Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: lone_gunman on January 22, 2009, 01:17:34 PM
-
I am somewhat surprised that he has acted that boldly and swiftly. Overall, I think we are better off with both of these, but of course, most here will disagree. Its a shame that we spent $500 million building a prison facility there, only to have it closed down a few years later.
-
I am somewhat surprised that he has acted that boldly and swiftly. Overall, I think we are better off with both of these, but of course, most here will disagree.
Yes, we were better off with Gitmo and enhanced interrogation in necessary cases with known terrorists.
Maybe some of the terrorists could be resettled near you?
-
Maybe some of the terrorists could be resettled near you?
They will either be kept in prisons here in the US, or in other countries, and some will likely be set free. But I certainly would not mind them being housed in a federal prison near me. I doubt they would last long in the general population.
These people should be either released (if they are not a threat) or executed. There is no reason to feed and water them for the next 50 years at Gitmo.
Yes, we were better off with Gitmo and enhanced interrogation in necessary cases with known terrorists.
Certainly you don't think the people at Gitmo still have more information to share? Most of them have been there so long now that any information they have is outdated and useless. Al qaeda has moved on without them.
I favor executing the ones that are dangerous, and letting the rest go. If some are brought here, that is still preferable to Gitmo, which has become a point of embarassment for the US.
-
Family members of people killed on September 11, 2001, and in other terror attacks say they are outraged by President Obama's draft order calling for the suspension of war crimes trials of prisoners being held at Guantanamo Bay.
"To me it's beyond comprehension that they would take the side of the terrorists," said Peter Gadiel, whose son, James, was killed at the World Trade Center on 9/11. "Many of these people have been released and been right back killing, right back at their terrorist work again."
Obama's request on the first full day of his presidency came as a draft order was being prepared ordering the closing of the Guantanamo prison within a year. A judge responded by halting the case against a Canadian detainee accused of killing an American soldier in Afghanistan, issuing a 120-day continuance in the case.
Click here for photos.
"I see no reason why we should delay these proceedings. Let justice be served," said Jefferson Crowther, whose 24-year-old son, Welles, was killed in the Twin Towers after he saved the lives of several others.
Critics blasted Obama's decision, which they said would delay justice in cases that have already been waiting for the better part of a decade.
"There is no need to suspend [the military tribunals]. There is no reason why [Obama] can't conduct a concurrent review at the same time that the military commission process is moving forward to render justice for the terrorists that have murdered thousands of people," said former Cmdr. Kirk Lippold, who lost 17 sailors during a suicide bombing attack on the USS Cole in 2000. A suspect in the case is being held at Guantanamo.
"It demeans their deaths because we seem to be more concerned with the rights of detainees than we are with the justice that is being denied to my sailors that were killed," Lippold told FOXNews.com.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/01/21/families-outraged-obama-suspend-guantanamo-war-crimes-trials/ (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/01/21/families-outraged-obama-suspend-guantanamo-war-crimes-trials/)
I see this as the first policy, the first day, the first priority of the Obama administration not being our economy, our problems...but appeasement of our enemies.
So be it. That's what he chose for his first stroke of the pen, that's what history will show. The recording is running.
-
Meh.
"Alright guys, I need a big symbolic act that will appease the people who got me the nomination.
But we need to make sure it won't come back to bite me, so we'll close it after a year so we have time to figure out where to put these guys.
Also, wasn't waterboarding already banned? Perfect. I can look compassionate but not actually do anything new."
Woohoo. Change.
Edit: Also, post 357. Very nice.
-
I don't see much appeasement of our enemies. Most are just going to be moved to a different prison.
-
Yes, we were better off with Gitmo and enhanced interrogation in necessary cases with known terrorists.
Maybe some of the terrorists could be resettled near you?
Known? They were already convicted?
-
Known? They were already convicted?
In this one I have to disagree with you.
We cannot subject enemy combatants to our court system.
If we catch them on the battlefield, that's enough for me. (I am aware some of these were given to us by countries that are, to put it lightly, less than trustworthy.)
We cannot allow information vital to national security to be given to individuals with a high likelihood of giving it to the enemy.
Thus, we should use courts where classified information can be kept that way. Kind of like these military tribunals that Obama has just suspended.
-
If we catch them on the battlefield, that's enough for me. (I am aware some of these were given to us by countries that are, to put it lightly, less than trustworthy.)
A lot of these people are NOT captured on battlefields. They need to be tried.
-
Maybe some of the terrorists could be resettled near you?
John Murtha (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hKVRRcRGCEWaX5We0D12MMA9n1fAD95RRH1G0) will take them.
They need to be tried.
Exactly. They need to be tried fairly and as quickly as possible. Ignoring the torture issues, the problem with Gitmo is that they got all these people and then spent years trying to figuring out what they even are accused of. If these people are indeed "the worst of the worst" then there should be something to try them on. If not they need to be released - I don't see what's so unreasonable about that.
-
I agree with the President on this one. Way to deliver on a promise, Obama.
-
They never should have been in Gitmo. They should have been turned over to the gov'ts of the nations in which they were taken, treated in accordance with the SOPs of said country, with the resulting intel coming back to us. A few would have escaped/been released to go back to terrorism, a few would have gotten out, and the majority would never have been seen again.
Basically, just return to the Clinton way of doing things.
-
He hasn't delivered anything at all. So far he's shown he's a politician who can sign his name on some paper as well as any other politician. Let's see how reality pans out. I'm gonna wait to see if gitmo actually closes.
As for the prisoners, release them back to their home countries and let it be known that they helped the Americans big time. The problem solves itself.
If we were going back to the Clinton way of doing things, BHO should have waited til he was caught having an affair, then bluster about closing Gitmo for a few weeks as a distraction. And then not actually do it.
-
They never should have been in Gitmo. They should have been turned over to the gov'ts of the nations in which they were taken, treated in accordance with the SOPs of said country, with the resulting intel coming back to us. A few would have escaped/been released to go back to terrorism, a few would have gotten out, and the majority would never have been seen again.
