARE THEY?) offshore for the EXPRESS PURPOSE of keeping them out of the jurisdiction of the US Court system is nothing but 100% bullchit.  If they can do it to suspected terrorists, they can do it to anyone in the USA.  I don't care about their rights - except as they impact MY rights.

And morons who cannot see that trampling over civil liberties to keep bad men locked up will eventually mean everyone's rights are in jeopardy make me cranky.  You want to throw your own rights in the *******?  Fine.  But don't imperil mine, you dolts.


----------



## granfire (Jul 20, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Let's not forget that we also kept US citizens at Gitmo until the court system forced the government to behave as if they actually had rights.  And that not all Gitmo detainees were picked up 'on the battlefield'.
> 
> Of course, I don't let Obama off his pledge - he said he would close Gitmo - he actually ordered it closed within a year - four years ago.  Nada.  He's a crook, a liar, and a monster just like Bush as far as that goes.  Worthless.
> 
> ...




Well, not to jump into the meaty part of the story, but kicking those fellows out of gitmo poses it's own set of problems: By now nobody wants them anymore. 
They are damaged goods on many levels. A couple of years ago there was a huge deal about Germany taking in two of them, reuniting them with their families (and practically putting them in hiding) but balking on taking a third person. The conclusion war more that the 3rd guy was out of luck because the thresh hold had been reached, not because he was a bad guy.

But from what I gathered, those two men at least, while they intended to seek out terrorist camps, had never made it there. Their story was more related to Dumb and Dumber than Doctor No....


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jul 20, 2012)

granfire said:


> Well, not to jump into the meaty part of the story, but kicking those fellows out of gitmo poses it's own set of problems: By now nobody wants them anymore.
> They are damaged goods on many levels. A couple of years ago there was a huge deal about Germany taking in two of them, reuniting them with their families (and practically putting them in hiding) but balking on taking a third person. The conclusion war more that the 3rd guy was out of luck because the thresh hold had been reached, not because he was a bad guy.
> 
> But from what I gathered, those two men at least, while they intended to seek out terrorist camps, had never made it there. Their story was more related to Dumb and Dumber than Doctor No....



Then put them on trial, convict them, and shoot them.  I have no problems with that.  I only have problems with our Constitution being used as toilet paper when the ends are seen to justify the means.  End their miserable existences; but do it according to our laws.  Gitmo is an insult to the US Constitution.  It means we have rights if the government chooses to recognize them and none if it does not.  If that doesn't piss off US citizens, then they are not very smart.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jul 20, 2012)

granfire said:


> But from what I gathered, those two men at least, while they intended to seek out terrorist camps, had never made it there. Their story was more related to Dumb and Dumber than Doctor No....



Yeah, as far as that goes.  And the underwear bomber, from what I understand, was a borderline mental midget who had been rejected from a couple terrorist training camps for being too stupid to even be a terrorist; and his results showed it.  But it doesn't mean they're not dangerous to us - also referring to captain underpants there.  If they are a real risk to us - even if they are so stupid they can't find the terrorist training center - I have no trouble with us protecting ourselves from them.  Just don't do it by ignoring the Constitution.  That's it, that's all I ask.

Heck, I'd even go so far as to say that I have less problem with things like the CIA just quietly killing these morons where they find them than what they're doing currently.  Put them in a prison that is on US soil, but outside the US court system jurisdiction, hold them for decades without charge or trial of any kind (not even the 'military tribunals'), and thumb their nose at any attempt to bring their cowboy antics under the control of our rule of law.  That is what galls me, not that they are locked up.  The fact that the US is making it clear that yes, you have rights - unless we decide you don't.  Then you don't.  If that doesn't scare every US citizen, it should.


----------



## granfire (Jul 20, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Yeah, as far as that goes.  And the underwear bomber, from what I understand, was a borderline mental midget who had been rejected from a couple terrorist training camps for being too stupid to even be a terrorist; and his results showed it.  But it doesn't mean they're not dangerous to us - also referring to captain underpants there.  If they are a real risk to us - even if they are so stupid they can't find the terrorist training center - I have no trouble with us protecting ourselves from them.  Just don't do it by ignoring the Constitution.  That's it, that's all I ask.
> 
> Heck, I'd even go so far as to say that I have less problem with things like the CIA just quietly killing these morons where they find them than what they're doing currently.  Put them in a prison that is on US soil, but outside the US court system jurisdiction, hold them for decades without charge or trial of any kind (not even the 'military tribunals'), and thumb their nose at any attempt to bring their cowboy antics under the control of our rule of law.  That is what galls me, not that they are locked up.  The fact that the US is making it clear that yes, you have rights - unless we decide you don't.  Then you don't.  If that doesn't scare every US citizen, it should.



