Freed Gitmo Detainee Rejoins Al-Qaeda, Attacks US

[Texas]

According to Gumboot, it's a "major problem" for the LAPD. Unfortunately, the LAPD has some serious credibility problems. And this recruitment of terrorists has been quite overblown looking back over the last several years. The threat is there, but it isn't much of a threat to our existence. You and I are more likely to be hit by lightning than die by terrorism.

Then why erect lighting rods or PSA's about not playing golf or standing near tress in a thunderstorm. Your line of reasoning sounds rational but in reality it is more like whistling past the graveyard.

 

[shecky]

It sounds rational because it is rational. Problems should be addressed according to reality, not perception.

 

[gumboot]

Got a source for this other than the American producer?

No. I have no idea how accurate his comments were at all. Actually I can't even remember if it was the LAPD. I assumed that because he was from LA.

For all I know, he may never have been told anything of the sort, and even if he was, the police that told him it may have been lying, or just mistaken.

*shrugs*

I think in highlighting that it was the producer of a TV commercial who recounted this, I made it pretty clear it shouldn't be perceived as anything remotely resembling an authoritative source.

 

[gumboot]

According to Gumboot, it's a "major problem" for the LAPD.

According to Gumboot an LA producer claims the LAPD claim it's a major problem. Get your facts right.

Unfortunately, the LAPD has some serious credibility problems. And this recruitment of terrorists has been quite overblown looking back over the last several years. The threat is there, but it isn't much of a threat to our existence. You and I are more likely to be hit by lightning than die by terrorism.

Assuming the stuff about these Somalis is true (and I have no reason to assume it is - the only collaboration I have is Texas here and for all I know they could be the very same American producer I talked to) the issue isn't terrorism at all - they're doing their terrorist deeds in Somalia which frankly isn't on my top 10 list of vacation spots, and probably isn't on the top 100 list for most westerners.

Let's be clear here, this "war", which I think is correct to describe as a "clash of civilisations" is an ideological one, not a military one. Put simply, its Liberal Secularism against Radical Islam. Stories like this LAPD one (again, quite possibly not true) tell us that their ideology is beating ours. That's the significance. Not terrorism.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

We've been flagellating this equine corpse for some time now, but I suppose someone should point out that the AUMF isn't against al Qaeda per se.

What you call an excuse evaporates at the end of active hostilities or at that point the Congress decides to rescind authorization under the terms of the War Powers Act. Are you claiming that active hostilities between the US and "those nations, organizations, or persons [the President determined] planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons have ceased?

That depends on whether you count the Taliban and Al Qaeda as the same outfit or not. If you do hostilities are still ongoing, since the Taliban is comfortably back in business. If not, and I don't think it's reasonable to do so, if Al Qaeda is out of business then hostilities with it are over.

So if Bin-Laden decides to rename his organisation to the "Radical Islamics" the war is over?

Is that an attempt at humor? Or are you genuinely stupid enough to read that in what I wrote?

Al-Qaeda as an organisation still exists, we really have no idea of how big it is either now or before 911.

That's some fine intelligence work we're doing, then. Somehow I doubt your claim.

He and his top lieutenants are still on the loose and they are still recruiting.

Name these top lieutenants.

You asked what networks he was using? It is the one we are posting on. There are literally hundreds of Jihad sites on the web and they come and go at will.Your strawman that we are just at war with "the ones that carried out the 911 attacks" is not worth arguing since that is not what the AUP states. It is against terrorist organisations with an international reach and there are many out there beside Al-Qaeda that meet that criteria.

Actually it's specifically against the people who carried out 9/11 and those that harboured them. Read the quote above.

 

[Cylinder]

That depends on whether you count the Taliban and Al Qaeda as the same outfit or not. If you do hostilities are still ongoing, since the Taliban is comfortably back in business. If not, and I don't think it's reasonable to do so, if Al Qaeda is out of business then hostilities with it are over.

Not even close. In your example it depends on whether the President has determined that the Taliban is a nation, organization, or person that planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons.

This isn't my opinion - it's an act of Congress.

Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President):

At approximately 12:30 p.m. (EDT) on October 7, 2001, on my orders, U.S. Armed Forces began combat action in Afghanistan against Al Qaida terrorists and their Taliban supporters. This military action is a part of our campaign against terrorism and is designed to disrupt the use of Afghanistan as a terrorist base of operations.

