7 ex-Gitmo prisoners return to terror

[Elind]

Raping babies. That's pretty sick stuff, Elind. What the Hell is wrong with you? You don't deserve a trial, you evil whacko.

Please make your point clearer. If you think I promote something like that, as your post suggests, you should have a refresher of your speed reading class.

 

[varwoche]

And your age is what? A disappointing but expected response from another likely juvenile.

Let's just say I'm always glad to be mistaken for a juvenile, though it hasn't happened (in person) for quite a while. But why should I be telling that to a baby killer?

 

[fishbob]

However, particularly with the latest info coming out on just how financially biased most of the war opponents were, it seems to me that backing down before the war would have made us no more friends (with friends like that, who needs enemies?) and have been seen as an abject defeat by the Islamists; something that we would inevitably be paying for in other ways.

The problem is that the situation in Iraq now looks bad. Our guys are making little progress, while a getting picked off almost daily. The odds of getting out of Iraq with any kind of success are bad and getting worse.

In any case, the issue now (in this thread) is the failure of so many to even acknowledge that their is a war, based on their salivating support for terrorist prisoners and their failure to make any reasonable suggestion on how to deal with them, other that treat them as common criminals on US soil.

There is nothing wrong with due process. Criminal and POW due process generally works. Why not treat a 'terrorist prisoner' as a common criminal? Common criminals are not respected in any part of the world, common criminals are not looked upon as heros by Islamic extremists, common criminals would have little terrorist recruiting appeal. Assigning a special title to these people, 'enemy combatants', has made their crimes look like the acts of war. They can look like heros to the extremists, they can be used to recruit more terrorists.

The same acts of violence and destruction get interpreted differently depending on how we react to it - heros vs criminals. And our current administration reacted stupidly.

 

[Elind]

Let's just say I'm always glad to be mistaken for a juvenile, though it hasn't happened (in person) for quite a while. But why should I be telling that to a baby killer?

This is simply silly. Where do you come from with this baby killer crap? You obviously can't understand much.

 

[CapelDodger]

from Elind:

You think the war is over on a semantic quote technicality, and you consider that a serious response to the topic? Bye Hans.
...

You know, if the terrorists were smart, and the apologists had their way, then the best strategy (for them) would just be for all of them to surrender and demand a trial ala OJ.

So that's a serious response? The serious topic is, of course, people being incarcerated without appeal to any law because their "status" is a semantic neologism intended to put them outside any existing law. You seem happy to assume that, because they have been given this status by the powers-that-be, they must be bad guys who don't deserve any rights. Watch out for status-creep ...

 

[demon]

Elind:
"This is simply silly. Where do you come from with this baby killer crap? You obviously can't understand much."

You just don`t get it, do you?

Sad.

 

[Elind]

from Elind:So that's a serious response? The serious topic is, of course, people being incarcerated without appeal to any law because their "status" is a semantic neologism intended to put them outside any existing law. You seem happy to assume that, because they have been given this status by the powers-that-be, they must be bad guys who don't deserve any rights. Watch out for status-creep ...

All of us live by the rights of the powers that be, whether we like it or not. You can call that god or the US or the west or al Qaeda depending on where you live.

Those people, in Cuba, belong to a creed that affords no rights to others, by their own admissions and acts, in the simplest case by being a member, or believer, in the Taliban for example. Our laws have no established status definition for this situation other than treating them like any other simple criminal within our borders or as prisoners of war according to the Geneva conventions which assume a conflict between identifiable nations and sovereign governments. Yet in spite of what you say, they have been given a channel of appeal, and some have been released as a result, and a significant number have subsequently said that they will revert to supporting terrorism, and some have clearly done so while others have said they would rather remain the martyr they think they are, to a distgusting religious fanaticism.

You "apologize" for them endlessly, yet they as a culture would kill you in an instant and if you had your way we would lose much more than the "existing" laws you think are all that matter.

 

[Elind]

Elind:
"This is simply silly. Where do you come from with this baby killer crap? You obviously can't understand much."

You just don`t get it, do you?

Sad.

You have a pseudonym called varwoche now?

 

[Elind]

The problem is that the situation in Iraq now looks bad. Our guys are making little progress, while a getting picked off almost daily. The odds of getting out of Iraq with any kind of success are bad and getting worse.

There is nothing wrong with due process. Criminal and POW due process generally works. Why not treat a 'terrorist prisoner' as a common criminal? Common criminals are not respected in any part of the world, common criminals are not looked upon as heros by Islamic extremists, common criminals would have little terrorist recruiting appeal. Assigning a special title to these people, 'enemy combatants', has made their crimes look like the acts of war. They can look like heros to the extremists, they can be used to recruit more terrorists.

