Close Gitmo?

[Jim]

What does "adequate proof" mean? Who decides what adequate proof is?

 

Fuck "hostile acts agaist the US"....have they commited a crime? Has the US proven they have commited a crime? If not then they have to let them go.......

 

 

Best recent quote - "We are concerned about bring these dangerous criminals into the US prison system" --- Mitch McConnell."

 

Who decides if they are dangerous criminals? You are not a criminal until you are convicted in a court of law.

 

its all bullshit.

 

Yea. That's the point. Fact sheet is from ACLU.

[billcoe]

"attacking him" is hypocritical? That's quite some leap in logic there buddy. Could it be that my "attacking him" is due to his being a hypocrite?

 

That's just how you roll I suppose.

Perhaps this will help you figure yourself out. I'll see your hypocrite and raise you a hypocrite.

[JayB]

"Best recent quote - "We are concerned about bring these dangerous criminals into the US prison system" --- Mitch McConnell.

 

Isn't that what prisons are for? Who's there now?"

 

Agreed. Hard to believe that no one gave this question any serious consideration beforehand, much less that the political ramifications of moving them to detention facilities in the US seems to have caught everyone off guard.

[Dechristo]

"What the fuck?! 7/11 is hiring."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Eddie Murphy

[Crux]

[video:youtube]

[Peter_Puget]

[olyclimber]

[Serenity]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1161345/Freed-wage-war-British-troops-Guantanamo-prisoner-Taliban-chief.html

 

EXCERPT

 

A Taliban chief responsible for deadly bomb attacks against British troops in Afghanistan was a prisoner in Guantanamo Bay just 15 months ago.

 

Abdullah Ghulam Rasoul was released from the camp in Cuba after U.S. officials decided he was no longer a threat.

 

He was handed over to the Afghan government who then freed him in Kabul early last year, according to Pentagon and CIA officials.

 

News of his involvement in terror attacks comes just weeks after Barack Obama signed executive orders to close the controversial prison camp at Guantanamo.

 

One of the new president's central campaign pledges, the move is part of a concentrated bid to improve America's tarnished image around the world.

 

The revelation that Rasoul has become a high-ranking Taliban commander in such a short space of time is, therefore, a bitter blow.

 

He was among 13 Afghan prisoners released to Hamid Karzai's government and is now known as Mullah Abdullah Zakir - the Taliban's new operations chief in Helmand and the architect of a new offensive against British troops.

 

Since then, the threat from the Taliban has soared as they deploy more sophisticated and powerful roadside bombs against British troops.

 

More than 40 British troops have been killed by roadside bombs since last year. One Whitehall official told The Times: 'He is a serious player.'

 

Sources at the Pentagon said that Rasoul, who spent six years at Guantanamo Bay where he was Detainee 008, has joined a growing faction of former inmates of the camp who have rejoined militant groups.

 

It is thought that as many as 60 former detainees have resurfaced on the battlefields.

 

[murraysovereign]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1161345/Freed-wage-war-British-troops-Guantanamo-prisoner-Taliban-chief.html

 

EXCERPT

 

A Taliban chief responsible for deadly bomb attacks against British troops in Afghanistan was a prisoner in Guantanamo Bay just 15 months ago.

 

Abdullah Ghulam Rasoul was released from the camp in Cuba after U.S. officials decided he was no longer a threat.

 

He was handed over to the Afghan government who then freed him in Kabul early last year, according to Pentagon and CIA officials.

 

News of his involvement in terror attacks comes just weeks after Barack Obama signed executive orders to close the controversial prison camp at Guantanamo.

 

One of the new president's central campaign pledges, the move is part of a concentrated bid to improve America's tarnished image around the world.

 

The revelation that Rasoul has become a high-ranking Taliban commander in such a short space of time is, therefore, a bitter blow.

 

He was among 13 Afghan prisoners released to Hamid Karzai's government and is now known as Mullah Abdullah Zakir - the Taliban's new operations chief in Helmand and the architect of a new offensive against British troops.

 

Since then, the threat from the Taliban has soared as they deploy more sophisticated and powerful roadside bombs against British troops.

 

More than 40 British troops have been killed by roadside bombs since last year. One Whitehall official told The Times: 'He is a serious player.'