Basically, just return to the Clinton way of doing things.
Right, and I'm going to trust intel received from Saudi or Iraq.
-
Right, and I'm going to trust intel received from Saudi or Iraq.
My point was to remind people who suffer from Bush Derangement Syndrome what went on before Gitmo was dreamed of, back in the day when our hands were "clean" and the interrogations were lethal.
-
As for the prisoners, release them back to their home countries and let it be known that they helped the Americans big time. The problem solves itself.
Problem solved - they're gone from Gitmo, and back where we caught them!
I'm sure the other clansmen will welcome home men who helped Uncle Sam. :cool:
-
We need to make sure that they go home on American transports at times that are classified but, unfortunately, leaked. Thus, their compatriots can see them "sneaking" back in along with their payment (goats, whatever) and being thanked by the infidels.
-
Yes, we were better off with Gitmo and enhanced interrogation in necessary cases with known terrorists.
Maybe some of the terrorists could be resettled near you?
I'm not scared of terrorists.
-
I'm not scared of terrorists.
Really. Hardened killers from some ickystan.
Well, then I suppose you'd not mind if they had at your family?
-
We need to make sure that they go home on American transports at times that are classified but, unfortunately, leaked. Thus, their compatriots can see them "sneaking" back in along with their payment (goats, whatever) and being thanked by the infidels.
So they can shoot down American planes with American aircews? No thanks. I say we surgically implant explosives and gps trackers in them and release them. When they get back to their little terrorist cell, we detonate the explosives.
-
The new president's first tasks will be to throw bones to pressure groups that got him elected. Gitmo is just another example. Carter took a principled stand against so-called intelligence abuses outlawing a number of practices. He thought he eliminated the practice. In reality he merely drove it further underground effectively reducing whatever oversight there was. Rendition is a creation of Clinton, not Bush. Bush applied and refined the practice. The new president looks like he is going back to the future. If he completely bans rendition and closes places like Gitmo he will merely drive the practices from the public.
The man is a master politican. Never forget it!
-
Like the CIA doesn't do worse things on a regular basis for intel?
This is called "Throwing a bone."
-
Good. I'm glad Gitmo is closed. I hope fewer people are held without cause. Yes, I realize it is less "safe".
-
The fatal flaw has always been that people expect military prisoners to be treated with civilian rights and privileges. If they are caught in the middle of a battlefield with a gun, or on a raid with sufficient evidence to convince the military they were a combatant, they need to be held. When the war is over, they get released. How many Germans did we release in the middle of WW2 again? How many had trials? The really bad guys had trials afterwards, the average foot soldier was allowed home after the war was over.
It's a battlefield. Not the place evidence is corrected or people are read their rights.
-
When the war is over, they get released.
Having prisoners you don't know what to do with is an unintended consequence of a never-ending undelared war.
Are you saying we should hold them til the War on Terror is over? I don't think it will ever end, and holding someone in captivity for the next 50 years is expensive and less humane than simply executing them now.
-
i think we need to keep very careful track of them and everytime one of em kills americans we need to hold peoples feet to the fire. maybe vigils outside their home office and church with posters of those killed i am getting soft in my old age i was originally gonna say outside their kids school as well
-
Really. Hardened killers from some ickystan.
Well, then I suppose you'd not mind if they had at your family?
False choice fallacy.
I can prove just as effectively (i.e. not effectively at all) that the treatment of prisoners (guilty or not) at Guantanamo will put just as many terrorists in my back yard as releasing all 800 or so prisoners. That's assuming that they will be released into society, which most of them will not be.
-
False choice fallacy.
It's not a fallacy at all. It's a good point. If we let these guys out of jail, some of them are gonna attack us again. Maybe you're ok with that. I'm not.
Letting these guys go is a Really Bad Idea.
-
It's not a fallacy at all. It's a good point. If we let these guys out of jail, some of them are gonna attack us again. Maybe you're ok with that. I'm not.
Letting these guys go is a Really Bad Idea.
If they were normal POW's they'd be let go after hostilities ended anyway.
-
Alright, then let's hold 'em until hostilities are over.
That's not to say all of these guys are POWs or should be given any such consideration.
-
Alright, then let's hold 'em until hostilities are over.
The War on Terror will never end. So they will be held until they die. That is expensive, and more inhumane than simply executing them.
-
Ahem.
"Gitmo" aka, Guantanamo Bay existed long before the current holding facility was built there.
It's a U.S. Naval Base base on the very eastern end of Cuba, established in 1903, much to the chagrine of Fidel Castro when he took over.
The new administration has signed paperwork closing the detainee camp, which has taken on the "Gitmo" moniker previously assigned to the entire naval base.
That is all.
We're not giving up our toehold on Cuba that easily.
-
Yes you are correct. I think everyone is aware that Gitmo is a US Naval base, thanks to Tom Cruise and Jack Nicholson. Only the prison is closing.
-
The War on Terror will never end. So they will be held until they die.
That, I believe, is pretty unlikely.
-
iirc some of thopse we've already released have "reoffended"
-
iirc some of thopse we've already released have "reoffended"
Had we just executed them, we wouldn't have to worry about "re-killing" them.
-
Put them on a C-17 and lose them out the back somewhere over the atlantic. Seriously though, BHO will regret closing Gitmo. Time will tell but unfortunately someone will die from the hands of one of them Gitmo residents within 2 years of their release.
-
I don't think any Gitmo detainees are going to be released.
-
I don't think any Gitmo detainees are going to be released.
Nor do I. I think they'll be shoe-horned through the criminal courts here, making a mockery of justice in the process. It's a really dumb thing to do, but we're going to do it anyway, and then we're going to pat ourselves on the back for doing it.
-
Not even repatriated to their own country? Some may never be released from custody but the few that have in the past have went right back into their chosen profession.
-
Not even repatriated to their own country? Some may never be released from custody but the few that have in the past have went right back into their chosen profession.