We are responding to the brutal September 11 attacks on our territory, our citizens, and our way of life, and to the continuing threat of terrorist acts against the United States and our friends and allies. This follows the deployment of various combat-equipped and combat support forces to a number of locations in the Central and Pacific Command areas of operations, as I reported to the Congress on September 24, to prepare for the campaign to prevent and deter terrorism.

I have taken these actions pursuant to my constitutional authority to conduct U.S. foreign relations as Commander in Chief and Chief Executive. It is not possible to know at this time either the duration of combat operations or the scope and dura-tion of the deployment of U.S. Armed Forces necessary to counter the terrorist threat to the United States. As I have stated previously, it is likely that the American campaign against terrorism will be lengthy. I will direct such additional measures as necessary in exercise of our right to self-defense and to protect U.S. citizens and interests.

I am providing this report as part of my efforts to keep the Congress informed, consistent with the War Powers Resolution and Public Law 107-40. Officials of my Administration and I have been communicating regularly with the leadership and other members of Congress, and we will continue to do so. I appreciate the continuing support of the Congress, including its enactment of Public Law 107-40, in these actions to protect the security of the United States of America and its citizens, civilian and military, here and abroad.

Sincerely,
GEORGE W. BUSH

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/sept11/president_040.asp

 

[Meadmaker]

That depends on whether you count the Taliban and Al Qaeda as the same outfit or not.

In my opinion, any Al Qaeda members captured in Afghanistan, or apprehended after fleeing from it, should certainly be considered Taliban. It's not that the Taliban and Al Qaeda are the same outfit. It's that they were mutually supporting outfits and when the Taliban was attacked, the Al Qaeda members in the theater of operations joined in armed combat on the side of the Taliban.

I have no problem with keeping those people locked up as long as hostilities are ongoing.

Of course, we get into some difficult legal ground here. Was being a member of Al Qaeda automatically the same thing as being part of a militia supporting the Taliban? Were the people in the training camps all "members" of Al Qaeda? Did Al Qaeda issue membership cards? Frankly, I don't know much about these questions.

That's what lawyers are for. To sort out particular details. My objection to Bush administration practice was that they seemed to think we needn't bother with sorting out the particular details.

That being said, if someone engaged in combat with the US or its allies in defense of the government of Afghanistan (i.e. the Taliban), then they are a Taliban supporter, captured in the course of aiding the Taliban, and hostilities with the Taliban are still ongoing. They should be held as long as that's the case.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

In my opinion, any Al Qaeda members captured in Afghanistan, or apprehended after fleeing from it, should certainly be considered Taliban. It's not that the Taliban and Al Qaeda are the same outfit. It's that they were mutually supporting outfits and when the Taliban was attacked, the Al Qaeda members in the theater of operations joined in armed combat on the side of the Taliban.

I have no problem with keeping those people locked up as long as hostilities are ongoing.

I'd agree with that, although if that was what the Bush regime had in mind it's curious they never made a clear statement to that effect, that everyone detained in Afghanistan would be repatriated as soon as hostilities with the Taliban were ended (barring the presentation of actual evidence they are guilty of something other than fighting against the US army).

That's what lawyers are for. To sort out particular details. My objection to Bush administration practice was that they seemed to think we needn't bother with sorting out the particular details.

Indeed.

Not everyone the Bush regime detained was picked up on a battlefield in Afghanistan though.

 

[WildCat]

Has Obama declared everyone in Gitmo a POW yet? Has he even hinted that he would?

If not, why not? Could it be it's because they're not POWs under the GC?

 

[BenBurch]

Then why erect lighting rods or PSA's about not playing golf or standing near tress in a thunderstorm. Your line of reasoning sounds rational but in reality it is more like whistling past the graveyard.

Spurious argument.

You are very, very, very unlikely to get eaten by a great white shark.

If I warn you not to get in the tank with a hungry one, that does not change that fact.

Because although the average person has an insignificant chance of becoming a shark lunch, volunteering to be on the menu changes that in your case only.

Likewise when you become a lightning rod by holding (however briefly) a metal golf club above your head in stormy weather.

 

[BenBurch]

Has Obama declared everyone in Gitmo a POW yet? Has he even hinted that he would?

If not, why not? Could it be it's because they're not POWs under the GC?

Because he has a huge problem with having to arrest and try dozens of soldiers and CIA who were following illegal orders, perhaps? A problem that is a lose-lose scenario for him?

 

[Meadmaker]

Has Obama declared everyone in Gitmo a POW yet? Has he even hinted that he would?

If not, why not? Could it be it's because they're not POWs under the GC?

I'm confident Obama will review the status, look at the evidence, and do something that makes sense. He won't throw open the doors and give everyone free airline tickets to Miami. He won't lock them in secret dungeons.

Unlike the Bush administration, I'm fairly confident that within a year, the ICRC will find that the US has cleaned up its act, and is no longer on their bad list. I'll leave the exact details of how that looks to the lawyers.

And if he doesn't? Well, I've been disappointed by politicians before. I'll vote for some other guy I think will do better.

 

[Cylinder]

I'm confident Obama will review the status, look at the evidence, and do something that makes sense.

That's seems very partisan. What substantive differences are required? In the main, the objection to holding enemy combatants without charge and without access to civilian courts strikes me as a partisan complaint against a well-established practice.

The answer is going to be continue to work under a very similar framework as the current DTA and MCA or commit political suicide. I don't see the third option.

What must St. Obama do to make this right - substantively - other than the Capt. BS routine?

 

[Meadmaker]

That's seems very partisan. What substantive differences are required? In the main, the objection to holding enemy combatants without charge and without access to civilian courts strikes me as a partisan complaint against a well-established practice.

The well established practices are the ones the Red Cross finds acceptable.

Under Bush, they didn't approve of what we were doing. I'm confident that under Obama, they will.

Of course, I can't say specifically exactly how to treat all the various cases that are all being thrown together, as you noted earlier. It's hard for me to discuss the various legalities of prisoner abuse, versus. POW status, versus detainees captured inside of Afghanistan or outside, or whatever. Yet, that's kind of the point. For seven years, the Bush administration tried to do that sort of legal dance. Whatever anyone said, there was some reason why that wasn't really applicable in these circumstances right now. During the first year of the conflict, we were ok with that, but as one year rolled into another, and as we learned about waterboards, and secret prisons, and Abu Ghraib, and indefinite detention, and leaked memos detailing strange practices, we started saying that something was fishy here.

If it were the ACLU that were complaining about prisoner treatment and/or legal status, I wouldn't take more than passing notice. It's not. It's the Red Cross. They're the good guys, and I want our country to be on their side.

And maybe we already are. Maybe, after the Supreme Court told them that they had to change their ways, they did, and now everything's fine. Excellent. I just don't think it should have had to go that far.

 

[Smackety]

What would happen if I closely resembled a terrorist and my name was the same as a known alias of a terrorist? Would I spend the next decade getting tortured in a secret prison?

 

[Texas]

It sounds rational because it is rational. Problems should be addressed according to reality, not perception.

. Lightning is not a function of human ingenuity but terrorism is and can cause massive casualties especially with the technology in place today. Most experts predicted another mass casualty event within a year of 911 but due to the measures taken there have been none since 911 in the US. You cannot ascribe odds of deaths due to natural phenomena to deaths planned to cause maximum casualties by organised groups of humans especially, humans that are willing and eager to die themselves to carry out the plan.

 

[gumboot]

You and I are more likely to be hit by lightning than die by terrorism.

True, but you and I are far more likely to suffer the indirect consequences or terrorism than we are a fatal lightning strike.

 

[WildCat]

What would happen if I closely resembled a terrorist and my name was the same as a known alias of a terrorist? Would I spend the next decade getting tortured in a secret prison?

Sure, you get the cell between Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.

 

[Smackety]

. Lightning is not a function of human ingenuity but terrorism is and can cause massive casualties especially with the technology in place today. Most experts predicted another mass casualty event within a year of 911 but due to the measures taken there have been none since 911 in the US. You cannot ascribe odds of deaths due to natural phenomena to deaths planned to cause maximum casualties by organised groups of humans especially, humans that are willing and eager to die themselves to carry out the plan.

But do the ends justify the means?

 

[Smackety]

Sure, you get the cell between Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.

What would happen, do you think? We know a lot of the detainees did not surrender, but were arrested when they tried to flee across the border. All they have is a name and face. Why not you or me?