Then again, as the news show us, the Dumb and Dumber terrorists pose less of a threat to us than out friends and neighbors.....

But I hear you on the constitution thing.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 20, 2012)

Id rather be at Gitmo then the alternative of a undisclosed top secret foreign prison where nobody even knows to check on me.  At least at gitmo the Red Cross and other groups make sure the prisioners are treated ok.  Close Gitmo we wont stop detaining people we just will put some other country in charge and they will be housed in some top secret camp in the middle of some African crap hole or some island in the south pacific.


----------



## Empty Hands (Jul 20, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> Close Gitmo we wont stop detaining people we just will put some other country in charge and they will be housed in some top secret camp in the middle of some African crap hole or some island in the south pacific.



We did that too.  We probably still are.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 20, 2012)

Empty Hands said:


> We did that too.  We probably still are.



Im sure we do.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jul 20, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> Id rather be at Gitmo then the alternative of a undisclosed top secret foreign prison where nobody even knows to check on me.  At least at gitmo the Red Cross and other groups make sure the prisioners are treated ok.  Close Gitmo we wont stop detaining people we just will put some other country in charge and they will be housed in some top secret camp in the middle of some African crap hole or some island in the south pacific.



Your point is taken.  However, that's like saying thank goodness that guy only mugged me and didn't rape my wife also.  Doesn't make the mugger a nice guy.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 20, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Your point is taken.  However, that's like saying thank goodness that guy only mugged me and didn't rape my wife also.  Doesn't make the mugger a nice guy.



I agree but closing gitmo wont end the behavior it will just make it more hidden then it already is


----------



## granfire (Jul 20, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> Id rather be at Gitmo then the alternative of a undisclosed top secret foreign prison where nobody even knows to check on me.  At least at gitmo the Red Cross and other groups make sure the prisioners are treated ok.  Close Gitmo we wont stop detaining people we just will put some other country in charge and they will be housed in some top secret camp in the middle of some African crap hole or some island in the south pacific.



I am sure that has always happened...and didn't it take them like 3 years to allow the red cross into Gitmo.....


----------



## billc (Jul 20, 2012)

Well, when the detainees are trying to kill the guards and their families, and threatening anyone they meet, it might have been wise to see how this fleshed out before you invited in a civilian organization.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jul 20, 2012)

billcihak said:


> Well, when the detainees are trying to kill the guards and their families, and threatening anyone they meet, it might have been wise to see how this fleshed out before you invited in a civilian organization.



Let me make sure I understand this.  If I lock ballen in a closet for a couple years, and he (understandably) tries to attack anyone who opens the door, that's a good reason to keep him locked in the closet?

So if you kick your dog daily until it tries to bite you, it's a dangerous dog and clearly deserves to be kicked.  I get it.  Wow.  First you create the situation, then use the situation you create as an excuse to keep doing it.


----------



## granfire (Jul 20, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Let me make sure I understand this.  If I lock ballen in a closet for a couple years, and he (understandably) tries to attack anyone who opens the door, that's a good reason to keep him locked in the closet?
> 
> So if you kick your dog daily until it tries to bite you, it's a dangerous dog and clearly deserves to be kicked.  I get it.  Wow.  First you create the situation, then use the situation you create as an excuse to keep doing it.



Hey, that's how you corner the market!


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jul 20, 2012)

granfire said:


> Hey, that's how you corner the market!



That's how you corner the market on crazy, yes.


----------



## granfire (Jul 20, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> That's how you corner the market on crazy, yes.



On both ends actually.

(A nephew of ours used to instigate the little kids, then tattle on them to get them into trouble...wonders oh wonders, not a lot of people came to his graduation party....)