Really?
A 100% reoffense rate? Even among those ruled not guilty?
-
Nor do I. I think they'll be shoe-horned through the criminal courts here, making a mockery of justice in the process. It's a really dumb thing to do, but we're going to do it anyway, and then we're going to pat ourselves on the back for doing it.
That is what I think will happen as well, if Gitmo actually closes. We will try them in US courts, convict them, and give them life sentences in US Prisons. None will be executed, and none will be released. Then as you say, we will compliment ourselves on how much more humane we are now that Obama is our president. France and Germany will be happy. The terrorists will get worse treatment in federal prison than they were getting at Gitmo. A fair number will get killed by their cell mates.
-
Seriously though, BHO will regret closing Gitmo.
Literally or figuratively?
I doubt seriously if BHO will ever regret anything he does.
Other individuals will regret the closing, but not BHO.
Anygunanywhere
-
That is what I think will happen as well, if Gitmo actually closes. We will try them in US courts, convict them, and give them life sentences in US Prisons. None will be executed, and none will be released. Then as you say, we will compliment ourselves on how much more humane we are now that Obama is our president. France and Germany will be happy. The terrorists will get worse treatment in federal prison than they were getting at Gitmo. A fair number will get killed by their cell mates.
Some will be killed. But some will be treated as heroes, and many will have the opportunity to convert others to the cause.
Prisons have long been called finishing schools for criminals. You'll be able to add "domestic terrorists" to that soon enough.
-
How many of you would be considered a terrorist suspect with evidence (http://law.shu.edu/aaafinal.pdf) like this: "The evidence against 39% of the detainees rests in part on the possession of a Kalashnikov rifle."? :O
-
None will be executed, and none will be released
There are some people in Gitmo already known to be innocent.
-
There are some people in Gitmo already known to be innocent.
Source, please?
-
Source, please?
I think he means people already found innocent (through "trials") and scheduled released except the bureaucrats gummed up the works.
I'd welcome other information though :)
-
Hmmp, I don't recall saying anything about 100 percent of anything.
-
I don't think any Gitmo detainees are going to be released.
I agree. Or a few low-risk/low value detainees are going to get shuffled to other countries. A few others will get the "constitutional" civilian stateside show-trials. Net result, either Gitmo will remain open indefinately due to "unforseen problems", or Gitmo will just get distributed and broken up into other centers that are essentialy the same, and the liberal establishment/MSM will direct it's attention elsewhere.
Beyond the pro-forma placation of the beeding-heart Amnesty International types who find it easier to engage a relatively honest and humane country like America, than the real despots of the world, the reality of being a captured stateless non-uniformed combatant in AWOT will not change much over the next four years.
Or, it'll be worse as our military and intelligence services look for other avenues to detain and interrogate terrorists. Such as increased use of leaving them with our "allies" who have no standard of humane treatment whatsoever. Or simply searching for "plausible denial", and it happens completely anonomyously in the field. Field telophone, testicles, and an unmarked grave...
Gitmo is going to look like heaven in comparison. Both for what will really happen to terrorists and "people of interest/suspicion", and for what America will become now that there's incentive to detain and interrogate "off the books".
-
The War on Terror has been superseded by the War on Productivity.
And torture for the few replaced by torture for the many (us).
Get ready for a waterboarded economy with plenty of "laundering."
-
Or, it'll be worse as our military and intelligence services look for other avenues to detain and interrogate terrorists. Such as increased use of leaving them with our "allies" who have no standard of humane treatment whatsoever. Or simply searching for "plausible denial", and it happens completely anonomyously in the field. Field telophone, testicles, and an unmarked grave...
Gitmo is going to look like heaven in comparison. Both for what will really happen to terrorists and "people of interest/suspicion", and for what America will become now that there's incentive to detain and interrogate "off the books".
Are you saying that we should keep Gitmo open as a nice central torture spot in order to prevent agents from torturing suspects in the field unsupervised? And if by banning torture Obama is encouraging it off the books, does that mean that by authorizing torture Bush prevented?
-
Say it aint so.....
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/23/gitmo.detainee/index.html
Detainee went from Gitmo to al Qaeda, officials say
A Saudi national released from U.S. detention at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, in September 2007 is believed to be a key leader in al Qaeda's operations in Yemen, according to a U.S. counterterrorism official.
Ali al-Shiri was released in 2007 from the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
The Defense Department recently estimated that more than 60 terrorists released from Guantanamo may have returned to the battlefield.
According to the counterterrorism official, freed detainee Ali al-Shiri traveled to Yemen after being released to Saudi Arabia and may have been involved in recent al Qaeda attacks in Yemen, including a car bombing outside the U.S. Embassy in Sanaa last year that killed nearly a dozen people.
"He is one of a handful of al Qaeda deputies in Yemen," the official said. "He is one of the top terrorists."
His title is deputy and senior operations commander, the source said.
According to the magazine Sada al-Malahem, or The Echo of the Epics, published by al Qaeda in Yemen, al-Shiri attended a media session in which Yemen commander Abu Baseer was interviewed.
The magazine identified al-Shiri as Baseer's deputy commander and quoted Baseer as announcing that al Qaeda's operations in Yemen and Saudi Arabia have been combined to become al Qaeda on the Arabian Peninsula.
The magazine noted that al-Shiri was released from Guantanamo more than 10 months ago.
He fled a Saudi jihadi re-education program, where he went after his release, a Saudi source told CNN's Nic Robertson.
President Obama on Thursday signed an order mandating that the Guantanamo Bay prison be closed within the year. What to do with the detainees has been a hotly debated topic.
The issue of freed detainees engaging in terrorism is one concern. Another is housing them in prisons inside the United States.
Rep. Bill Young, R-Florida, said he has "quite a bit of anxiety" about the possibility of transferring detainees to U.S. facilities.
