Obama's Gitmo Policy Coming Home To Roost

[DC]

Are you so arrogant as to believe that everyone wants what we have? Do you think that they want our banking system?

yes he is. he admited that many times now.

 

[joobz]

Doesn't surprise me you like to abuse that quote. Very predictable. You should have thrown in some more predictable, vapid wisdom like "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter".

It's a false dichotomy. It's a logical fallacy, one you have committed continuously here. Don't throw your cognitive failings at me as though they are my fault.

Yawn. Not my problem if you can't tell the difference between Al-Qaeda and people who recognize that we're at war with them.

I've drawn the line quite distinctly. My line does a much better job at isolating those who threaten freedom while protecting innocents around the world. Remember that you were the one who showed so little regard for human life. A tactical strike is not a wrist slap.
The use of full combat has the increased risk of civilian casualties. Civilian casualities have the unfortunate effect of creating terrorists.

You may wish to portray me as protecting the terrorist, but the reality is that what I support is proven strategies. combat has a use, but it isn't the sole one. IT isn't even the primary one.

 

[leftysergeant]

yes he is. he admited that many times now.

"He who knows neither his enemy nor himself shall always be in peril." (Sun Tzu)

Virus apparently does not know Muslims or Americans.

 

[DC]

"He who knows neither his enemy nor himself shall always be in peril." (Sun Tzu)

Virus apparently does not know Muslims or Americans.

he claims to know that his culture is superior to all other cultures.
he even claimed the whole world knows that. i suspect he is a troll, nobody is really that stupid.

 

[Virus]

Actually, al Qaeda is at war with us because they see us imposing our ways on the rest of the world whether they want it or not.

Just like the merry morons did to Iraq.

Timeline fail. Iraq was invaded after 9/11. And it had nothing to do with banking systems either.

Are you so arrogant as to believe that everyone wants what we have? Do you think that they want our banking system?

I'm not so sure many of us want it any more, seeing what it has evolved into, and we didn't even consider it particularly sinful before the great rip-off.

Strawman.

yes he is. he admited that many times now.

Positive assertion to a strawman.

It's a false dichotomy. It's a logical fallacy, one you have committed continuously here. Don't throw your cognitive failings at me as though they are my fault.

Look at the quote in context. He was talking about states that harbor and give aid to terrorist organizations. Don't really see why that quote is relevant anyway, except as a convenient strawman to bash based on your context-free misinterpretation of it.

I've drawn the line quite distinctly. My line does a much better job at isolating those who threaten freedom while protecting innocents around the world. Remember that you were the one who showed so little regard for human life.

Strawman.

A tactical strike is not a wrist slap.
The use of full combat has the increased risk of civilian casualties. Civilian casualities have the unfortunate effect of creating terrorists.

Slight lapse in logic there. Taliban had killed 400,000 people in Afghanistan and created a million refugees before we even set foot there. In the current war, the overwhelming majority of civilian casualties are caused by the terrorists. Which must mean the victims become double-terrorists or something.

You may wish to portray me as protecting the terrorist, but the reality is that what I support is proven strategies. combat has a use, but it isn't the sole one. IT isn't even the primary one.

It didn't seem to do much when Clinton used it. The Taliban still held around 80% of Afghanistan with Al-Qaeda as their guests. His strikes against Afghanistan were widely denounced at the time as "war crimes" and "atrocities" and a "diversion from his sex scandal" by the so-called anti-war left.

 

[JihadJane]

Look at the quote in context. He was talking about states that harbor and give aid to terrorist organizations. Don't really see why that quote is relevant anyway, except as a convenient strawman to bash based on your context-free misinterpretation of it.

The US harbors and gives aid to terrorists, e.g. Luis Posada Carriles.

 

[joobz]

Look at the quote in context. He was talking about states that harbor and give aid to terrorist organizations. Don't really see why that quote is relevant anyway, except as a convenient strawman to bash based on your context-free misinterpretation of it.

In context*, it is still a false dichotomy.

*regardless if we were talking about Bush's statement or YOUR's, which is really the subject here.

