Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => The Roundtable => Topic started by: Manedwolf on January 01, 2009, 03:46:56 PM
-
And they're already debating immigration status and cash benefits for them, so they'll probably be released into the UK or the EU in general. Killers from the battlefields, in your society...
Have fun over there, guys! =(
Britain is preparing to receive foreign terror suspects from Guantánamo Bay so that Barack Obama can shut it down, The Times has learnt.
Government sources say that Britain now supports moves to rehouse the detainees, despite previous refusals to help President Bush.
A Downing Street official said that a process to deal with the detainees was being put in place and that decisions “would be for the Home Secretary to decide on a case-by-case basis”.
The issue is the subject of intense negotiations within Whitehall. The Foreign Office appears much keener on the idea than other departments, which will have to deal with the suspects’ immigration status and whether they will need special housing and cash benefits. Having foreign terror suspects with no links to the UK housed here inevitably will provoke controversy.
“Of course the Foreign Office wants to do it, they want to get off to a good start with Obama,” said a Whitehall source. “This is the sort of thing that will require a Cabinet-level decision.”
Britain accepts that the prison should be closed, according to a diplomatic source, and that the US is going to need help to close it. The Government is supporting a call from Portugal for EU members to resettle detainees. The letter from the Foreign Minister Luis Amado to his EU counterparts follows weeks of internal EU discussions. Germany has said that it is considering taking in detainees. Mr Amado plans to raise the issue at a meeting of EU foreign ministers this month. It is also on the agenda at an EU General Affairs and External Relations Council meeting.
Oh, but we might take a few, too. As a goodwill gesture. Wonder what they'll blow up first?
The US military says that of the 248 prisoners still in Guantánamo Bay, “approximately 60” have been cleared for release. One move being discussed in Washington is for the US to take in 17 Chinese Uighurs, who cannot return to China, as an opening gesture. Mr Obama’s plan is for the most dangerous detainees – between 30 and 80 men – to be taken to the US for formal trials. This presents problems, however, as evidence against inmates such as Khaled Sheikh Mohammed, the self-confessed mastermind of the September 11 attacks, was obtained through duress.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article5426064.ece (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article5426064.ece)
-
Newspaper Headline in 2010 or there'bouts.
"Pres. Obama (in the photo below standing the in ruins of the US Captiol Building) stated today that "Maybe closing Gitmo and releasing all the prisoners wasn't one of George Bush's better policy decisions." ;/
-
Sounds like a reality TV show in the making.
-
Sounds like a reality TV show in the making.
Or a Britcom sort?
"The terrorists next door", now on BBC One...
-
None of them want to go home to Iraqistan ???
-
Any of you guys watch the BBC news? May seem weird, but it seems less slanted than the US news...
-
None of them want to go home to Iraqistan ???
Why the hell would they want that? No effin bennies there!
And our naive politicians are talking about taking these folks in. Makes me want to kill someone! :mad:
-
Makes me want to kill someone!
Well, at least you'll have something in common with your new neighbors.
Seriously, what is this, some kind of bizzare terrorist training camp? We pick them up from the mideast, give them a couple of years of good diet and exercise, a chance to network with other terrorists, and then turn them loose on the EU?
I'm thinking we picked them up on a battlefield, drop them back off there. I know the countries in question don't want them back, but so what? Fly over and shove them out of the C-130. (I guess give them a parachute)
-
I feel bad for Europe. Why do they have to be a dumping ground for the human trash of the world? Can't we send these guys to prison in their home countries?
I guess if they have to become free citizens somewhere, better over there than over here. Sucks to be them, though.
Any of you guys watch the BBC news? May seem weird, but it seems less slanted than the US news...
Are you kidding?! The one "episode" of BBC news I've ever seen was so ridiculously biased leftward that it made CBS and CNN seem downright conservative.
-
A lot of the people in Gitmo are not captured on battlefields and not terrorists. We need to sort them out.
-
A lot of the people in Gitmo are not captured on battlefields and not terrorists. We need to sort them out.
You want an error living next door to you?
-
A lot of the people in Gitmo are not captured on battlefields and not terrorists. We need to sort them out.
"A lot"? Just how many is that?
-
You want an error living next door to you?
I don't want to imprison innocent people. Period. Imprisoning innocent people is unacceptable in any society.
"A lot"? Just how many is that?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combatant_Status_Review_Tribunal#Murat_Kurnaz.2C_an_example
Here's a detainee.
There are dozens of examples of people being imprisoned who have either not been captured on foreign battlefields, or not belonging (according to the DoD's own estimates) to anti-American terrorist groups, or even not involved in terrorism.
While obviously a man captured on a foreign battlefield while doing battle against American troops is an enemy combatant, we must separate the wheat from the chaff.