"Number one, they're dangerous," Young said. "Secondly, once they become present in the United States, what is their legal status? What is their constitutional status? I worry about that, because I don't want them to have the same constitutional rights that you and I have. They're our enemy."
Obama's decision to close the Guantanamo facility received immediate backing from his general election opponent, Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain.
McCain, in a joint statement with South Carolina GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham, said he supported Obama's decision to "begin a process that will, we hope, lead to the resolution of all cases of Guantanamo detainees."
But Thursday night on CNN's "Larry King Live," McCain said the new president may have been hasty in the decision and should have taken the time to consider everything associated with closing the camp before forcing himself into a timetable.
Specifically, McCain said he thought Obama needed to consider what would happen to the prisoners held at Guantanamo before ordering the facility to be closed.
"So, the easy part, in all due respect, is to say we're going to close Guantanamo," McCain said. "Then I think I would have said where they were going to be taken. Because you're going to run into a NIMBY [not in my backyard] problem here in the United States of America." Watch what may happen to Guantanamo's inmates »
Asked about that issue Thursday, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said, "We have developed some options in terms of how many we think could be returned to other countries to take them. That diplomatic initiative has not started. That will await work in carrying out the executive order."
"We have identified a number of possible prisons here in the United States" that could take the detainees. However, Gates added, "I've heard from members of Congress [representing] where all those prisons are located. Their enthusiasm is limited."
-
Are you saying that we should keep Gitmo open as a nice central torture spot in order to prevent agents from torturing suspects in the field unsupervised? And if by banning torture Obama is encouraging it off the books, does that mean that by authorizing torture Bush prevented?
Sure, why not. ;/
Although before we go there, I think we need to codify just how much actual "torture" is going on at Gitmo. And for the sake of fairness, cite no sources that are irreperably biased towards finding "torture".
I'll concede that there was waterboarding going on at one point. And I'll admit that I haven't lost much sleep over it. Other things described as "torture", such as isolation, screwing with sleep and day/night cycles, not allowing someone to sit, etc. I would not describe as "torture".
If you want to be an ununiformed stateless combatant dedicated to the creation of a world-wide caliphate, too bad, be thankful we caught you, and not Pakistan.
But thanks to people who were desperate to discredit the previous administration however they could, and incapable of keeping human rights issues separate from partisanship, we'll never really have a clear picture of what went on, what didn't, or an honest debate to set just where the "line we won't cross" is.
-
If you want to be an ununiformed stateless combatant dedicated to the creation of a world-wide caliphate, too bad, be thankful we caught you, and not Pakistan.
I don't have much sympathy for those who are "stateless combatants dedicated to the creation of a world-wide caliphate" either - I don't think anyone is particularly sorry for them. However, I don't believe there's much evidence that everyone in Gitmo falls into that category and the problem is they have little recourse to prove otherwise.
Is it worth imprisoning and torturing (or just short of torturing if you prefer) innocent people in the quest for the guilty?
I don't understand how so many conservatives can bemoan the incompetence of big government but when it comes to imprisoning people indefinitely and using "enhanced interrogation techniques" their outlook suddenly changes - "oh well I'm sure they're doing a fine job at that! No worries that they don't need to file charges, produce evidence, or ever release you! It's hard work, TRUST THEM!"
-
It changes when the folks they have locked up there would rather lop your head off rather than shake your hand.
-
I don't have much sympathy for those who are "stateless combatants dedicated to the creation of a world-wide caliphate" either - I don't think anyone is particularly sorry for them. However, I don't believe there's much evidence that everyone in Gitmo falls into that category and the problem is they little recourse to prove otherwise.
Is it worth imprisoning and torturing (or just short of torturing if you prefer) innocent people in the quest for the guilty?
I don't understand how so many conservatives can bemoan the incompetence of big government but when it comes to imprisoning people indefinitely and using "enhanced interrogation techniques" their outlook suddenly changes - "oh well I'm sure they're doing a fine job at that! No worries that they don't need to file charges, produce evidence, or ever release you! It's hard work, TRUST THEM!"
Well, there's not as much of a discrepancy as you think. Conservatives do tend to trust those in our government, but mainly it's the "tip of the spear" types who are encountering the enemy combatants. They tend to have the common sense God gives to pigs and more, because if they don't, they run a good risk of winding up dead.
The guys our guys find with AK-47's, RPG's, huts full of IED making stuff, and with a laptop full of AQ emails from OBL, are generally speaking, who we're looking for. I sincerely doubt many innocent goat-herders huddled in a ditch, stuck in the crossfire, and were found once the smoke cleared, are at Gitmo. AFAIK, any mistaken cases are people given over to us by the more Keystone Kop elements of our "allies".
I've never seen anyone come up with a percentage of innocent to not-innocent detainees. However, my gut feeling (I admit, just my opinon) is it's probably pretty similar to the ratio in our own judicial system and domestic prisons, even our death rows. And no-one (at least of any stature as compared to our MSM/liberal establishment et-all) is suggesting we scrap our prison system over the innocents, so why Gitmo?
And I should not need to argue the stakes are much higher. Unlike even the worst criminals who murder onesy-twosey, directly or indirectly, these people are tied to a movment proven capable of murdering thousands of American civilians in one blow.
-
The irony is that what our enemies want is a form of organized torture.
-
The guys our guys find with AK-47's, RPG's, huts full of IED making stuff, and with a laptop full of AQ emails from OBL, are generally speaking, who we're looking for. I sincerely doubt many innocent goat-herders huddled in a ditch, stuck in the crossfire, and were found once the smoke cleared, are at Gitmo. AFAIK, any mistaken cases are people given over to us by the more Keystone Kop elements of our "allies".
Did you read my link from earlier in this thread? (now edited into this post) According to that report only 5% of Gitmo detainees are brought in by U.S. forces, 86% were provided by our "allies."