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 20, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Let me make sure I understand this.  If I lock ballen in a closet for a couple years, and he (understandably) tries to attack anyone who opens the door, that's a good reason to keep him locked in the closet?
> 
> So if you kick your dog daily until it tries to bite you, it's a dangerous dog and clearly deserves to be kicked.  I get it.  Wow.  First you create the situation, then use the situation you create as an excuse to keep doing it.



I think his point was it was too dangerous for the red cross until they got the place under control.  It happens these are dangerous people being held there


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jul 20, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> I think his point was it was too dangerous for the red cross until they got the place under control.  It happens these are dangerous people being held there



I'm trying to imagine a scenario in which our military has people locked up, cannot control them.  Hmmm.  No, I am not able to picture that.  Not for more than the time it takes to hook up a fire hose and settle them right down.

Sounds like BS to me.


----------



## Randy Strausbaugh (Jul 20, 2012)

Folks, this point is moot.  Gitmo closed down and emptied out in January 2009.
Candidate Barak Obama swore to the nation that one of his first acts as President would be to shut it down.  That sort of thing is well within his powers and does not require the approval of Congress, just a stroke of the Presidential Executive Order pen.  So clearly this alleged "Gitmo" is purely a plot to make it seem that the President broke his word to the American people.  Anyone who claims that we still imprison persons without so much as a military tribunal must be some kind of a... racist.

Damn racists- they're everywhere!


----------



## billc (Jul 20, 2012)

The detainees are not normal prisoners.  The guards that have been interviewed have been told by detainees that they will try to murder the guards families, through surogates, leading to guards covering up any identification that may give away personal information.  Also...

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/prisoners-have-attacked-gitmo-guards-440-times



> WASHINGTON  The prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay during the war on terror have attacked their military guards hundreds of times, turning broken toilet parts, utensils, radios and even a bloody lizard tail into makeshift weapons, Pentagon reports say.
> Incident reports reviewed by The Associated Press indicate Military Police guards are routinely head-butted, spat upon and doused by "cocktails" of feces, urine, vomit and sperm collected in meal cups by the prisoners.
> Theyve been repeatedly grabbed, punched or assaulted by prisoners who reach through the small "bean holes" used to deliver food and blankets through cell doors, the reports say. Serious assaults requiring medical attention, however, are rare, the reports indicate.
> The detainee "reached under the face mask of an IRF (Initial Reaction Force) team members helmet and scratched his face, attempting to gouge his eyes," states a May 27, 2005, report on an effort to remove a recalcitrant prisoner from his cell.
> "The IRF team member received scratches to his face and eye socket area," the report said.



Unlike regular criminal prisoners, these guys are radical islamist terrorists who aren't motivated in the same way your average criminal is.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 20, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I'm trying to imagine a scenario in which our military has people locked up, cannot control them.  Hmmm.  No, I am not able to picture that.  Not for more than the time it takes to hook up a fire hose and settle them right down.
> 
> Sounds like BS to me.



Where you in the same military I was?  I can see ALOT of situations where the military can't keep control.  It happens no fault of the military but when we have rules vs people that won't follow rules it happens.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jul 20, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> Where you in the same military I was?  I can see ALOT of situations where the military can't keep control.  It happens no fault of the military but when we have rules vs people that won't follow rules it happens.



Inside of a prison?  ********.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jul 20, 2012)

billcihak said:


> The detainees are not normal prisoners.  The guards that have been interviewed have been told by detainees that they will try to murder the guards families, through surogates, leading to guards covering up any identification that may give away personal information.  Also...
> 
> http://sweetness-light.com/archive/prisoners-have-attacked-gitmo-guards-440-times
> 
> Unlike regular criminal prisoners, these guys are radical islamist terrorists who aren't motivated in the same way your average criminal is.



So suspending the Constitution is totally OK.  Uh, no.