Strawman.

Not at all.

Slight lapse in logic there. Taliban had killed 400,000 people in Afghanistan and created a million refugees before we even set foot there. In the current war, the overwhelming majority of civilian casualties are caused by the terrorists. Which must mean the victims become double-terrorists or something.

this argument makes absolutely no sense.
How is killing people a wrist slap?

It didn't seem to do much when Clinton used it. The Taliban still held around 80% of Afghanistan with Al-Qaeda as their guests. His strikes against Afghanistan were widely denounced at the time as "war crimes" and "atrocities" and a "diversion from his sex scandal" by the so-called anti-war left.

Your point?
I'm not opposed to military force if it is needed, but I do not see it will "win" anything for us.

I'm getting a bit tired of the conversation drift here. My original point can be summarized here:

But I don't remember Lefty saying they couldn't be defeated. Only that defeat wouldn't come militarily. A point that I partially agree with.

I believe military serves an important roll, but not the only roll. To rely on it as the sole means misses the entire point of what a war on terror really encompasses.

Do you agree or disagree with this statement?

 

[Virus]

Do you agree or disagree with this statement?

I never disagreed with it. The war is pretty much over and is now a low-intensity counterinsurgency and nation building operation. But if Afghanistan wants to stand on its own feet then they have to extract their heads from their medieval asses. And we're trying to accomplish that by showing them the benefits of the 21st century.

Part of that plan: Literacy. 80% of Afghans can't read. UNICEF built schools and now around 6 million attend whereas less than a million attended under the Taliban. That would never have happened if the Taliban weren't sent packing, which would never have happened if Bush listened to you and Lefty and retaliated with a few cruise missiles at some camps.

Economy: UN and USAID provided much needed aid and economic assistance. The Afghan economy has never been better. Their GDP quadrupled. Another thing which never would have happened if you were listened to.

Infrastructure: Highway building by the US Army corps of engineers. Never would have happened if you were listened to.

Heath: Millions vaccinated. 26% drop in child mortality. 40,000 heath care workers trained. Couldn't happen under Taliban rule. Never would have happened if you were listened to.

You failed to mention any of that. You're probably clueless about it. You didn't give the slightest crap about the 400,000 killed by the Taliban and the 1 million refugees they created, many of whom have now been resettled thanks to our efforts. You and Lefty only cared about hypocritically cherry-picking collateral damage by the Coalition, which kill far less people than the terrorists do with their suicide bombs and land mines.

If you were listened to the Taliban would still be in charge, Al-Qaeda would still be there and they'd still be flogging people and cutting off heads while the country went to ruin under their medieval rule. Roads, schools, clinics, education, democracy, civil service, electrical power, water, sanitation, the entire basis of nation building. None of that would have happened if you were listened to. So the moral of the story is pretty simple: Don't listen to Joobz. Don't listen to LeftySargent. Don't listen to leftists for advice on how to win wars.

I dare you or Lefty to tell me all that progress would have happened without a war to drive out the Taliban. Or a better idea; stop pretending mindless, dime-a-dozen, transparent Bush-bashing is a substitute for military and geo-political strategy.

 

[leftysergeant]

Timeline fail. Iraq was invaded after 9/11. And it had nothing to do with banking systems either.

Bull flops. The PNAC scumbags wanted a test bed for their Friedmanite crap, since Chile was not working out like they had planned. The west and Christianity have been messing with Muslims since before Mecca was Muslim.

Slight lapse in logic there. Taliban had killed 400,000 people in Afghanistan and created a million refugees before we even set foot there.

Yeah, well that doesn't make it our right to invade and impose what they consider an evil dictatorship on them. It isn't going to change their minds. They will always see us as being no different from the Russians. Allowing the Bible-thumpers to come in with us was about as smart as it would be to the Smithfield Ham maggots to lead an ecconomic recovery team.

It didn't seem to do much when Clinton used it. The Taliban still held around 80% of Afghanistan with Al-Qaeda as their guests. His strikes against Afghanistan were widely denounced at the time as "war crimes" and "atrocities" and a "diversion from his sex scandal" by the so-called anti-war left.