I've never seen anyone come up with a percentage of innocent to not-innocent detainees. However, my gut feeling (I admit, just my opinon) is it's probably pretty similar to the ratio in our own judicial system and domestic prisons, even our death rows. And no-one (at least of any stature as compared to our MSM/liberal establishment et-all) is suggesting we scrap our prison system over the innocents, so why Gitmo?
No one is suggesting we scrap that system because it works. People are charged and brought to trial and if convicted they even get appeals. The main issue with Gitmo is that people are sitting there for years without ever being charged with anything or given a trial. They're just stuck there without a system.
Edited in links:
The one I referred to is here http://law.shu.edu/aaafinal.pdf
There are more here http://law.shu.edu/center_policyresearch/Guantanamo_Reports.htm
-
whats the source of that report? i seemed to have missed it
-
whats the source of that report? i seemed to have missed it
The words after the tiny numbers at the bottom of the pages indicate the sources. As you read through it you find those little numbers and then look to the bottom of the page to see where they got that information from.
-
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE50C5JX20090113?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=22&sp=true
Pentagon: 61 ex-Guantanamo inmates return to terrorism
Tue Jan 13, 2009 3:32pm EST Email | Print | Share| Reprints | Single Page[-] Text
1 of 1Full SizeBy David Morgan
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Pentagon said on Tuesday that 61 former detainees from its military prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, appear to have returned to terrorism since their release from custody.
Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said 18 former detainees are confirmed as "returning to the fight" and 43 are suspected of having done in a report issued late in December by the Defense Intelligence Agency.
Morrell declined to provide details such as the identity of the former detainees, why and where they were released or what actions they have taken since leaving U.S. custody.
"This is acts of terrorism. It could be Iraq, Afghanistan, it could be acts of terrorism around the world," he told reporters.
Morrell said the latest figures, current through December 24, showed an 11 percent recidivism rate, up from 7 percent in a March 2008 report that counted 37 former detainees as suspected or confirmed active militants.
Rights advocates said the lack of details should call the Pentagon's assertions into question.
"Until enough information is provided to allow the press and the public to verify these claims, they need to be viewed with a healthy degree of skepticism," said Jennifer Daskal, a Washington-based lawyer for Human Rights Watch.
Rights advocates contend that many Guantanamo detainees have never taken up arms against the United States and say the Defense Department in the past has described former detainees as rejoining "the fight" because they spoke out against the U.S. government.
"The Defense Department sees that the Guantanamo detention operation has failed and they are trying to launch another fear mongering campaign to justify the indefinite detention of detainees there," said Jamil Dakwar, human rights director at the American Civil Liberties Union.
President-elect Barack Obama, who takes office next Tuesday, is expected to issue an executive order to close the Guantanamo Bay prison. Defense Secretary Robert Gates also favors shuttering Guantanamo.
But the prison is unlikely to shut until after U.S. officials settle a myriad of legal and logistic issues, including a solution on where to house its occupants.
About 255 men are still held at the U.S.-run naval base in Cuba, a symbol of aggressive interrogation methods that exposed the United States to allegations of torture.
Pentagon officials say that about 110 detainees should never be released because of the potential danger they pose to U.S. interests.
Washington has cleared 50 of the detainees for release but cannot return them to their home countries because of the risk they would be tortured or persecuted there.
The Pentagon said it considers a former detainee's return to terrorism "confirmed" when evidence shows direct involvement in terrorist activities. U.S. officials see a "suspected" terrorism links when intelligence shows a plausible link with terrorist activities.
"Propaganda does not qualify as a terrorist activity," the Pentagon said in a statement.
(Additional reporting by Andrew Gray, editing by David Alexander and David Wiessler)
-
then there is the proff saying it isn't so. course he is representing a couple gitmo fellers so hes clearly unbiased
-
then the proff qualifies his stuff with the data are obviosly limited but doen't let that stop him from making "reasonable assumptions" that surprisingly enough cast his clients in the best light possible.probably a decent land shark. and the gov isn't saying much using the national security racket.
-
Morrell said the latest figures, current through December 24, showed an 11 percent recidivism rate, up from 7 percent in a March 2008 report that counted 37 former detainees as suspected or confirmed active militants.
Yeah. Like we were saying: The majority of these guys don't pose any threat to Americans.
-
not in gitmo they don't
unlike this guy who posed no harm near the embassy in Yemen just a carpet buyer he was
http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/01/23/mideast/detainee.1-414168.php?page=1
as reported by that well known conservative rag the new york times
-
http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/05/us_releases_9_from_guantanamo.html
wonder what happened to the 5 guys we sent back to afghanistan. or the morrocan.
-
I am somewhat surprised that he has acted that boldly and swiftly. Overall, I think we are better off with both of these, but of course, most here will disagree. Its a shame that we spent $500 million building a prison facility there, only to have it closed down a few years later.
I only had one issue with Gitmo and that was keeping prisoners there indefinitely without charges or a way of resolving them to a final disposition. I don't care if it's by military tribunal, the American courts or even taking them out back and putting a bullet in the back of their head. But there has to be a path to exonoration, a legitimate prison sentence or a dirt nap.
-
not in gitmo they don't
unlike this guy who posed no harm near the embassy in Yemen just a carpet buyer he was
http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/01/23/mideast/detainee.1-414168.php?page=1
as reported by that well known conservative rag the new york times
When I was in the 5th grade, way back yonder, I had a horrible experience one day. Nothing much by adult standards, but it seriously jacked with my head on that day. It was a simple math lesson related to money and debt. The teacher's assistant laid out the problem to the class and it was basically that your monthly rent is $100 a month. In Janurary you can only pay $75. How far in debt are you? Well, $25. In February you can only pay $90. How far in debt are you? $10 was the answer. In March you can pay nothing so you are $100 behind.
Obviously these figures don't make any sense in the real world. I was carrying over debt from the previous months and kept giving up the wrong answers. I thought I was losing my damned mind. I was never wrong on simple math problems. This went on for what seemed like half an hour and somehow neither of the two adults in the room figured out I was doing it the right way and kept telling me I had the wrong answer.