The same acts of violence and destruction get interpreted differently depending on how we react to it - heros vs criminals. And our current administration reacted stupidly.

War always looks bad, at most times. We win or we lose and I can appreciate that you think it should never have started. I wish daddy Bush had finished the job in 91 even though I can understand some of the reasons he didn't, but am personally convinced we would have faced this again in the future, if not now and I would rather we dealt with it than our kids in a much more deadly scenario a few years from now. Saddam was not a dead duck. He was sitting on a major part of the world's oil reserves and would have used it as he always has in the past, to prepare for the next war, as the corrupt Mullahs in Iran may yet do.

As to your other comment on why not treat terrorists (alleged even) as common criminals, I have several reasons. First they are not common criminals who operate out of personal motives within a society that they identify with to some degree. Terrorists, have none of those "qualities". They cannot be released into any particular society on the basis of a judgement in another. They operate from principle that are outside personal gain or even gratification, at least in stated principles, and they welcome death for the most part as a reward for creating death in this life. They believe in a perverse afterlife that gives them all the things they are denied in this one, including and in particular sexual gratification with what can only be imagined as manufactured (by their god) sex slaves. This is what these people imagine when they blow themselves up along with anyone else nearby, or as they saw the heads off people, all the while chanting praise to allah.

I maintain these are not simple criminals. I maintain our legal system cannot cope with treating them as such and I maintain that anyone who claims to belong to such a belief system should not be set free as long as they would be set free into the same system that created them.

Now, if you wish to suggest how we can ensure that they were really and truly just innocent toursist in Afghanistan or Iraq and somebody just asked them to hold the ammo for a while, then I would certainly think that is fair. However if it ends in another diatribe to the ffect that all westerners (in uniform) are psychopathic liars who just want to fly people, anyone, half way across the world to torture them in Guantanamo, as some of the children here seem to think, then there is no point in further debate.

As to your last point, I agree on much stupidity, and not only after the war, but in the arguments I heard leading up to it. I do however prefer to remain an optimist and I believe that we can defeat religious fanaticism that is ultimately self destructive to those who practise it, and fundamentally based on stupidity; but we certainly never will if the hard core apologists that we hear routine insults from here, ever have their way.

 

[varwoche]

This is simply silly. Where do you come from with this baby killer crap? You obviously can't understand much.

I was wrong. It's raper, not killer. Doesn't matter. Both are so heinous that we've separated them from the justice system, ad-hoc, just so we can deal with the likes of you.

What, some of the people we are accusing of baby rape aren't baby rapers? Tough crap. Society can not and will not tolerate the threat of baby rapers (like you).

Add: "War!" on the one hand. "What war?" on the other. There's this thing called the Geneva convention. Google it.

 

[Kopji]

Only seven?
Gitmo is an Al Qaida recruiting engine producing thousands of new terrorists. What's a few used terrorists?

Be assured they hate us with a hate we cannot even begin to understand, we stand against their god and way of life.

So we fight fire with fire. Raise people against them who share the same religious zeal. Maybe even led by someone messanic and strong, who feels (knows) he is acting as God's agent in this time. Called and sent to do battle. A modern crusader on a holy mission. Very logical

But then we see people like Bin Laden and realize that such leaders are frighteningly dangerous and unpredictable. They are capable of doing anything. They are not bound by reason or constraint, they listen to none but God's command.

Thinking people might hesitate to follow such a leader, but instead a test of leadership is how much they love God.

We love them because they are for the Good and Right.
God is Great.

 

[fishbob]

First they are not common criminals who operate out of personal motives within a society that they identify with to some degree. Terrorists, have none of those "qualities". They cannot be released into any particular society on the basis of a judgement in another. They operate from principle that are outside personal gain or even gratification, at least in stated principles, and they welcome death for the most part as a reward for creating death in this life. They believe in a perverse afterlife that gives them all the things they are denied in this one, including and in particular sexual gratification with what can only be imagined as manufactured (by their god) sex slaves. This is what these people imagine when they blow themselves up along with anyone else nearby, or as they saw the heads off people, all the while chanting praise to allah.

1) Lots of allegations there, but little supporting evidence. You don't know what 'they' believe. 'They' are thousands of individuals with all their individual motives.
2) Doesn't matter what their motives are. If they are caught and tried and found guilty and sentenced accordingly, they are not heroes of the jihad.
3) We have not caught any of the ones that blew themselves up (obviously). We have not caught any of the decapitation murderers. Do you think that these people would be somehow released after being tried and convicted?