-
Here's a man determined to be innocent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A%27Del_Abdu_Al-Hakim) and still in prison.
Here's a man apprehended for wearing a Casion F91W watch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdelaziz_Kareem_Salim_al-Noofayee).
Here's a guy wearing a Casio Watch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabri_Mohammed_Ebrahim).
Here's a guy arrested in his house in Pakistan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamal_Muhammad_Alawi_Mar%27i). He is not accused of being a foreign combatant, but rather employed in an AQ-affiliated charity. Pakistan is not a 'foreign battlefield'.
This is a man who voluntarily turned himself in to authorities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohamedou_Ould_Slahi#Mauritania_2000-2001) in Mauritania. Mauritania is not a foreign battlefield.
This is a man imprisoned by the Taliban for fighting against Osama Bin Laden (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siddeq_Ahmad_Siddeq_Nour_Turkistani).
This is a man arrested for having met Osama Bin Laden and seen a rifle once (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uthman_Abdul_Rahim_Mohammed_Uthman). Again, not a combatant and not captured at a foreign battlefield.
Here's a guy who was released after being arrested in England for carrying home-made electronics. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamil_al_Banna) Apparently England is a battlefield now.
-
Here's a man determined to be innocent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A%27Del_Abdu_Al-Hakim) and still in prison.
Here's a man apprehended for wearing a Casion F91W watch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdelaziz_Kareem_Salim_al-Noofayee).
Here's a guy wearing a Casio Watch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabri_Mohammed_Ebrahim).
Here's a guy arrested in his house in Pakistan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamal_Muhammad_Alawi_Mar%27i). He is not accused of being a foreign combatant, but rather employed in an AQ-affiliated charity. Pakistan is not a 'foreign battlefield'.
This is a man who voluntarily turned himself in to authorities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohamedou_Ould_Slahi#Mauritania_2000-2001) in Mauritania. Mauritania is not a foreign battlefield.
This is a man imprisoned by the Taliban for fighting against Osama Bin Laden (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siddeq_Ahmad_Siddeq_Nour_Turkistani).
This is a man arrested for having met Osama Bin Laden and seen a rifle once (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uthman_Abdul_Rahim_Mohammed_Uthman). Again, not a combatant and not captured at a foreign battlefield.
Here's a guy who was released after being arrested in England for carrying home-made electronics. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamil_al_Banna) Apparently England is a battlefield now.
They can all go live with you. Okay?
-
Why would I have a problem with a guy who fought against Al-Quaeda and the Taliban living next door to me?
-
Well, at least you'll have something in common with your new neighbors.
Seriously, what is this, some kind of bizzare terrorist training camp? We pick them up from the mideast, give them a couple of years of good diet and exercise, a chance to network with other terrorists, and then turn them loose on the EU?
I'm thinking we picked them up on a battlefield, drop them back off there. I know the countries in question don't want them back, but so what? Fly over and shove them out of the C-130. (I guess give them a parachute)
You are more generous than I.
-
Here's a man determined to be innocent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A%27Del_Abdu_Al-Hakim) and still in prison.
Here's a man apprehended for wearing a Casion F91W watch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdelaziz_Kareem_Salim_al-Noofayee).
Here's a guy wearing a Casio Watch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabri_Mohammed_Ebrahim).
Here's a guy arrested in his house in Pakistan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamal_Muhammad_Alawi_Mar%27i). He is not accused of being a foreign combatant, but rather employed in an AQ-affiliated charity. Pakistan is not a 'foreign battlefield'.
This is a man who voluntarily turned himself in to authorities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohamedou_Ould_Slahi#Mauritania_2000-2001) in Mauritania. Mauritania is not a foreign battlefield.
This is a man imprisoned by the Taliban for fighting against Osama Bin Laden (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siddeq_Ahmad_Siddeq_Nour_Turkistani).
This is a man arrested for having met Osama Bin Laden and seen a rifle once (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uthman_Abdul_Rahim_Mohammed_Uthman). Again, not a combatant and not captured at a foreign battlefield.
Here's a guy who was released after being arrested in England for carrying home-made electronics. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamil_al_Banna) Apparently England is a battlefield now.
Oh c'mon, micro. You know you can't get away with that sort of thing around here. Did you think nobody here would know anything about the people you listed?
Included in your list of "innocent" Guatanamo guests are one guy linked to the 9/11 attacks, three people who trained in Al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan, a guy who was illegally smuggling money and supplies over the Pakistan border into Afghanistan for Al Qaeda, one guy who was suspected by the British and Spanish governments as being a terrorist, and a man implicated int he Los Angeles millenium bomb plot. Those Casio watches you mention were a specific model given out to "graduates" of Al Qaeda training camps to be used as detonators for bombs. When they captured one of these men, they found in his house explosives plans, weapons information, and military attack plans. And three of these "innocent Guantanamo inmates" aren't even being held in Guantanamo.