I find myself in a similar situation tonight. I hold the position that the overwhelming majority of the folks in Gitmo don't have any real ties to terrorism and if released they don't pose a threat to the US. I'm not the only one here that believes that.
In response to that position you whip out an article that says 89% of those released have no ties to terrorism and don't pose a threat to the US.
Now, I only took 3 or 4 advanced mathematics classes in college, and never really got any education beyond high school in statistics, so I might be out of the loop or missing something but how in hell do you construe "89% of these guys are no threat to America" to mean something different than "The overwhelming majority of these guys post no threat to America?"
I believe we are in disagreement on this matter but I do admit there's the possibility that I've misunderstood your position.
-
i don't know one way or another whether any of em are a threat niether do you or the good proffesor. all any of us know is they got nabbed by someone who claimed they were fighting against us. gentlemen like the guy who made the news today demonstare that even with the checks they run now before they cut em loose they cut the wrong guy loose. pqart of the battle they have investigating is the guys clam up lie and give conflicting stories. not a way to make folks trust you. were it up to me i'd hand em over to the countries that amnesty internationals scared of and let them sort it out
-
Source, please?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A%27Del_Abdu_Al-Hakim
-
Even with the pseudo-trials created under the last administration, the treatment of some detainees was so shocking that the prosecutions simply cannot proceed.
If Obama really wants to undo the damage of this mess he should establish an inquiry, and indict everyone who knowingly facilitated torture.
People who commit torture belong in a cell right next to the torturers and murderers of Al Qaeda.
-
The fatal flaw has always been that people expect military prisoners to be treated with civilian rights and privileges.
I have to agree.
Having prisoners you don't know what to do with is an unintended consequence of a never-ending undelared war.
And how much of a punishment is it, given that we don't have enough for death penalty cases for most of them, to sentence them to 10 years or whatever, if the POW determination has already been made?
That's not to say all of these guys are POWs or should be given any such consideration.
That's part of the problem. Even if you've commited warcrimes, you're still considered a POW, and must be treated as such until the trial is over. From my understanding of the issue, we have a couple of determinations to make:
1. Were they actually a combatant, deserving to be a POW? If we can satisfy this requirement, it's an easy 'we can hold them, under the rules and regulations on POWs, for as long as the conflict is going on'.
2. Did they commit crimes justifying holding a trial, or at least reason to believe they did? Matters become more complicated if they weren't holding a gun or building a bomb.
In either case, I believe that it's best to treat them as a POW until we've determined, by court, that they should be otherwise. I'll also note that, especially for #1, the standard of proof isn't 'beyond a reasonable doubt'.
For those that talk about how stupid we are for holding some of them, I'll point out that keeping somebody at GB is expensive. Far cheaper to simply kick them out back to their home country.
When I was in the 5th grade, way back yonder, I had a horrible experience one day. Nothing much by adult standards, but it seriously jacked with my head on that day. It was a simple math lesson related to money and debt. The teacher's assistant laid out the problem to the class and it was basically that your monthly rent is $100 a month. In Janurary you can only pay $75. How far in debt are you? Well, $25. In February you can only pay $90. How far in debt are you? $10 was the answer. In March you can pay nothing so you are $100 behind.
That's why you show your work. They were probably 'reseting' the situation month to month. You recognized that it was a series situation. They were going for deficit, you were looking at debt. Showing your work would have had them going 'Oh, yeah!'.
Are there innocents(of terrorism, at least) in Gitmo? Probably. However, I'm sure they have a much higher proportion of actual terrorist types there than even your standard prison population, much less domestic. Also, people's behavior changes in prison; and often reverts when they leave it. I also give the government enough credit to say that MOST of those picked up were picked up for a reason.
-
For those that talk about how stupid we are for holding some of them, I'll point out that keeping somebody at GB is expensive. Far cheaper to simply kick them out back to their home country.
Something being expensive is not an argument that it isn't stupid.
I also give the government enough credit to say that MOST of those picked up were picked up for a reason.
The ones picked up by our troops- sure I'll give them the benefit of the doubt. That covers less than 10% of the detainees though. You put that much faith in the Pakistani government and Northern Alliance?
-
Are there innocents(of terrorism, at least) in Gitmo? Probably. However, I'm sure they have a much higher proportion of actual terrorist types there than even your standard prison population, much less domestic. Also, people's behavior changes in prison; and often reverts when they leave it. I also give the government enough credit to say that MOST of those picked up were picked up for a reason.
Those that weren't terrorists when they got picked up likely are now. These detainment facilities are nothing but a breeding ground for terrorism. You take highly impressionable, ignorant young muslims and put them in a camp with hardened terrorists. My higher ups thought that the way to calm the terrorists down was to mix them in with the not so bad types. Yeah right. Within a month the not so bad types are worse than the hardened terrorists.
-
That's part of the problem. Even if you've commited warcrimes, you're still considered a POW, and must be treated as such until the trial is over. From my understanding of the issue, we have a couple of determinations to make:
1. Were they actually a combatant, deserving to be a POW? If we can satisfy this requirement, it's an easy 'we can hold them, under the rules and regulations on POWs, for as long as the conflict is going on'.
2. Did they commit crimes justifying holding a trial, or at least reason to believe they did? Matters become more complicated if they weren't holding a gun or building a bomb.
It has nothing to do with them committing warcrimes vs not committing warcrimes.
POW status is a privilege reserved for soldiers who were fighting lawfully and honorably. It's a gentleman's agreement, if you fight honorably we'll treat you honorably if we capture you. POW status a reward of sorts for doing the right thing in the war: wearing a uniform, not targeting civilians, and so forth.
We are under no legal or moral obligations to treat terrorists as POWs. Spies, terrorists, and other such "dirty" fighters aren't awarded any consideration whatsoever under the Geneva Conventions. This was done deliberately. These types of people didn't receive any special privileges because they don't deserve any special privileges.