----------



## billc (Jul 20, 2012)

Yes, that is exactly what I said, not only suspend the constitution, but set it on fire, and then p*** on the ashes.  No, these guys are alleged unlawful military combatants, and captured in the course of armed conflict.  They were sent to gitmo because while they don't warrant the protections of the Geneva convention, as real prisoners of war do, we had to do something with them.  As was pointed out before, in a war with a nation state, under the rules of the Geneva convention, once hostilities are concluded, all prisoners of war are returned to their country of origin, where they cease attacking the country that captured them.  Since these guys don't work for a country, and there is no way to insure they won't keep attacking us, and every reason to believe they will, gitmo is the perfect place to keep them until they can be tried under military tribunals.  Bush was prepared to go that route but then the courts stepped in, and bogged the whole process down.  Then obama came in and stopped the tribunals in order to make political points against the U.S. and Bush, and then when trying these guys in New York was fought by every sane person, they had to restart the tribunal process.

Also, because these guys were captured overseas, by military personel, the regular rules for evidence gathering just can't apply.  They weren't given their miranda rights, which as unlawful combatants, they aren't subject to, and military personel aren't trained evidence collectors.  Also, as they were captured under military operations, allowing them access to how we operate isn't possible either, as it would be in a civilian court. Also, we can't exactly bring in the soldiers who captured them to testify either, it is just not the same as criminal prosecutions in a civillian court, which is why military tribunals are the only way to handle them.


----------



## billc (Jul 20, 2012)

Here is a look at military tribunals...

http://ratify.constitutioncenter.org/education/ForEducators/DiscussionStarters/tribunals.shtml



> 3. How does the Government justify trying Hamdan in a military tribunal instead of in a civilian court?_The government claims that the United States is at War and Hamdan was caught fighting against the United States. Therefore he was an &#8220;enemy combatant.&#8221; As an enemy combatant, Hamdan is only afforded the due process rights granted by the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The president claims that constitutional authority grants the executive branch the right to try accused war criminals by military tribunal. Further, the executive branch claims it has the power to do this on its own, without oversight by any other branch of government._​4. Can Congress constitutionally suspend _habeas corpus_during times of national crisis? Can the President?_Answers will vary. Article I lists the powers of Congress and Section 9 lists limitations on Congress' power, including the specific conditions that must be met if habeas corpus is to be suspended. Some students may say that this implies that the suspension of habeas corpus is something only Congress may do. Others may say that the president's power as commander in chief of the military, explained in Article II, gives him the power to suspend habeas corpus within a military context._​5. Do you think the executive branch has the authority to create military tribunals for Guantanamo Bay detainees? Why or why not?_Yes, __Congress gave this authority to the administration when they authorized the use of military power by the White House after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks._ _However, the President - as Commmander in Chief - has this power regardless of congressional authorization._
> _No, the executive branch doesn't have the authority to create military tribunals without the consent of the Congress. Congressional authority and judicial oversight is required under the Constition._
> ​



also...

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/take_our_playbook_please.html



> Never in U.S. history have foreign soldiers been given the rights and immunities of U.S. citizens in American courts. Cases such as Mohammed's have always been handled in military tribunals.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jul 20, 2012)

Better a continued policy of shipping dozens off to secret torture centers under the watch of black ops, regardless of actual guilt, than risk being afraid.

Arguments such as this fear one thing - rational thought based on actual facts.

When arguing with Bush Apologists who believe that illegal torture, kidnapping and rights violations are actually legal, patriotic, and a good thing, the only sane argument is to walk away.


***Walking Away***


----------



## billc (Jul 21, 2012)

hmmm...What part of the difference between soldiers capturing prisoners in a foreign country during combat operations, and civilian law enforcement personnel making an arrest in the United States or another Western Democracy are people not understanding?  The complete difference in evidence gathering, chain of evidence, witness testimony and the rest as well as the fact that the people captured, per the Geneva conventions, are unlawful enemy combatants seems to get past a lot of people.  Hmmm...