I bolded the part that you got maliciously wrong. That was the whacktards who wanted to impeach Clinton who made that dumbass claim. Newt and his merry morons gave material aid and comfort to al Qaeda by tearing down the POTUS when he was doing something rational to surgically remove al Qaeda.

We cannot remove the Taliban without occuptying Afhghanistan until their last partisan has died. They replace theselves too quickly to do that.

The doodlebug would feast forever, if your sort ran the war effort.

 

[NWO Sentryman]

snips fail post

I could apply the scalpel of logic and reason to this. But it would give me a heart attack, so i'll let this suffice:



Anyway, there's the laughable claim that Islam only became militaristic in self-defence. Then how come there was the conquest of the Byzantine Empire's holdings in Anatolia and Egypt (although the former took place during the Seljuks) as well as North Africa? How come there was the campaign against the Visigoths? How come the Muslim Empire, or Caliphate at the time, expanded into the Persian Empire by the sword?

 

[leftysergeant]

Anyway, there's the laughable claim that Islam only became militaristic in self-defence. Then how come there was the conquest of the Byzantine Empire's holdings in Anatolia and Egypt (although the former took place during the Seljuks) as well as North Africa? How come there was the campaign against the Visigoths? How come the Muslim Empire, or Caliphate at the time, expanded into the Persian Empire by the sword?

Because the Byzantine Empire always had designs on the Arabian Penninsula and the Persians were militantly pagan and trying to expand into the same territories.

The Qur'an itself spells out that war is only to be a defensive action.

So it falls by the wayside at times, but that is not unusual when a group is surrounded by enemies.

 

[NWO Sentryman]

So let's excuse what the nazis did because they "were surrounded by enemies", along with the Interahamwe in Rwanda and other villains in history.

the Byzantine Empire was the legitimate authority in Egypt, the Holy Lands etc. The byzantines had NEVER EVER threatened the Muslims and neither did the Persians.

 

[Mycroft]

How we doin' on that hunt for Osama been Forgotten?

Don't you think he's dead?

 

[BeAChooser]

I dare you or Lefty to tell me all that progress would have happened without a war to drive out the Taliban. Or a better idea; stop pretending mindless, dime-a-dozen, transparent Bush-bashing is a substitute for military and geo-political strategy.

That was an excellent post.

But don't think you can talk joobz or lefty into climbing out of that hole they've dug.

It's too deep and they aren't willing to listen to any helpful suggestions.

 

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

It would seriously hurt al-Qaeda without killing large numbers of totally innocent people. And to destroy the Taliban would require a permanent occupation of Afghanistan.

I do love JREF's arm-chair tacticians; great generals and military strategists, every single one. If this would "seriously hurt al-Qaeda", what makes you think we aren't already doing that? And, furthermore, what makes you think that would do anything other than provoke retaliation?

 

[willhaven]

So, in spite of allegedly being tortured and having the tortured evidence thrown out, Ghailani goes away for life.

If anyone whines about the counts for all the murders being thrown out, blame the interrogation/torture policies, not the criminal justice system.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41252761/ns/us_news-security/

Guantanamo detainee gets life for embassy bombings

NEW YORK — A judge sentenced the first Guantanamo detainee to have a U.S. civilian trial to life in prison Tuesday, saying anything he suffered at the hands of the CIA and others "pales in comparison to the suffering and the horror" caused by the bombing of two U.S. embassies in Africa in 1998.

U.S. District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan sentenced Ahmed Ghailani to life, calling the attacks "horrific" and saying the deaths and damage they caused far outweighs "any and all considerations that have been advanced on behalf of the defendant."
...
Ghailani, 36, was convicted late last year of conspiring to destroy government buildings but acquitted of more than 200 counts of murder and dozens of other charges. The charge carries a mandatory minimum of 20 years in prison and a maximum of life. He had asked for leniency, saying he never intended to kill anyone and he was tortured.

