Freed Gitmo Detainee Rejoins Al-Qaeda, Attacks US

WildCat said:
You keep saying this as if you really believe it. If so, there are tools available on the internet with which you can educate yourself.
Click to expand...

Yes, from our most favoritist website:

The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) did not authorize the U.S.-led military campaign in Afghanistan (Operation Enduring Freedom). There is some debate as to whether UNSC authorization was required, centered around the question of whether the invasion was an act of collective self-defense provided for under Article 51 of the UN Charter, or an act of aggression.[35]

Also, the U.S. Administration did not officially declare war, and labeled Taliban troops and supporters terrorists rather than soldiers, denying them the protections of the Geneva Convention and due process of law. This position has been successfully challenged in the U.S. Supreme Court[36] and questioned even by military lawyers responsible for prosecuting affected prisoners.[37]

On December 20, 2001, the UNSC did authorize the creation of an International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) with authority to take all measures necessary to fulfill its mandate of assisting the Afghan Interim Authority in maintaining security.[38] Command of the ISAF passed to NATO on August 11, 2003.[39]
Click to expand...
 
Texas said:
Because this is the real world not a dorm room circle jerk. Our "ideals" are and have been up to now to defeat our enemies by any means necessary. Anything else is just pseudo-intellectual self gratification.
Click to expand...

You ain't from around these parts are yah?
 
WildCat said:
It was never the intention to charge and prosecute the vast majority of them. They were held as enemy combatants, in much the same way that we held thousands of Germans in WWII and only charged a handful of them for war crimes.

Being an enemy combatant isn't in and of itself a crime, but they can be held nevertheless. And generally without charges.
Click to expand...
It's amazing that people can't grasp that simple concept. We held 3.5 million German POWs ( actually Eisenhower changed their status to "disarmed enemy combatants" to avoid them being classed as POW's) up to 2 years after the end of the war. We Held the Nuremberg MILITARY tribunals to try those accused of War crimes.
 
Texas said:
It's amazing that people can't grasp that simple concept. We held 3.5 million German POWs ( actually Eisenhower changed their status to "disarmed enemy combatants" to avoid them being classed as POW's) up to 2 years after the end of the war. We Held the Nuremberg MILITARY tribunals to try those accused of War crimes.
Click to expand...

Yes, it took 2 years to process 3.5 million POW's - what is the hold up with the 700 in GITMO?
 
Smackety said:
At least now you understand why this statement is not accurate?:
Click to expand...
Look at the US constitution. There is not a single sentence in it that requires UN approval for a declaration of war on anyone.
 
Texas said:
If you can tell me a single freedom this country has lost because of Bush policies please post it. This canard that he suspended Habeas is just that a canard. It was never true.
Click to expand...

I didn't mean to suggest that Bush suspended Habeas Corpus as a general matter. But of course you know about people like Padilla, held for years without charge or counsel, with the Bush administration seeking to deny him Habeas Corpus. And you know about the unconstitutional Military Commissions Act. And you know about the violations of FISA.

Hey, FISA, that's an easy one. A law which places some restrictions on the power of the government to gather information. I submit that it is logical that any law that restricts the power of the government thereby protects a freedom in those who might be subject to that government action. I.e. the fact that FISA exists means that you and I have a certain freedom against certain government surveillance in the absence of certain (though admittedly minimal) procedures. I further submit that violating a law that protects a freedom means that freedom has, in some sense, been lost. And of course Bush policy was to violate FISA. There we go.
 
linusrichard said:
Hey, FISA, that's an easy one. A law which places some restrictions on the power of the government to gather information. I submit that it is logical that any law that restricts the power of the government thereby protects a freedom in those who might be subject to that government action. I.e. the fact that FISA exists means that you and I have a certain freedom against certain government surveillance in the absence of certain (though admittedly minimal) procedures. I further submit that violating a law that protects a freedom means that freedom has, in some sense, been lost. And of course Bush policy was to violate FISA. There we go.
Click to expand...
As it turns out, the FISA court disagrees with you:
In a major August 2008 decision released yesterday in redacted form, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, the FISA appellate panel, affirmed the government's Constitutional authority to collect national-security intelligence without judicial approval. The case was not made public before yesterday, and its details remain classified. An unnamed telecom company refused to comply with the National Security Agency's monitoring requests and claimed the program violated the Fourth Amendment's restrictions on search and seizure.

But the Constitution bans only "unreasonable" search and seizure, not all searches and seizures, and the Fourth Amendment allows for exceptions such as those under a President's Article II war powers. The courts have been explicit on this point. In 1980, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals held in Truong that "the Executive need not always obtain a warrant for foreign intelligence surveillance." The FISA appeals court said in its 2002 opinion In re Sealed Case that the President has "inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information" and took "for granted" that "FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power."
Click to expand...
 
Texas said:
Go here and click on their names the evidence is presented:

http://wid.ap.org/documents/detainees/list.html
Click to expand...

So I read all 62 pages of the first man on the list, Abd Al Aziz Sayer Al Shammri, and this is the evidence the US has against him, this is why he is being held:
3. The United States Government has previously determined that the detainee is an enemy combatant. This determination is based on information possessed by the United States that indicates that he is a member of al Qaeda.
a. The detainee is a member of al Qaeda.
1. The detainee traveled from Kuwait to Iran and then to Afghanistan soon after 11 th September 2001.
2. Detainee was arrested by the Pakistani Army while attempting to cross into
Pakistan from Afghanistan without identification documents.
3. One of the detainee’s known aliases was on a list of captured hard drives
associated with a senior al Qaeda member
Click to expand...
 
WildCat said:
There were actually 2 B-29s sent to Hiroshima. The 2nd plane was there to film the whole thing, but the camera malfunctioned and the only footage we have of it is from one of the Enola Gay crew members who filmed a bit of it with his personal camera.

/pedant
Click to expand...

True, and I had forgotten that fact. In "Hiroshima" by John Hersey it is related how there was an air raid alert and then the alert was cleared when the approaching aircraft were identified as a weather/recon flight. At the time, Japan was so short of fuel that only obvious bombing raids were responded to in any way.

BTW, if anybody here has not read "Hiroshima," shame on you. Your public library will have a copy or can get a copy without any doubt at all, and nobody should think he understands nuclear warfare until he has read that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom