What about them? They are pretty much protected except in some specific instances.
Freed Gitmo Detainee Rejoins Al-Qaeda, Attacks US
- Thread starter Puppycow
- Start date
What about them? They are pretty much protected except in some specific instances.
What innocent lives? Obama sure as hell isn't stating they are innocent in fact it's just the opposite.
I believe that most of them have not yet had a trial or sentence. Until then, obviously, they are innocent.
Last edited:
Well you can believe in the tooth fairy but what you believe means nothing when it comes to war.
War? Are you saying they are POW's?
Aren't the rules with POWs and enemy combatants designed to ensure they don't get a chance to reoffend? Meaning that they usually don't get released while the conflict continues.
The problem with this conflict is that while they still believe in militant Islam they will still be able to take part in this conflict. As opposed to a normal conflict that could be resolved militarily or by the agreement of the governments involved.
Suprize Suprize,
Obama closes down Gitmo... then these cases about a terrorist getting out and carrying out another act come out, then you get a reaction of horror, and not to mention Obama looks bad (even though some of these releases happened under Bush)
It then provides "justification" even more than before to deny all prisoners any chance to be released (even those that happen to not be guilty of anything) and deny all the right to a trial (Even the Nazi's got trials).
Smackety,
Agreed. We have to fight out enemies, retain our liberties, and yet not become as bad as the enemies ourself. If we fail to do this; we give up all our liberties, and our country becomes as bad as the enemy, even if we "win" we lose.
INRM
Obama closes down Gitmo... then these cases about a terrorist getting out and carrying out another act come out, then you get a reaction of horror, and not to mention Obama looks bad (even though some of these releases happened under Bush)
It then provides "justification" even more than before to deny all prisoners any chance to be released (even those that happen to not be guilty of anything) and deny all the right to a trial (Even the Nazi's got trials).
Smackety,
Agreed. We have to fight out enemies, retain our liberties, and yet not become as bad as the enemies ourself. If we fail to do this; we give up all our liberties, and our country becomes as bad as the enemy, even if we "win" we lose.
INRM
Last edited:
Demigorgon
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2003
- Messages
- 261
As long as we feel good about ourselves, we'll be ok.
amiright?
amiright?
Corsair 115
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2007
- Messages
- 14,519
Not really that extraordinary. The atomic bombs achieved via one bomb on one plane something which previously took thousands of bombs on hundreds of planes to achieve.
BenBurch
Gatekeeper of The Left
Of course he is trying to hurt us!
Sheesh.
Lock ME away for 6 years of torture and detention without trial or Habeas Corpus, and I would be a terrorist against you too, whether I was one before you abducted me or not!
We have sewn the wind, and are surprised that we are reaping the whirlwind???
Sheesh.
Lock ME away for 6 years of torture and detention without trial or Habeas Corpus, and I would be a terrorist against you too, whether I was one before you abducted me or not!
We have sewn the wind, and are surprised that we are reaping the whirlwind???
Last edited:
BenBurch
Gatekeeper of The Left
Against an enemy who we already knew did not mount a fighter response to lone aircraft.
BeAChooser
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2007
- Messages
- 11,716
BeAChooser
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2007
- Messages
- 11,716
You have any proof he was *tortured*? Or didn't receive due process?
This might be of interest in this discussion:
http://projects.nytimes.com/guantanamo/detainees/372-said-ali-jabir-al-khathim-al-shihri#1
Allen773
Graduate Poster
Except we're not at war. Where's the declaration of war against al-Qaeda (which isn't a recognized nation, so we can't really declare war on it)?
manofthesea
2wu4u
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2007
- Messages
- 1,668
He should certainly be more understanding of our ways if he was subject to being in (near) the US.
My question is was this guy that was released subjected to waterboarding? That would certainly leave a sour taste, or perhaps bland in this case, nevertheless he'd probably not soon forget his treatment.
My question is was this guy that was released subjected to waterboarding? That would certainly leave a sour taste, or perhaps bland in this case, nevertheless he'd probably not soon forget his treatment.
Sword_Of_Truth
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 8, 2006
- Messages
- 11,494
But if you were a terrorist before I captured you (terrorists by definition cannot be "abducted") I'm not going to care what you want to do after I've poured water up your nose.
If you've already killed 3,000 of my people, I'm going to pour water up your nose to find out what other plans you have so I can stop them.
What whirlwind? Have their been any new attacks on US soil since 9/11 that I haven't heard about?
Allen773
Graduate Poster
Oh how I loathe this argument.
Last edited:
I think the blame solo lays with the politicians in this matter. Also in US policy at the time. They should have been handled as mercenaries under international law. Because at the end of the day that is what they are. You go off and fight another countries war, then you are mercenary whether for money or Ideology. . Each should of stood trial to establish that fact, under international law To go around holding these people with out trial has turned them into martyrs. In relation to terrorist acts carried out by some of these detainees the same applies. The US President called for the war on Terror and signed up countries of the willing, so International law is the order of the day, not US law.