Ghailani, a Tanzanian, was captured in Pakistan in 2004 and later interrogated overseas at a secret CIA-run camp. He was moved to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, in 2006 before being transferred to New York for prosecution in 2009.

The trial late last year at a lower Manhattan courthouse had been viewed as a test for President Barack Obama's aim of putting other terrorism detainees — including self-professed Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed — on trial on U.S. soil.
...
Evidence at trial showed that Ghailani helped purchase bomb components prior to the attacks, including 15 gas tanks designed to enhance the power of the bombs, along with one of the bomb vehicles. Written descriptions of FBI interviews quoted Ghailani as saying he realized a week before the bombings that they were intended to strike a U.S. embassy.

The jury did not see those descriptions, but they were submitted for Kaplan to consider for sentencing.

The FBI also said Ghailani was trained by al-Qaida after the twin 1998 attacks in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and became a bodyguard and cook for Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan before becoming an expert document forger for the terrorist organization.
...
It also may dash hopes that the Ghailani case would clear the way for the trials of other Guantanamo detainees captured around the globe in the war on al-Qaida, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the self-professed mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks.

The confessions and the testimony of the government's main witness, a man who would say he sold explosives that were used in the bombs to Ghailani, were kept out of the trial because they were gathered by investigators whose priority was to stop further terrorism attacks rather than gather evidence for a criminal trial.

While a military tribunal might not allow evidence that was excluded from Ghailani's civilian trial either, its exclusion at a high-profile trial could make it harder for the government to argue that most detainees belong in a civilian court at a time when the issue has become politically charged.
...
Some of the best evidence the jury never saw may have been FBI recounts of interviews of Ghailani, including discussions in January and February 2007, months after he was brought to the U.S. Naval Base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, from the CIA camp overseas.

In those, Ghailani's history is described back to his 1974 birth in Zanzibar, Tanzania, including that his best childhood friend went for military training in 1996 to Afghanistan and introduced him to friends who were involved in the militant Islamic movement.

The FBI said Ghailani told agents that Ghailani wanted to get military training because his childhood friend and others he had met "seemed like heroes, and he wanted to be like them."

 

[BeAChooser]

So, in spite of allegedly being tortured and having the tortured evidence thrown out, Ghailani goes away for life.

I have to say this is not what I expected to happen. It says something about the US justice system. Something not necessarily good. He was acquited on charges of murder, conspiracy to murder, and terrorism. You know, the sort of charges that we'd normally associate with a life sentence. Instead, he was found guilty of conspiring to damage or destroy US government property by use of an explosive. So I guess the next person that damages or destroys US government property with an explosive better watch out. Because they can now put you in jail for life for that, apparently.

Also, it appears to me that Judge Kaplan may have circumvented the ruling of the jury in handing out the life sentence. He stated that Ghailani's treatment at the hands of the CIA "pales in comparison to the suffering and the horror he and his confederates caused" … i.e., the murder of the 224 people that the jury specifically acquitted the defendant of committing. In declaring the sentence, he said "it was a cold-blooded killing … snip … of innocent people". But why should that be a consideration in the severity of the sentence, if the jury specifically acquitted him of that charge? He said the deaths and damage caused outweigh "any and all considerations" for leniency. Maybe judges have too much power if a jury can acquit someone of something yet a judge can still give a person the harshest of sentences based on that something, just because they got convicted of something else? Maybe this sentence is appealable?

 

[leftysergeant]

Maybe judges have too much power if a jury can acquit someone of something yet a judge can still give a person the harshest of sentences based on that something, just because they got convicted of something else? Maybe this sentence is appealable?

That the attermpt to destroy the embassy was successful and cost so many lives is still an aggravating factor, thus justifying a higher-end sentence.

 

[BeAChooser]

That the attermpt to destroy the embassy was successful and cost so many lives is still an aggravating factor, thus justifying a higher-end sentence.

There you go, using the deaths that Ghailani was specifically acquitted of causing to justify a higher sentence. You don't see the illogic in that?

 

[willhaven]

Maybe the next time we apprehend someone that we will later want to send to prison or execute, we will do it properly.