-
I find myself in a similar situation tonight. I hold the position that the overwhelming majority of the folks in Gitmo don't have any real ties to terrorism and if released they don't pose a threat to the US. I'm not the only one here that believes that.
In response to that position you whip out an article that says 89% of those released have no ties to terrorism and don't pose a threat to the US.
Who ever said that preventing recidivism was the sole and entire reason people are held in Gitmo?
-
It has nothing to do with them committing warcrimes vs not committing warcrimes.
POW status is a privilege reserved for soldiers who were fighting lawfully and honorably. It's a gentleman's agreement, if you fight honorably we'll treat you honorably if we capture you. POW status a reward of sorts for doing the right thing in the war: wearing a uniform, not targeting civilians, and so forth.
We are under no legal or moral obligations to treat terrorists as POWs. Spies, terrorists, and other such "dirty" fighters aren't awarded any consideration whatsoever under the Geneva Conventions. This was done deliberately. These types of people didn't receive any special privileges because they don't deserve any special privileges.
This is completely inaccurate.
POW status is not a privilege with respect to treatment-it is primarily a prohibition on criminal liability for acts that otherwise meet the requirements of criminal statutes (ie, shooting someone).
Because you can't be held criminally responsible for your acts as a POW, other punishments (like being confined to a black hole or tortured) are banned.
Spies and other non-uniformed combatants do in fact have status under the geneva conventions, and are considered as criminals to be treated exactly as....criminals. In other words, spies and guerrillas get all the same rights that a criminal defendant does. What they do not get is immunity from punishment for their conduct. That is reserved for people who meet the requirements for POW status.
-
This is completely inaccurate.
POW status is not a privilege with respect to treatment-it is primarily a prohibition on criminal liability for acts that otherwise meet the requirements of criminal statutes (ie, shooting someone).
Because you can't be held criminally responsible for your acts as a POW, other punishments (like being confined to a black hole or tortured) are banned.
Spies and other non-uniformed combatants do in fact have status under the geneva conventions, and are considered as criminals to be treated exactly as....criminals. In other words, spies and guerrillas get all the same rights that a criminal defendant does. What they do not get is immunity from punishment for their conduct. That is reserved for people who meet the requirements for POW status.
Bzzt!
Lawyer-boy finds a way to lawyer up the process of carrot & stick on the battlefield.
Every non-lawyer derived reference on this topic runs towards HTG's explanation.
-
The problem is that this is completely irrelevant. Here is why:
Ahmad is a non-uniformed illegal combatant. He gets captured by Our Guys in Afghanistan while shooting his AK-47 vaguely into the air in their general direction and screaming 'Allah Aqbar'. Nobody here doubts, I think, that this is an illegal combatant and is not accorded the benefits of the Geneva convention or civilian courts.
However, Mahmoud is a suspected Al-Quaeda conspirator. He is captured by Saudi operatives in that country, or perhaps by UK police in London, while supposedly on his way to a terrorist cell meeting. This guy is not an illegal combatant, he is a terrorist suspect.
The problem with Gitmo, IMO, that it holds way too many guys like Mahmoud.
-
Why should hypothetical guys like Mahmoud not be held?
-
supposedly on the way
-
Why should hypothetical guys like Mahmoud not be held?
Because they're not combatants. There's a legal system already in place for terrorist suspects like that. They should be tried either under whatever legal system they have in the home country, or (if you insist on trying them in the US for some bizarre reason) in the same one that was used to try domestic terrorists like Tim McVeigh.
-
Because they're not combatants. There's a legal system already in place for terrorist suspects like that. They should be tried either under whatever legal system they have in the home country, or (if you insist on trying them in the US for some bizarre reason) in the same one that was used to try domestic terrorists like Tim McVeigh.
You're kidding, right?
Most terrorists have the tacit support of their home governments. Many of these countries don't have a meaningful court system at all. Expecting them to be tried by their home countries is just plain stupid. Our country doesn't even have a court system that can properly handle these guys, yet you think places like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan would be better choices?
-
Most terrorists have the tacit support of their home governments.
terrorist suspect != terrorist.
You keep talking about terrorists, we keep talking about suspects, which is what we're dealing with at Gitmo. How can you justify their imprisonment without a trial, or at the very least decent evidence that they are indeed terrorists?
Our country doesn't even have a court system that can properly handle these guys
Maybe that's something we should have considered before imprisoning them. If that is the case (which I'm not convinced of) then we need to develop a system that can handle them or release them - not just hold them indefinitely without trial.
-
Maybe that's something we should have considered before imprisoning them. If that is the case (which I'm not convinced of) then we need to develop a system that can handle them or release them - not just hold them indefinitely without trial.
I do suspect that system will, in many cases, involve a dead terrorist "suspect" if caught any place outside of CONUS or W Europe.
-
terrorist suspect != terrorist.
You keep talking about terrorists, we keep talking about suspects, which is what we're dealing with at Gitmo. How can you justify their imprisonment without a trial, or at the very least decent evidence that they are indeed terrorists?
Terrorist != common criminal
Confusing terrorists with common criminals is a fundamental error. They are not similar in any substantive way. Most of the processes that are ideal for crime and criminal justice are not at all fair, sensible, or judicious when applied to terrorism. In some cases what works for criminals is not even possible when applied to terrorists.
Maybe that's something we should have considered before imprisoning them. If that is the case (which I'm not convinced of) then we need to develop a system that can handle them or release them - not just hold them indefinitely without trial.
I agree that we should have created a court system capable of fairly handling terrorists and terrorism. I think the Bush admin didn't push nearly hard enough for this. I also think the sputtering hatred and condemnation of Bush and Gitmo were a major factor in preventing the creation of a proper court. In the end thee just wasn't any political will to do this right.
We could fix the existing Gitmo tribunal system so that it would be effective and fair. We could scrap that system and make a new, better system from scratch. Or we could stubbornly refuse to do anything sensible in regards to Gitmo and the detainees, and push the detainees through criminal courts that can't do them any sort of justice. Guess which alternative Obama is going to choose?