 

Sources at the Pentagon said that Rasoul, who spent six years at Guantanamo Bay where he was Detainee 008, has joined a growing faction of former inmates of the camp who have rejoined militant groups.

 

It is thought that as many as 60 former detainees have resurfaced on the battlefields.

 

 

I know we're all supposed to leap to the conclusion that this proves these guys were active terrorists who were rightly detained at Gitmo or Abu Ghraib or God-only-knows-where-else and should never have been released. But isn't it equally possible that some, perhaps many of these people were, in fact, innocent, and wrongly detained for a period of years, possibly (probably?) tortured before being released? And isn't it just possible their wrongful detention and torture may have the effect of turning otherwise neutral individuals into angry, hate-filled terrorists bent on revenge against their former captors?

 

I don't know about you, but if I was detained for years and subjected to various methods of "enhanced interrogation" despite having done nothing wrong, I'd be nursing some pretty serious grudges upon my release. I'd want to get back at the people who locked me up and torturted me for no reason. I'd want to blow up their shit. Hell, I'd want to blow up them, never mind their shit. So, yeah, there's a good chance I'd turn up on a battlefield somewhere after my release, and I wouldn't be fighting to defend my former captors.

 

These reports stating that former captors - former torture subjects in some cases - are turning up on battlefields fighting for the other side are hardly surprising. In fact, they're pretty much inevitable.

 

"As ye sow, so shall ye reap." What do you want to bet that particular biblical quote never appeared on the title page of any of GWB's briefing notes?

[Serenity]

Or maybe they WERE actually terrorists (such as in this case) and despite 'enhanced interrogation' (laughable techniques in Jordan) they managed to lie to, and fool trained investigators. Then were released back, and now are managing networks that are killing persons you SHOULD consider allies instead of letting the liberal mainstream media sway your mind with falsehoods and mindless incoherent civility.

 

MMMMM???

[billcoe]

Or maybe they WERE actually terrorists (such as in this case) and despite 'enhanced interrogation' (laughable techniques in Jordan) they managed to lie to, and fool trained investigators. Then were released back, and now are managing networks that are killing persons you SHOULD consider allies instead of letting the liberal mainstream media sway your mind with falsehoods and mindless incoherent civility.

 

MMMMM???

 

Most likely it's both. There is no question MANY are our enemies. Some are innocent and some are guilty. Sorting that out is a hard row to hoe no doubt. Assuming MOST of these yahoos are guilty and are our enemies, then what? Are they imprisoned for life with no trial? Are those who are innocent then also imprisoned for life?

 

It ain't the American way.

[kevbone]

Or maybe they WERE actually terrorists (such as in this case)

 

How would we know? We never brought charges against this person. He was never found guilty in a court of law. He is completely innocent until found guilty.

 

Then were released back, and now are managing networks that are killing persons you SHOULD consider allies instead of letting the liberal mainstream media sway your mind with falsehoods and mindless incoherent civility.

 

 

 

Hahahah…..the liberal mainstream media? You have got to be kidding? The media was turned off long ago. Bush and company did a great job shutting down the media.

 

The last poster was correct. The US created a lot of the new “terrorist” (what ever that means) with kicking the shit out of them over years and years of torture.

 

The simple truth is this is about human rights. Not US citizens rights…..but human rights.

 

You must treat others as you would want them to treat you. Even if the other wants to fight you. Lead by example.

 

Gitmo is a joke and undermines the US at every turn.

[Vickster]

I think we should let them out and give them the old WACO compound. As soon as they start doing stupid terrorist shit, we send in Janet Reno to torch them all at once.

[STP]

Or maybe they WERE actually terrorists (such as in this case) and despite 'enhanced interrogation' (laughable techniques in Jordan) they managed to lie to, and fool trained investigators. Then were released back, and now are managing networks that are killing persons you SHOULD consider allies instead of letting the liberal mainstream media sway your mind with falsehoods and mindless incoherent civility.

 

MMMMM???

 

Most likely it's both. There is no question MANY are our enemies. Some are innocent and some are guilty. Sorting that out is a hard row to hoe no doubt. Assuming MOST of these yahoos are guilty and are our enemies, then what? Are they imprisoned for life with no trial? Are those who are innocent then also imprisoned for life?

 

It ain't the American way.