Nonetheless, if you want to empty Gitmo out into Europe, then more power to you. You may have some 'splaining to do to your European brothers when these scumbags do something uncivilized over there, but that's not my problem. Just make sure these savages don't end up here in the States.
-
The amazing thing to me is that with all the scrutiny given Gitmo over the years, we still have apologists for the poor innocent bystanders locked up there.
-
Perhaps you can identify or quantify those poor innocent bystanders you speak of, grampster...?
Micro sez there are "a lot" of them, but he never bothered to say who or how many.
-
Those Casio watches you mention were a specific model given out to "graduates" of Al Qaeda training camps to be used as detonators for bombs.
Let me engage you in an analogy. Suppose the Crips, the Bloods, or some other gang starts equipping its membership with a certain brand of watch. Would wearing such a watch be legitimate grounds for detaining someone for a year or more?
When they captured one of these men, they found in his house explosives plans, weapons information, and military attack plans.
I have in this room guerilla warfare manuals, sniper training manuals, and manuals on infantry tactics. I have guides on how to disarm the common types of landmine. What's your point?
Let me repeat my statement:
There are dozens of examples of people being imprisoned who have either not been captured on foreign battlefields, or not belonging (according to the DoD's own estimates) to anti-American terrorist groups, or even not involved in terrorism.
The very justification for imprisoning these people in Gitmo is that they're supposedly 'illegal combatants', i.e. captured on the field of battle against US troops.
If a person is not an illegal combatant (even if he is a terrorist or a bad-guy), then the moral and legal justification for capturing him and imprisoning him like a wartime prisoner disappears. Such a person should be given a trial and then imprisoned when proven guilty.
I do not suggest that a lot of these people are innocent - although some are certainly so. I suggest many of them are not illegal combatants and need to be given a fair trial. Until we give these people a fair trial, we are certain to imprison a proportion of innocent people.
The right to have a fair trial is not just a legal right of Americans. It's a matter of simple human dignity.
In addition, the prosecution SAYS these three people trained in Afghanistan. Maybe they did, maybe they didn't. Being a suspect doesn't make you automatically guilty.
Understand my position on this very clearly:
I do not believe that these are nice people.
Nor do I believe Gitmo must be abolished.
Merely I believe two things:
1. People in Gitmo must be treated on an individual basis. Nobody - and I mean NOBODY - is talking about releasing all of them. We're talking about the British people taking in a dozen guys.
2. People in Gitmo who are NOT combatants need to be given the benefit of a trial - a real trial, lawyer, jury, and all. People who are NOT combatants captured on foreign battlefields must be given a trial, a conviction, and a defined prison term - ten years, twenty years, life, whatever they deserve for actual crimes they had committed.
-
The justification for detaining these people is usually that they're dangerous to leave loose and/or that they have valuable anti-terrorism intelligence. In a number of cases we're keeping them because releasing them to their home country would endanger them. The location of their capture, I don't believe, has ever been an overarching factor.
I'm all for giving appropriate judicial proceedings of some sort to these people. The problem with that is we don't currently have any legal framework appropriate for terrorists. Neither our criminal courts nor our civil courts make any sense for the people in Gitmo. Pretending terrorists are just like petty criminals is a mockery of justice.
I fully support the institution of some sort of court or tribunal system that is suitable for handling terrorism. I have in mind something that would loosely resemble war crimes tribunals. But for whatever reason, our country doesn't seem to have the political will to give them appropriate trials. The debate is between giving them improper trials or not giving any trials at all.
-
Britain is not going to be taking all of the Gitmo people in, remember? There's going to be a case-by-case examination of these people.
The debate is between giving them improper trials or not giving any trials at all.
Improper trials?
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7809242.stm
Here's from today's BBC News:
Some 255 inmates as still being held at Guantanamo, including about 60 Washington no longer considers a threat and has cleared for release.
[/b]
-
Britain is not going to be taking all of the Gitmo people in, remember? There's going to be a case-by-case examination of these people.
Barack wants to close Gitmo. That means every detainee must go somewhere. Either they come to the US (presumably to be given improper trials in our criminal courts), or they're sent to Europe to cause trouble there, or they're sent to their home country to make trouble and/or be harmed by their own governments.
All of these options are worse than just keeping Gitmo open. But because Gitmo is just so gosh darned bad, we're going to carry out one of these stupider alternatives, all in the name of "change". Then we're going to pat ourselves on the back. Yipee!
Improper trials?