Civilian lawyer in courtroom...
"Private smith, is that the man you took into custody?"
Private Smith "I'm not sure sir, we took 20 combatants prisoner and we sped them to the rear pretty quickly, so I couldn't say for sure if that guy is the same guy we captured, he looks completely different from the types of guys we captured.  Normally, they are pretty raggedy, and not so well groomed.  Besides, we were on a combat patrol and it was over two years ago, and the next day we captured 5 more guys, so I couldn't say for sure."
Civilian Lawyer "What did you do with the weapons and other evidence at the scene?"
Private Smith "the engineer piled it up and detonated it with the rest of the ammo, rockets and mines, we couldn't carry it with us and there was no way to get it back to the forward operating base because we were in the middle of a mountain range and any helicopters coming in were taking pretty heavy fire so the L.T. decided it wasn't worth risking a chopper to get the ammo and stuff back..."
Civilian lawyer "Excuse me.  Are you testifying that you destroyed evidence that was at the scene where you apprehended my client?"
Private Smith "Yes sir, there was no way to handle that much ammo and weapons and we couldn't just leave it there for the taliban to just get it..."
Civilian Lawyer "Your Honor, I would like the court to place Private Smith in custody for destruction of evidence in a criminal investigation, as well as the rest of the men in his squad and the military engineer who performed the illegal act, and his immediate supervisor Lieutenant Wolowitz also, I would like to move for the immediate release of my client as the rules governing the collection  of any evidence  that may have exonerated my client were violated and the evidence was destroyed by the private and his squadmates..."


You see, combat operations and civilian law enforcement are two completely different things and can't be mixed together.


----------



## CanuckMA (Jul 22, 2012)

Except they were not all taken on the battlefield. The US government was oferring cash rewards. Squad walks in a village, guy fingers his neighbour because he does not like him. Out to Gitmo. You just don't detain people for years with no proof. Convict them or let them go.


----------



## billc (Jul 22, 2012)

Wow, if only our guys were smart enough to realize that that might happen.  In fact, I have heard the process for sending someone to gitmo and it is quite extensive.  Are there some innocents who were sent there, probably, but for the most part that isn't the case.  There were layers upon layers of checks to make sure only the worst suspects were sent there, not just any sheepherder went to gitmo.


----------



## CanuckMA (Jul 22, 2012)

Yet, so very few of them were convicted of a crime. 

You just can't arbitrarly detain someone forever without cause. 

You take someone who's mildly religious and not all that happy about US troops invading his country. Ship him halfway around the world and put him in a cell with nothing to do but exercise and read the Koran. For years. That will make him pretty pissed at the US. I know it would make me.


----------



## Big Don (Jul 22, 2012)

CanuckMA said:


> Yet, so very few of them were convicted of a crime.
> 
> You just can't arbitrarly detain someone forever without cause.
> 
> You take someone who's mildly religious and not all that happy about US troops invading his country. Ship him halfway around the world and put him in a cell with nothing to do but exercise and* read the Koran.* For years. That will make him pretty pissed at the US. I know it would make me.


My, aren't we anti Islamic?


----------



## billc (Jul 22, 2012)

Hmmm...



> # of people who have been through Gitmo:
> 
> Total number of detainees ever incarcerated at Guantánamo: 779
> 
> ...



Apparently, if you read this post by Bob Hubbard, you will see that quite a few of the detainees were examined and released back into the wild.  For example...





> Detainees released under President Bush: over 500


  so the whole, "getting locked up and never released," isn't true, and in the articles you read, each inmate is reviewed each year to determine their status.  Also from the above post..





> .Detainees currently held at Guantánamo: 169


  Soooo...are all 169 simply peaceful shephards tending their flocks...or could it be that after reviewing the records of these guys, they might just be actual evil bad guys?


----------



## billc (Jul 22, 2012)

Also, the flawed system works badly both ways.  Some innocent guys have been caught up in the process, and I want that fixed.  However, there are also real evil A******, who have been released to murder innocent people.  The Israelis on that bus probably think the system didn't work real well for them either.


----------



## elder999 (Jul 23, 2012)

billcihak said:


> Yes, that is exactly what I said, not only suspend the constitution, but set it on fire, and then p*** on the ashes. No, these guys are alleged unlawful military combatants, and captured in the course of armed conflict. They were sent to gitmo because while they don't warrant the protections of the Geneva convention, as real prisoners of war do, we had to do something with them. As was pointed out before, in a war with a nation state, under the rules of the Geneva convention, once hostilities are concluded, all prisoners of war are returned to their country of origin, where they cease attacking the country that captured them. Since these guys don't work for a country, and there is no way to insure they won't keep attacking us, and every reason to believe they will, gitmo is the perfect place to keep them until they can be tried under military tribunals. Bush was prepared to go that route but then the courts stepped in, and bogged the whole process down. Then obama came in and stopped the tribunals in order to make political points against the U.S. and Bush, and then when trying these guys in New York was fought by every sane person, they had to restart the tribunal process.
> 
> Also, because these guys were captured overseas, by military personel, the regular rules for evidence gathering just can't apply. They weren't given their miranda rights, which as unlawful combatants, they aren't subject to, and military personel aren't trained evidence collectors. Also, as they were captured under military operations, allowing them access to how we operate isn't possible either, as it would be in a civilian court. Also, we can't exactly bring in the soldiers who captured them to testify either, it is just not the same as criminal prosecutions in a civillian court, which is why military tribunals are the only way to handle them.