Are you saying that every potentially suspicious muslim should be rounded up and Abu Ghraibed? Where we fail to follow due process, we look like invaders to be ejected from their lands. Where we fail to follow due process, we create resistance fighters that look to us just like terrorists, but look like Robin Hood to the locals. Mistreat a resistance fighter trying to repel unjust invaders and recruit a 100 more.

What you are proposing can only result in:
a) the US killing millions, or
b) the US getting defeated

 

[Elind]

I was wrong. It's raper, not killer. Doesn't matter. Both are so heinous that we've separated them from the justice system, ad-hoc, just so we can deal with the likes of you.

What, some of the people we are accusing of baby rape aren't baby rapers? Tough crap. Society can not and will not tolerate the threat of baby rapers (like you).

Add: "War!" on the one hand. "What war?" on the other. There's this thing called the Geneva convention. Google it.

I threatened what? You are a rude silly ass and understood nothing. I made the deliberately pointed comparison between child molestation and the types of crimes justified by Islamists. Their so called religion deserves no respect, just as you would presumably give none to fanatics who who called child molestation a part of their religion.

I'm glad one condition is actually of concern to you, now all you need to do is apply the same high principle outside your tunnel vision, to the Taliban and other "Muslim" (as they and their apologists call themselves) terrorists.

As to "what war?"; I fear you are of the all talk and no action type. As Friedman says; not someone I would hunt tigers with.

 

[Elind]

1) Lots of allegations there, but little supporting evidence. You don't know what 'they' believe. 'They' are thousands of individuals with all their individual motives.

They are thousands of individuals (millions actually) with a very consistent fanatical religious belief which is very well documented in their own words. Additionally, one fundamental tenent of their beliefs is not to think for themselves, as with most religious fundamentalists; christian included. I can't say I have known muslim terrorists, but I have certainly known many that I would have no surprise in finding they supported them. I can only conclude that you either don't follow this broadly enough or that you are overly inclined to believe in basic human goodness. We presumably have to agree to disagree.

2) Doesn't matter what their motives are. If they are caught and tried and found guilty and sentenced accordingly, they are not heroes of the jihad..[/B]

They will always remain heroes to themselves. If being an "enemy combatant" is not a crime, and if the evidence of "liar" western military is not allowed as the apologists claim, then you will achieve nothing but a complete overload and bankruptcy of our court system, while releasing all of them to kill us again.

3) We have not caught any of the ones that blew themselves up (obviously). We have not caught any of the decapitation murderers. Do you think that these people would be somehow released after being tried and convicted?.[/B]

We may have, and probably will kill them. I doubt we will ever be able to conclusively prove who each masked individual is, but it is clear that they are enemy combatants.

Are you saying that every potentially suspicious muslim should be rounded up and Abu Ghraibed? Where we fail to follow due process, we look like invaders to be ejected from their lands. Where we fail to follow due process, we create resistance fighters that look to us just like terrorists, but look like Robin Hood to the locals. Mistreat a resistance fighter trying to repel unjust invaders and recruit a 100 more. .[/B]

That's the apologist approach. Either do nothing and hope they don't notice us, or blame ourselves for creating the monster. Either way we lose, because this monster did not just appear the last few years; many apologists simply never paid attention before. I have seen the changes in the Middle East over the past 30 years. It used to be a nice place back then, but the fundamentalists nibbled away at every piece constantly until we are where we are.

No we can't arrest all of them, but many are sheep and if we win the war they will revert to grazing.

What you are proposing can only result in:
a) the US killing millions, or
b) the US getting defeated [/B]

Or; them killing millions as they would dearly love to do. What you propose guarantees defeat. Follow Kuchinic or Dean and turn tail. We can put a hundred thousand troops on OUR borders and become an island perhaps?

 

[varwoche]

Luckily, not all "hard-liners" believe in abandoning the Geneva Convention. Like John McCain:

These conventions and these rules are in place for a reason because you get on a slippery slope and you don't know where to get off. The thing that separates us from the enemy is our respect for human rights.

article

 

[varwoche]

A relevant aside: Unless and until the US learns how to maintain secrecy while abusing/torturing prisoners, it is entirely possible these activities create more bad guys then they eliminate, net net.

 

[CapelDodger]

All of us live by the rights of the powers that be, whether we like it or not.