What extant US court can properly try terrorism and similar acts? Our criminal and civil courts certainly cannot. Are there some sort of military courts that I'm not familiar with?
-
Why can't criminal courts try crimes of terrorism?
-
Why can't criminal courts try crimes of terrorism?
For most terrorism across most the world, a criminal trial is wholly inappropriate.
We have accounts of how such trials become a goat rodeo. Andrew McCarthy (as Fed prosecuting attorney), who either assisted or led the major terrorism prosecutions from 1993-2003, wrote about the mess in Willful Blindness (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1594032130/ref=nosim/nationalreviewon). It took the USA 8 years to prosecute 29 of the people involved in only one act of terrorism (1993 WTC bombing).
Also, foreigners engaged in hostilities against the USA are not entitled to trials, battlefield Miranda rules, and the like. They are entitled to die by violent means.
-
Perhaps you can identify or quantify those poor innocent bystanders you speak of, grampster...?
Micro sez there are "a lot" of them, but he never bothered to say who or how many.
That's just it. No one seems to have seen one down there.
Personally, I think "Terrorism" needs to be defined as a barbaric act against humanity and peaceful order. Worse than criminality and worse than acts of war. Engaging in, aiding and/or abetting Terrorism should be a capital offense, tried by a special terrorism tribunal, using new rules based upon the reality of the absolute callousness of the act of terrorism, punishment to be death carried out immediately after trial.
If one does not want to get swept up as a terrorist, then stay away from people who aspire to it.
-
That's just it. No one seems to have seen one down there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A%27Del_Abdu_Al-Hakim
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siddeq_Ahmad_Siddeq_Nour_Turkistani
If one does not want to get swept up as a terrorist, then stay away from people who aspire to it.
So you're saying that the whole concept of guilt or innocence shouldn't apply for terrorism suspects?
For most terrorism across most the world, a criminal trial is wholly inappropriate.
I will inform the Israeli court system immediately.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A%27Del_Abdu_Al-Hakim
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siddeq_Ahmad_Siddeq_Nour_Turkistani
So you're saying that the whole concept of guilt or innocence shouldn't apply for terrorism suspects?
I will inform the Israeli court system immediately.
As should the Israelis who authorized the killings of the various terrorist leaders by means of Hellfire missiles & such a few years back. You know, the ones that brought an end to the suicide bombings and brought (the remains of) the terrorist org leaders to the negotiation table.
The court system should also be informed when the system releases dozens of terrorists for the remains of one or two Israeli military folks who were tortured to death...and then used to pry loose those terrorists who have had the court system lobbed at them rather than Hellfires, MK82 500lb bombs, or 5.56mm projectiles.
-
If one does not want to get swept up as a terrorist, then stay away from people who aspire to it.
I'm not sure if he's still there or not, but a brother of Terry Nichols used to sell ammo at the Delta-Plex gun show in our area. I bough some Black Hills JHP in .45ACP off he guy once not knowing who he was.
It isn't difficult to tie somebody to terrorism. I'm 1 link away, and now you're 2 links away just by knowing me online.
-
As should the Israelis who authorized the killings of the various terrorist leaders by means of Hellfire missiles & such a few years back. You know, the ones that brought an end to the suicide bombings and brought (the remains of) the terrorist org leaders to the negotiation table.
Apparently you misunderstand my drift. I do not mean we should not be waging a war on the terorrist organizations.
We should shoot and kill as many members of the Hamas combat wing, of Al-Quaeda, etc. etc. etc. as we can, and treat those we capture in the field as prisoners.
But when a man is captured in peacetime and is suspected of cooperating with a terrorist organization, he is a SUSPECT. He is not automatically guilty. He deserves a fair trial.
-
Much ado about nuthin'. Our next president will get us into the international criminal court is a heartbeat. All our problems with miscellaneous terrorist support troops will simply go away. Then again a whole host of other issues will crop up like the "legality" of sending a hellfire missile up the tailpipe of an SUV transiting the Sudan which coincidentally contained the chief of operations of AQ.
Side step to the left; slide to the right. Nothing accomplished but the bureaucrats surely are busy.
-
Look Micro, you just don't understand: proving guilt in cases where the government may not have any evidence is difficult. Therefore, the executive needs the power to just jail people forever without having to prove anything. That way, we'll be safe, because no terrorist will be able to deprive us of our liberty or life arbitrarily. Only the government will be able to do that, and we all know that government never abuses that power.
Back to reality: The fact that the government is releasing something like 30 percent of the prisoners is proof that there never were anything approaching stringent requirements for jailing people in the first place. When the government has already admitted that it didn't carefully select who went to Gitmo in the first place, how on earth can you believe it's a good idea to just let the government keep people in jail forever without having to prove anything?
-
I say send them back where they came from.