So, for the record,_ you approve of *President Obama's *actions in this regard._


----------



## billc (Jul 23, 2012)

You mean where he tried to put on a show trial to attack President Bush, and the foreign policy of America by having the trials in New York, and then, under tremendous pressure from the American people, through their representatives in congress who didn't want to suffer the wrath of the American people, decided to use military tribunals after all?  Sure, he was forced to do the right thing after his extreme left wing plans met too much resistance.


----------



## Empty Hands (Jul 23, 2012)

billcihak said:


> Sure, he was forced to do the right thing after his extreme left wing plans met too much resistance.



Having trials under normal procedures in normal jurisdictions following the rules of our Constitutionally-based justice system now counts as "extreme left wing plans"?

What ****ing universe do you live in?


----------



## billc (Jul 23, 2012)

Because, even if you afford unlawful enemy combatants the rights of the Geneva convention, which they are not entitled to, they still rank as prisoners of war, not United States citizens.  They were captured in foreign countries so at best, they would need to be tried in their country of origin, not the United States.  Since they are at Gitmo, and unlawful enemy combatants, the Military Tribunal is the only logical way to try them since they were captured by military personel, not law enforcement officers and the rules of evidence involving captured prisoners of war is extremely different than those used to try United States civilians in a United States civilian court. The rules of evidence for war crimes, which these guys are accused of since they are unlawful enemy combatants, and not U.S. citizens, are different than for civilian trials.   The fact that Obama wanted to try these guys in New York, and the way he was going about it, showed he wanted to use them to go after Bush and the people who helped Bush craft the policies after 9/11.  So, since obama and his minions are left wing radicals, yes, it was a desire of the left to try Bush in absentia since they couldn't realistically get him in a courtroom.

That is the universe we both live in, get used to it.


----------



## elder999 (Jul 23, 2012)

Empty Hands said:


> What ****ing universe do you live in?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jul 23, 2012)

*Drop the personal shots.*


----------



## Empty Hands (Jul 23, 2012)

Bob Hubbard said:


> *Drop the personal shots.*



It wasn't meant to be.  Such a conclusion is so alien to the facts at hand that I literally don't understand it.


----------



## elder999 (Jul 23, 2012)

Empty Hands said:


> I literally don't understand it.




Which pretty much sums up the Teletubby universe. :lfao:


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 23, 2012)

elder999 said:


> Which pretty much sums up the Teletubby universe. :lfao:




Good grief we didn't sell you the Teletubbies did we? My sincere apologies! Still might be a fair swap for Sponge Bob
.


----------



## Big Don (Jul 23, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> Good grief we didn't sell you the Teletubbies did we? My sincere apologies! Still might be a fair swap for Sponge Bob
> .



Worst thing since the Stamp Act. BTW, you can keep Madonna...


----------



## granfire (Jul 23, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> Good grief we didn't sell you the Teletubbies did we? My sincere apologies! Still might be a fair swap for Sponge Bob
> .



I liked the Teletubbies


----------



## elder999 (Jul 23, 2012)

granfire said:


> I liked the Teletubbies



I suppose that if I could smoke pot, I'd like them too. :lfao:

 (I would not let that get around, if I were you...:lfao: )


----------



## CanuckMA (Jul 23, 2012)

granfire said:


> I liked the Teletubbies




'splains a lot.


----------



## granfire (Jul 23, 2012)

elder999 said:


> I suppose that if I could smoke pot, I'd like them too. :lfao:
> 
> (I would not let that get around, if I were you...:lfao: )





CanuckMA said:


> 'splains a lot.



Haters will hate.....


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jul 23, 2012)

Here's the bottom line.