 

Should that question of innocence be couched in legal terms fit for a domestic courtroom where we speak of a crime committed and the weight of evidence against an alleged perpetrator? Are we not talking about someone plucked from a battlefield involved in an act of aggression or planned aggression?

 

Now, what I do have reservations with is when that battlefield is not well-defined and when it merges into what we normally don't consider to be a war zone. Now, that disturbs my domestic tranquility.

 

But to get back to that question of innocence, it may never be fully answered. So, what then? I suppose that in the search for solutions you have to strive to understand your cognitive biases. There’s an online book that outlines how to approach this and available here: ( Psychology of Intelligence Analysis by Richards J. Heuer, Jr. ). Concerning cognitive bias, it states “…one can only generalize about the tendencies of groups of people, not make statements about how any specific individual will think.” So I take that to mean that it is not a foregone conclusion that all of the former prisoners will become future insurgents regardless of whether any already were. One only need to research findings concerning the Stockholm syndrome to realize this. In all possibility, what appears to be an insurgent is something altogether different.

 

Can you ever fully know the mind of a man?

 

[JayB]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1161345/Freed-wage-war-British-troops-Guantanamo-prisoner-Taliban-chief.html

 

EXCERPT

 

A Taliban chief responsible for deadly bomb attacks against British troops in Afghanistan was a prisoner in Guantanamo Bay just 15 months ago.

 

Abdullah Ghulam Rasoul was released from the camp in Cuba after U.S. officials decided he was no longer a threat.

 

He was handed over to the Afghan government who then freed him in Kabul early last year, according to Pentagon and CIA officials.

 

News of his involvement in terror attacks comes just weeks after Barack Obama signed executive orders to close the controversial prison camp at Guantanamo.

 

One of the new president's central campaign pledges, the move is part of a concentrated bid to improve America's tarnished image around the world.

 

The revelation that Rasoul has become a high-ranking Taliban commander in such a short space of time is, therefore, a bitter blow.

 

He was among 13 Afghan prisoners released to Hamid Karzai's government and is now known as Mullah Abdullah Zakir - the Taliban's new operations chief in Helmand and the architect of a new offensive against British troops.

 

Since then, the threat from the Taliban has soared as they deploy more sophisticated and powerful roadside bombs against British troops.

 

More than 40 British troops have been killed by roadside bombs since last year. One Whitehall official told The Times: 'He is a serious player.'

 

Sources at the Pentagon said that Rasoul, who spent six years at Guantanamo Bay where he was Detainee 008, has joined a growing faction of former inmates of the camp who have rejoined militant groups.

 

It is thought that as many as 60 former detainees have resurfaced on the battlefields.

 

 

I know we're all supposed to leap to the conclusion that this proves these guys were active terrorists who were rightly detained at Gitmo or Abu Ghraib or God-only-knows-where-else and should never have been released. But isn't it equally possible that some, perhaps many of these people were, in fact, innocent, and wrongly detained for a period of years, possibly (probably?) tortured before being released? And isn't it just possible their wrongful detention and torture may have the effect of turning otherwise neutral individuals into angry, hate-filled terrorists bent on revenge against their former captors?

 

I don't know about you, but if I was detained for years and subjected to various methods of "enhanced interrogation" despite having done nothing wrong, I'd be nursing some pretty serious grudges upon my release. I'd want to get back at the people who locked me up and torturted me for no reason. I'd want to blow up their shit. Hell, I'd want to blow up them, never mind their shit. So, yeah, there's a good chance I'd turn up on a battlefield somewhere after my release, and I wouldn't be fighting to defend my former captors.

 

These reports stating that former captors - former torture subjects in some cases - are turning up on battlefields fighting for the other side are hardly surprising. In fact, they're pretty much inevitable.

 

"As ye sow, so shall ye reap." What do you want to bet that particular biblical quote never appeared on the title page of any of GWB's briefing notes?

 

As a general narrative, Murray, that's all feasible enough - but in this particular case, going from goatherd-minding-your-own-business-wrongfully-detained-in-Gitmo to Taliban commander orchestrating attacks against the US/British/etc seems a tad improbable.

