Gitmo detainee murders after his release....

[WC_lun]

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]

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’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’s release.[SUP][citation needed][/SUP]
In 2005, members of Rahman’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 “uncooperative, unforthcoming and deceptive during interrogations.” 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 documentaryGitmo – 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 “medium risk, as he may possibly pose a threat to the US its interests and allies,” the decision to release him to Sweden followed: “Recommendation: JTF Gitmo recommends that this detainee be transferred to the control of another country for continued detention.”

 

[Bill Mattocks]

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’s claim that detainees have “returned to the battlefield” 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:
• only twenty-one (21)—or four percent (4%)—of 516 Combatant Status Review
Tribunal unclassified summaries of the evidence alleged that a detainee had ever been
on any battlefield;
• only twenty-four (24)—or five percent (5%)—of unclassified summaries alleged
that a detainee had been captured by United States forces;
• 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]

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’s claim that detainees have “returned to the battlefield” 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:
• only twenty-one (21)—or four percent (4%)—of 516 Combatant Status Review
Tribunal unclassified summaries of the evidence alleged that a detainee had ever been
on any battlefield;
• only twenty-four (24)—or five percent (5%)—of unclassified summaries alleged
that a detainee had been captured by United States forces;
• 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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

We did that too. We probably still are.

Im sure we do.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Hey, that's how you corner the market!

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

 

[granfire]

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]

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]

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.