Not all those who went through Gitmo were captured on battlefields. Some were picked up inside the US, while trying to get on an airplane.  Some of those folks ended up in 'special' places in the hands of the nice questioners in Syria, and other nations where they were tortured. Some of them weren't US citizens, 1 at least was a Canadian. Most of these were deemed innocent or harmless and released.
The majority of those put through Gitmo were deemed harmless or innocent and released.
The majority.

The few who were seen to either be a further threat, or guilty are still locked up.

Of those released, a small number remained dangerous and in fact did more harm.

However the % is a smaller % than those who are repeat DWI, or in fact most armed crimes.

Those numbers are available on the FBI's website for anyone interested.

Unless you mandate execution for all captured, you'll always have the risk of some repeat. 
Unless you have perfect universal surveillance, you'll always have the risk of incarcerating an innocent.
Until we have the ability to tap into the mind and play it like a VCR, there will always be doubt.

It's easy to say things like 'better 100 free guilty than 1 locked up innocent', until such time as you are a victim.
It's easy to say 'better 100 locked up free than 1 guilty', until you're the one locked up.

At the end of the day, someone released this POS, and he became a danger again. That will remain the risk as long as we at least attempt to honor the law, and the ideals that our nation once stood for. Innocent until proven Guilty. Right to a fair and speedy trial. and so on.

At the end of the day though, someone released a lot more people, and they haven't been a problem since.  Doesn't that count, or is it only the failures that should be measured?


----------



## granfire (Jul 23, 2012)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Here's the bottom line.
> 
> Not all those who went through Gitmo were captured on battlefields. Some were picked up inside the US, while trying to get on an airplane.  Some of those folks ended up in 'special' places in the hands of the nice questioners in Syria, and other nations where they were tortured. Some of them weren't US citizens, 1 at least was a Canadian. Most of these were deemed innocent or harmless and released.
> The majority of those put through Gitmo were deemed harmless or innocent and released.
> ...





Well, the motto was more like 'better lock up 100 innocent than letting one possibly guilty go' 
Not exactly how the legal system is supposed to work. 

Innocent until assumed terrorist....


----------



## elder999 (Jul 23, 2012)

granfire said:


> Haters will hate.....



Doll, you know I love you, right? :smile:

I love Beanie and Cecil, a gift from the subersive mind of Bob Clampett-father of Porky Pig-but, let's face it: it's a cartoon about a little blonde boy whose best friend is a giant phallus. :lfao:

I love musical theater, which-let's face it-is kinda gay. Crazy about _Guys and Dolls_, cry at the end of _West Side Story_, really always wanted to play Judas in _Jesus Christ Superstar._ 

Really like opera-not going to get into it....

You like the Teletubbies-I get it-and some would think my revelations about my entertainment tastes to be an even bigger indictment.

To each his own.......(Teletubbies, though?-I had you figured for _Heckle and Jeckle_, or the _Flintstones_-*love,love,LOVE* the _Flintstones_ :lfao: )


----------



## granfire (Jul 24, 2012)

elder999 said:


> Doll, you know I love you, right? :smile:
> 
> I love Beanie and Cecil, a gift from the subersive mind of Bob Clampett-father of Porky Pig-but, let's face it: it's a cartoon about a little blonde boy whose best friend is a giant phallus. :lfao:
> 
> ...


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 24, 2012)

It is better to put those who it is felt have charges to answer to on trial for a number of reasons. It shows that the Allies believe in justice, law and order. It stops all of us looking like we are saying to people 'do as I say not do as I do' and it shows terrorists we aren't afraid. The last is important, even if they do scare us, if we can no longer go about our daily lives, if we have to change the way we do things, if our security becomes so tight we ourselves are stifled then the terrorists have won. Put them on trial, if they are innocent let them be shown to be, if they are guilty it's even more important that they be shown to be guilty, show the world the evidence, show them what we are fighting. some countries won't believe of course as they assume everyone has their standards but openness is the best thing all round in this situation. It says look we release the innocent and we punish the guilty just the same as we do to our own. Standards..ours must be higher than theirs, if we turn into 'them' we've lost.