 

I can definitely see the Taliban handing the guy a Koran, a suicide vest, and a love note to read to each of the 72 virgins that they've assured him will heap up on him in a giant-holy-nekkid-love-pile if he succeeds in slaughtering as many people (not sure if they're more interested in taking out American soliders or schoolgirls these days) as possible in order to capitalize on his newfound radicalism and zeal. It's harder to see them handing a guy like that the reigns and giving him responsibility for leading the troops out in the field, coordinating attacks, etc if he was a green innocent beforehand. I'll concede that that's possible, but it just seems terribly unlikely in this case. Innocent-turned-terrorist or hardened radical anxious to return to the fold and get his jihad on? Not sure it's easy to tell which way Occam's razor will cut without knowing more specifics in this and many other cases.

 

I think it's also worth pointing out that while some of the Taliban may selectively attack US forces in response to their mistreatment by the same. I think it would be a grave mistake to assume that their roots go back no deeper than that, that they have no positive agenda of their own that's limited to and defined by a simple tit-for-tat reaction to US moves, or that their targets and ultimate goals are so limited and specific.

 

 

 

 

[tvashtarkatena]

Or maybe they WERE actually terrorists (such as in this case) and despite 'enhanced interrogation' (laughable techniques in Jordan) they managed to lie to, and fool trained investigators. Then were released back, and now are managing networks that are killing persons you SHOULD consider allies instead of letting the liberal mainstream media sway your mind with falsehoods and mindless incoherent civility.

 

MMMMM???

 

 

Most likely it's both. There is no question MANY are our enemies. Some are innocent and some are guilty. Sorting that out is a hard row to hoe no doubt. Assuming MOST of these yahoos are guilty and are our enemies, then what? Are they imprisoned for life with no trial? Are those who are innocent then also imprisoned for life?

 

It ain't the American way.

Given the data so far, most detainees are not and never were our enemies. We've released 3/4 of the Gitmo detainees so far because there was no real evidence against them. Of the remaining 250 or so, only 14 have ever been charged with anything. The government's credibility at this point is non-existent, by any reasonable measure. Of course, if you're 'in the biz' and earning a fat paycheck from Joe Sizpack working in the mostly scam national security industry that exploded after 911 (our only growth industry left at this point, as far as I can see), you're going to continue to maintain the party line no matter what.

 

There is no reason to believe that most the remaining detainees are guilty of anything more than being in the wrong place at the wrong time when some local bounty hunter, paid by the US to "go out and bring back some terrorists" kidnapped them to make some money, satisfy a personal vendetta, or both.

 

 

[billcoe]

Given the data so far, most detainees are not and never were our enemies. We've released 3/4 of the Gitmo detainees so far because there was no real evidence against them. Of the remaining 250 or so, only 14 have ever been charged with anything. The government's credibility at this point is non-existent, by any reasonable measure. Of course, if you're 'in the biz' and earning a fat paycheck from Joe Sizpack working in the mostly scam national security industry that exploded after 911 (our only growth industry left at this point, as far as I can see), you're going to continue to maintain the party line no matter what.

 

There is no reason to believe that most the remaining detainees are guilty of anything more than being in the wrong place at the wrong time when some local bounty hunter, paid by the US to "go out and bring back some terrorists" kidnapped them to make some money, satisfy a personal vendetta, or both.

 

F* - thanks for the reminder that your absence has been nice. You just can't seem to ever post without an unwarranted insult to others can you?

[kevbone]

Given the data so far, most detainees are not and never were our enemies. We've released 3/4 of the Gitmo detainees so far because there was no real evidence against them. Of the remaining 250 or so, only 14 have ever been charged with anything. The government's credibility at this point is non-existent, by any reasonable measure. Of course, if you're 'in the biz' and earning a fat paycheck from Joe Sizpack working in the mostly scam national security industry that exploded after 911 (our only growth industry left at this point, as far as I can see), you're going to continue to maintain the party line no matter what.

 

There is no reason to believe that most the remaining detainees are guilty of anything more than being in the wrong place at the wrong time when some local bounty hunter, paid by the US to "go out and bring back some terrorists" kidnapped them to make some money, satisfy a personal vendetta, or both.

 

F* - thanks for the reminder that your absence has been nice. You just can't seem to ever post without an unwarranted insult to others can you?

 

 

Bill, where is the insult?