The most shining example of "Western" culture is the rule of law, as opposed to the arbitrary rule of "powers-that-be". It's been the result of centuries of philosophical and political thought, experiments, sacrifice, struggle and dedication. It is supposedly what is being conferred by fire and sword on Afghanistan and Iraq. Yet you appear to think it a sham. In the specific case of the US, this is something else we can agree on.

Edited to add:

That should be "millennia of philosophical and political thought ...", to credit the Greek democrats (amongst others).

 

[Elind]

The most shining example of "Western" culture is the rule of law, as opposed to the arbitrary rule of "powers-that-be". It's been the result of centuries of philosophical and political thought, experiments, sacrifice, struggle and dedication. It is supposedly what is being conferred by fire and sword on Afghanistan and Iraq. Yet you appear to think it a sham. In the specific case of the US, this is something else we can agree on.

Edited to add:

That should be "millennia of philosophical and political thought ...", to credit the Greek democrats (amongst others).

I don't disagree with the principle or its importance, but I disagree that it has ever been so simple.

Rule of Law without the will and ability to enforce is useless. Many think that one can apply Rule of Law to the likes of the Taliban or Saddam, who it now appears can even bribe their way into the most shining example often quoted here, namely the UN.

The Greeks by the way may have had much to do with creating the principles of democracy, but my limited understanding of their application is that they would hardly be called shining examples of those principles by our standards today, which you see so cynically.

 

[CapelDodger]

I don't disagree with the principle or its importance, but I disagree that it has ever been so simple.

Rule of Law without the will and ability to enforce is useless. Many think that one can apply Rule of Law to the likes of the Taliban or Saddam, who it now appears can even bribe their way into the most shining example often quoted here, namely the UN.

The Greeks by the way may have had much to do with creating the principles of democracy, but my limited understanding of their application is that they would hardly be called shining examples of those principles by our standards today, which you see so cynically.

The democracies we're blessed with now are the result of a long process, of which the Greek philosophy and experiments were an early part. Given our species, it was unlikely we'd have moved from hunter-gatherer bands to representative democracy under the law in one step. The US Constitution was another step on the road. Sadly, it seems the whole construct can be demolished by a bunch of ragheads and a sub-Hitlerian gangster.

 

[Elind]

The democracies we're blessed with now are the result of a long process, of which the Greek philosophy and experiments were an early part. Given our species, it was unlikely we'd have moved from hunter-gatherer bands to representative democracy under the law in one step. The US Constitution was another step on the road. Sadly, it seems the whole construct can be demolished by a bunch of ragheads and a sub-Hitlerian gangster.

I presume you mean the sub hitlerian is Saddam, and not Bush?

I also think that you are excessively pessimistic about the ever evolving process. We haven't, and never will, reach the final version of "The Law". If we ever thought so that would be the end, not the begining of anything.

However I am not trying to as philosophical about legalities on this issue. The issue being the general one of what to do with "islamists" in Guantanamo.

Simply, I don't think our criminal system can deal with them practically, nor do I think it should in a "philosophical" sense for the simple reason that they are not criminals in their mind, nor are they part of our social system.

Consider that, other than the mentally deranged, most criminals in our society (meaning the West in general) know of the law and whether or not they are breaking it.

Islamists make their own law, and according to them it is god's law. From their perspective anything we do to them is unjust regardless of circumstances (remember what I said about the powers that be?). If we give them Johnny Cochran for defense, it is still meaningless to them, because it is a judge and jury against god's will and the only thing they might hope for is that there are enough apologists on the jury to set them free (and we know Johnny is good at selecting juries).

Some of us can make ourselves feel good by applying the highest principles by the book, but we forget that the book hasn't yet been finished and will likely harm ourseves if we can see the limitations.

By all means, lobby for independent oversight, to prevent more of the abuses in Abu Graib, for example, but don't lose sight of the fact that these are perverted individuals by our standards; and before you yell "evidence", just ask them what they believe in; never mind what they were alleged to have been doing when cuffed.

My earlier hypothetical (ridiculously misunderstood by the usual shouters on the forum) suggesting that pedophilia would be universally condemned if claimed to be a religion yet these perverts who worship death in exchange for heaven are somehow accorded basic repect for their beliefs as if those beliefs have nothing to do with what they do, or are alleged to have done. Freedom fighters - bull.

We can lock up gang members or mafia hoodlums for just belonging to such criminal groups under our "civilized" laws, but we can't lock up worshippers of death?

I don't have all the answers, but our current laws weren't designed for this, so we need to adapt. For now Guantanamo seems a very logical solution to me, and I'll give Bush credit for that, but his other screwups lost my vote.