----------



## granfire (Jul 24, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> It is better to put those who it is felt have charges to answer to on trial for a number of reasons. It shows that the Allies believe in justice, law and order. It stops all of us looking like we are saying to people 'do as I say not do as I do' and it shows terrorists we aren't afraid. The last is important, even if they do scare us, if we can no longer go about our daily lives, if we have to change the way we do things, if our security becomes so tight we ourselves are stifled then the terrorists have won. Put them on trial, if they are innocent let them be shown to be, if they are guilty it's even more important that they be shown to be guilty, show the world the evidence, show them what we are fighting. some countries won't believe of course as they assume everyone has their standards but openness is the best thing all round in this situation. It says look we release the innocent and we punish the guilty just the same as we do to our own. Standards..ours must be higher than theirs, if we turn into 'them' we've lost.



Especially the 'showing the evidence'

Germany had to let one guy go, they knew they did it, but they did not have the evidence - and the US did not share what hey had....I am sure there were enough people pointing fingers at the mean Germans for not putting the guy away....(the judges shrugged 'we want to but can't based on what we got')


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 24, 2012)

granfire said:


> Especially the 'showing the evidence'
> 
> Germany had to let one guy go, they knew they did it, but they did not have the evidence - and the US did not share what hey had....I am sure there were enough people pointing fingers at the mean Germans for not putting the guy away....(the judges shrugged 'we want to but can't based on what we got')




If the evidence isn't there you can't convict, it's fine saying well it's terrorists but it sets a precedent, the next person to be convicted without evidence could be anyone, you or me. We simply can't go down the road of imprisoning people without the legal processes being correct, it's to safeguard us not the terrorists. Play with the law, bend it, work around it and it will be all of us who suffer in the end.


----------



## Empty Hands (Jul 24, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> It shows that the Allies believe in justice, law and order.



Sadly, I don't think we really do as a nation.  I hope you guys are better at it.


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 24, 2012)

Empty Hands said:


> Sadly, I don't think we really do as a nation. I hope you guys are better at it.



Not in this case as our governments has allowed the terrorist suspects to be taken and haven't protested at all not even when the suspects were British citizens. We shouldn't turn our citizens over to any country without the proper legal steps being taken to ensure a fair trial etc.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/feb/21/ciarendition.usa
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/26/guantamano-files-britain-knew-torture

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jan/01/released-guantanamo-british-detainees


----------



## billc (Aug 3, 2012)

This guy didn't make it to gitmo because we let the Iraqi's have him...and they let him go...

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/...-Freed-Because-Obama-Would-Not-Bring-to-Gitmo



> [h=2]Judicial Watch reports that Hezbollah commander Ali Mussa Daqduq, who tortured and killed 5 U.S. soldiers in Iraq and was detained by U.S. forces in early 2007, will be freed by an Iraqi court--the inevitable, and predictable, result of an Obama administration decision to hand him over to Iraqi authorities rather than bring him to Guantanamo Bay.[/h]Judicial Watch summarizes the pathetic abdication of justice by the Obama administration:
> We all knew this would happen back in December when the commander-in-chief handed over the Lebanese militant, Ali Mussa Daqduq, to Iraqi officials. A mainstream newspaper presented it as a &#8220;dilemma&#8221; for the president as American troops prepared to exit Iraq. Daqduq had been in U.S. military custody in Iraq since 2007 for his involvement in a carefully orchestrated plot that killed, kidnapped and tortured American military officers.
> The atrocities took place in a city called Karbala, south of Baghdad in early 2007. Around a dozen terrorists dressed in U.S. military uniforms opened fire on Americans after approaching a camp in five sports utility vehicles resembling U.S. transports. One U.S. soldier died at the scene and four others were kidnapped, tortured and executed. Daqduq, a Hezbollah commander, was the mastermind.
> But President Obama didn&#8217;t want to remove the terrorist from Iraq without permission from the country, in order not to violate its sovereignty. He also refused to take Daqduq to the U.S. Naval base in Guantanamo Cuba, which houses other high-value terrorists, because the facility is an anathema in the Middle East and Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki would not approve the &#8220;unacceptable&#8221; Guantanamo option.
> ...



I wonder how this a*****e is going to celebrate his release.  Perhaps he will have meditated on the course of his life in prison and will change his ways to the ways of peace and reconciliation...yeah right.


----------