[JayB]

Or maybe they WERE actually terrorists (such as in this case) and despite 'enhanced interrogation' (laughable techniques in Jordan) they managed to lie to, and fool trained investigators. Then were released back, and now are managing networks that are killing persons you SHOULD consider allies instead of letting the liberal mainstream media sway your mind with falsehoods and mindless incoherent civility.

 

MMMMM???

 

 

Most likely it's both. There is no question MANY are our enemies. Some are innocent and some are guilty. Sorting that out is a hard row to hoe no doubt. Assuming MOST of these yahoos are guilty and are our enemies, then what? Are they imprisoned for life with no trial? Are those who are innocent then also imprisoned for life?

 

It ain't the American way.

Given the data so far, most detainees are not and never were our enemies. We've released 3/4 of the Gitmo detainees so far because there was no real evidence against them. Of the remaining 250 or so, only 14 have ever been charged with anything. The government's credibility at this point is non-existent, by any reasonable measure. Of course, if you're 'in the biz' and earning a fat paycheck from Joe Sizpack working in the mostly scam national security industry that exploded after 911 (our only growth industry left at this point, as far as I can see), you're going to continue to maintain the party line no matter what.

 

There is no reason to believe that most the remaining detainees are guilty of anything more than being in the wrong place at the wrong time when some local bounty hunter, paid by the US to "go out and bring back some terrorists" kidnapped them to make some money, satisfy a personal vendetta, or both.

 

 

Given the policy choices that the Obama administration has made on everything from renditions to millitary tribunals to the the role of state secrets in terrorism trials - it's not clear to me which party that you are referring to, but as a man who puts principle first, I expect that you'll waste no time in taking the Obama adminstration to task and excoriating them for their many shortfalls on these fronts.

 

 

[JayB]

Given the data so far, most detainees are not and never were our enemies. We've released 3/4 of the Gitmo detainees so far because there was no real evidence against them. Of the remaining 250 or so, only 14 have ever been charged with anything. The government's credibility at this point is non-existent, by any reasonable measure. Of course, if you're 'in the biz' and earning a fat paycheck from Joe Sizpack working in the mostly scam national security industry that exploded after 911 (our only growth industry left at this point, as far as I can see), you're going to continue to maintain the party line no matter what.

 

There is no reason to believe that most the remaining detainees are guilty of anything more than being in the wrong place at the wrong time when some local bounty hunter, paid by the US to "go out and bring back some terrorists" kidnapped them to make some money, satisfy a personal vendetta, or both.

 

F* - thanks for the reminder that your absence has been nice. You just can't seem to ever post without an unwarranted insult to others can you?

 

Hey Bill:

 

If the world was full of people that are as cool and loyal as you are, the world would be a much better place! Having said that, I wouldn't want you to rekindle the beef that you two had going on my behalf (if that's not what motivated the post, then please ignore this entire post)

 

I'm sure that Pat's a fine fellow in person, and I find the rhetorical attention flattering. Besides, I'm sure that now that I'm back in Seattle for good, we'll almost surely run into each other at some point, so there's no sense in chalking any of our banter here up to more than differences of opinion that manifest themselves in more caustic and snarky ways online than they would over a beer. Besides, I rarely if ever talk seriously about politics or religion in person with folks who aren't close friends already (never sparred with people until I was reasonably certain that they wouldn't go nuts if you caught them with a good shot when we used to have gloves around, either, for the same reasons), so there's a reasonable chance that if we'd met elsewhere the now long-standing back-and-forth would never have started.

 

 

 

*Ooops - I just assumed that Tvash's reply was directed at me, but after looking at the quote-chain again, I see that I was mistaken! Never mind and please excuse my presumption!

[billcoe]

It is a good point in either case Jay, thanks always for your words of wisdom.

 

Warm regards.

 

 

 

[tvashtarkatena]

I thwaught he wuth makin fun a me....

 

Seems like Spock and the trible might share a personality trait.

Edited June 2, 2009 by tvashtarkatena

[JayB]

I can only hope that the brevity of the above retort was occasioned by the demands of sending letter-after-letter to the Obama administration to hold them to account. Military tribunals! Rendition! State Secrets! Telecom Immunity! Et...........cetera.

[tvashtarkatena]

Fascinating.

[ivan]

tvash - i miss hating that dude