-
I do suspect that system will, in many cases, involve a dead terrorist "suspect" if caught any place outside of CONUS or W Europe.
Indeed. If the official system cannot cope with terrorists, then it may be necessary to use unofficial "solutions" in the field. And that's unfortunate.
Gitmo at least kept the terrorists alive, healthy, well fed and well cared for.
-
Terrorist != common criminal
A terrorist suspect is not a terrorist.
You state that America doesn't have a court system that can deal with terrorists. Yet America has had terrorists - anarchists in the late 19th and early 20th century, right-wing terrorists like the Minutemen in the 1960's, Weathermen, some militant Black nationalist off-shoots, god knows what else - throughout its history. And America got along quite fine with the legal system it had in place at the time to handle them.
Yes, America has a legal system to handle terrorists, and its been in place since Colonial times. It's called jury trials.
-
However, Mahmoud is a suspected Al-Quaeda conspirator. He is captured by Saudi operatives in that country, or perhaps by UK police in London, while supposedly on his way to a terrorist cell meeting. This guy is not an illegal combatant, he is a terrorist suspect.
In that case, he should be tried on the evidence. I am fine and well with a closed court room or a military tribunal in the interest of national security. But he should be tried in some way, shape, or form. I'm also OK with him being held in Gitmo in the mean time and interrogated for any information he has, as well as after his trial or tribunal should he be found to in fact be a terrorist.
Guy caught on the battle field with a gun in hand do not require a trial to be held as a POW IMO. Short of herding his goats in the general area and armed for his own protection or some other legitimate reason to be in the area and be armed.
-
A terrorist suspect is not a terrorist.
You state that America doesn't have a court system that can deal with terrorists. Yet America has had terrorists - anarchists in the late 19th and early 20th century, right-wing terrorists like the Minutemen in the 1960's, Weathermen, some militant Black nationalist off-shoots, god knows what else - throughout its history. And America got along quite fine with the legal system it had in place at the time to handle them.
Yes, America has a legal system to handle terrorists, and its been in place since Colonial times. It's called jury trials.
Terrorist suspect is a non sequitur. It presumes that there is a process for convicting terrorists of the crime of terrorism. There is no such system extant at this time.
Modern foreign terrorists aren't very comparable to domestic groups like the Weathermen or the Minutemen. I suppose that's a little better than comparing terrorists to common criminals, but it still misses the mark.
A much better comparison would be against other foreign agents representing foreign powers at war with the United States.
The Dasch/Pastorius incident in WWII is a good comparison. The participants were foreign agents, acting on behalf of foreign powers, conducting war (unlawfully) against the United States. The solution in that case was a good one. FDR convened a military tribunal (not a criminal jury trial!) and used it to hang the participants.
Why shouldn't we use a similar military tribunal for the folks at Gitmo?
-
Bzzt!
Lawyer-boy finds a way to lawyer up the process of carrot & stick on the battlefield.
Every non-lawyer derived reference on this topic runs towards HTG's explanation.
Why would you be looking for non-lawyer advice on a hugely complicated set of laws that were drafted primarily by...lawyers?
Might that be a good way to skip out on the actual meaning of the law in order to achieve whatever this government or that government wants, as opposed to say, following the letter of the law?
The Geneva conventions are clear on this: POW status is premised on the principle that you can't be tried for conduct that is within the rules of war, even though the same conduct would constitute a crime in the civilian world.
Terrorists and other non-POW category fighters are to be treated as criminals.
The conventions (and every other law on the subject, international AND US) ban torture and indefinite detention without trial absolutely and without exception.
There is absolutely no gray area on this in anyone's law: if the .gov wants to imprison people for life, it must show criminal responsibility. And if the .gov wants to torture people, it becomes an outlaw government just like Burma.
-
Why shouldn't we use a similar military tribunal for the folks at Gitmo?
For the same reason we shouldn't threaten to pack the courts?
-
Why would you be looking for non-lawyer advice on a hugely complicated set of laws that were drafted primarily by...lawyers?
Might that be a good way to skip out on the actual meaning of the law in order to achieve whatever this government or that government wants, as opposed to say, following the letter of the law?
The Geneva conventions are clear on this: POW status is premised on the principle that you can't be tried for conduct that is within the rules of war, even though the same conduct would constitute a crime in the civilian world.
Terrorists and other non-POW category fighters are to be treated as criminals.
The conventions (and every other law on the subject, international AND US) ban torture and indefinite detention without trial absolutely and without exception.
There is absolutely no gray area on this in anyone's law: if the .gov wants to imprison people for life, it must show criminal responsibility. And if the .gov wants to torture people, it becomes an outlaw government just like Burma.
Ah, the smugness! I love it. Only a lawyer is qualified to read and understand a relatively simple document like the Geneva Convention.
Sorry, SS, but I don't think you'll find many people around here willing to suspend their own thought processes and defer to our supposed "betters" like you lawyers.
-
And on this argument you can, of course, ignore most of what SS said.
-
Ah, the smugness! I love it. Only a lawyer is qualified to read and understand a relatively simple document like the Geneva Convention.
Sorry, SS, but I don't think you'll find many people around here willing to suspend their own thought processes and defer to our supposed "betters" like you lawyers.
Yeah, the ticket here is that the geneva conventions are actually quite easy to understand-it's pop theories about what they actually contain that set the lawyers off. This is a case of not reading the law and then pretending that it says something it doesn't, not a case of lawyers having a clever argument about what the law says.
The international documents, including the geneva conventions and protocols, are quite clear on this subject-the only people who dispute the rules are those who want to torture and imprison without trial.
It's sad, but absolutely true, that at least one whole class of accused criminals have more rights, and the government must prove more before it can punish them, in Iran than they do in the United States.
You can judge that something is seriously wrong with your policies when the Iranian mullahs can't even do to their own citizens what your own government can to you.
-
.