7 ex-Gitmo prisoners return to terror

[CapelDodger]

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.

The particulars of the statute book are never finalised, the principle of equality under the law in a representative democracy has been.

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.

Our societies recognise as a basic principle that nobody should be subject to arbitrary treatment by government. That's nobody, whether they're part of our system or not, and principle meaning principle. Rather than address the new problem and find a solution, this administration has invented a new, unprotected category of people and arbitrarily declared who's in it. Law is evolving to cope, but the White House is resisting every step of the way. So much for principles.

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.

I'm gob-smacked. Guilt by belief. An interesting question to pose to someone who's been held in detention by the US for years with no representation, not even news about what they're supposed to be guilty of:

"Are you an enemy of the United States?"

 

[Elind]

The particulars of the statute book are never finalised, the principle of equality under the law in a representative democracy has been.

Our societies recognise as a basic principle that nobody should be subject to arbitrary treatment by government. That's nobody, whether they're part of our system or not, and principle meaning principle. Rather than address the new problem and find a solution, this administration has invented a new, unprotected category of people and arbitrarily declared who's in it. Law is evolving to cope, but the White House is resisting every step of the way. So much for principles.

[/B]I'm gob-smacked. Guilt by belief. An interesting question to pose to someone who's been held in detention by the US for years with no representation, not even news about what they're supposed to be guilty of:

"Are you an enemy of the United States?" [/B]

Your principles are commendable but I don't know that "arbitrary" is the best adjective to use above. There is nothing arbitrary about being captured on a battlefield although I accept that you are saying that this has to be proven. Unfortunately, as I stated earlier, I don't share your belief that our criminal system of law is able to cope with, and protect us from, international terrorism of this nature, as much as I would like to see it do so. I'm willing to accept some of the risks that concern you, and I do appreciate them, as one of my personal concerns is the creeping loss of liberties that I have seen in the Middle East, coming from religious fundamentalism; not to mention the Christian equivalents we have who would do the same; but they don't advocate mass murder (except in the Left Behind books, perhaps).

As to Guilt by Belief; could that not be called Guilt by Intent (otherwise known as conspiracy to......)? I don't think it's such a regression of law to take someone at their word, if their stated philosophy is to kill infidels whenever possible?

 

[CapelDodger]

Your principles are commendable but I don't know that "arbitrary" is the best adjective to use above. There is nothing arbitrary about being captured on a battlefield although I accept that you are saying that this has to be proven.

It's hardly likely to be proven when the US doesn't even claim that they were all captured on the battlefield. I'm almost positive that has been pointed out in this thread already. You also make no distinction between the Taliban and al-Qaeda. You take for granted what you've been told about the enemy - "they're all the same, all evil" - secure in the knowledge that you r betters - the powers-that-be - wouldn't lie to you.

Unfortunately, as I stated earlier, I don't share your belief that our criminal system of law is able to cope with, and protect us from, international terrorism of this nature, as much as I would like to see it do so. I'm willing to accept some of the risks that concern you, and I do appreciate them, as one of my personal concerns is the creeping loss of liberties that I have seen in the Middle East, coming from religious fundamentalism; not to mention the Christian equivalents we have who would do the same; but they don't advocate mass murder (except in the Left Behind books, perhaps).

So how are those books selling? When it comes to creeping loss of liberties, you're not going to be any help at all. I do believe that the prisoners at Guantanamo could be dealt with within a legal structure which at least gives some protection from arbitrariness. Why does this administration resist that so mightily?

As to Guilt by Belief; could that not be called Guilt by Intent (otherwise known as conspiracy to......)? I don't think it's such a regression of law to take someone at their word, if their stated philosophy is to kill infidels whenever possible?

If you're able to quote the people held incommunicado in Guantanamo, you must be communicating with terrorists, and must therefore be colluding. That's good enough for me. Off you go to join them.

 

[The Fool]

It's hardly likely to be proven when the US doesn't even claim that they were all captured on the battlefield. I'm almost positive that has been pointed out in this thread already.

Its been pointed out to numerous people numerous times, linked to...proven.....signed sealed and delivered. That doesn't stop some people from repeating the lie.

 

[Elind]

It's hardly likely to be proven when the US doesn't even claim that they were all captured on the battlefield. I'm almost positive that has been pointed out in this thread already. You also make no distinction between the Taliban and al-Qaeda. You take for granted what you've been told about the enemy - "they're all the same, all evil" - secure in the knowledge that you r betters - the powers-that-be - wouldn't lie to you.

"Battlefied" is a generalization, obviously. Would hostile situation be better? Would information provided, by interrogation, be better? It seems that you trust no-one in government or military (ours in particular). Under those circumastances it is difficult to see how you can accept any accusation or authority over our self-stated enemies. You are however correct that I make no distinction between Taliban or Al Qaeda, and I take for granted no single source of information, and certainly not only what comes out of the neocons in Washington.

I am curious why you distinguish between Taliban and Al Qaeda and what you see as the differences (not to mention any other local group worshiping the same god, that have come up with a cool name for the moment).

[
[/B]So how are those books selling? When it comes to creeping loss of liberties, you're not going to be any help at all. I do believe that the prisoners at Guantanamo could be dealt with within a legal structure which at least gives some protection from arbitrariness. Why does this administration resist that so mightily?
If you're able to quote the people held incommunicado in Guantanamo, you must be communicating with terrorists, and must therefore be colluding. That's good enough for me. Off you go to join them. [/B]

The books are selling well and that direction should be a concern to us all, but at this point they are not advocating murder or violent overthrow of the constitution, so they (the followers) are protected under it, even under my reactionary beliefs. I will continue to think they are just fools, until they start shooting or threatening to

Again you use the word arbitrary. I don't think that is correct, and again you think I have information only from Bush & Co.

So you would send me to Guantanamo even though I advocate no killing of infidels? Do you seriously see no difference between us attacking terrorists and terrorists attacking us; do you think they act only in self defence?

However I would like to ask if you might lay out in a little more detail just how you would like to see, say, 1000 captured supposed terrorists dealt with by our courts, if delivered to them tomorrow. I presume that you will at least take some of them at their word, that they want nothing more than to kill us and go to their perversion of heaven.

Could you describe what you would expect to see happen? 1000 Moussauwi (spelling?) trials at once? Johhny C calling up entire platoons of Marines from the field to witness (do you recognize this raghead from a firefight the night of...? Was he shooting at you or was he just trying to get out of the way?....)

 

[The Fool]

"Battlefied" is a generalization, obviously. Would hostile situation be better? Would information provided, by interrogation, be better? It seems that you trust no-one in government or military (ours in particular).

So let me get this quite clear...you are happy to support the American military in arresting and detaining people indefinitely from anywhere in the world without giving a reason. Is that about it?

welcome back the Roman Empire......

 

[Elind]

So let me get this quite clear...you are happy to support the American military in arresting and detaining people indefinitely from anywhere in the world without giving a reason. Is that about it?

welcome back the Roman Empire......

They do give reasons; you just call them all liars whereas I don't.

 

[CapelDodger]

"Battlefied" is a generalization, obviously.

So for "captured on the battlefield", read "taken into custody anywhere, anytime". OK, got it. Battlefield Earth.

They give reasons ... to whom? Due process, representation, habeas corpus, all intended to provide an independent authority (the judiciary) to whom reasons must be given. (Reasons, that is, why the act is not arbitrary.) Who fits that role in this case? The Attorney-General, or is he too close to the conventional legal system? Rumsfeld? I'm intrigued, and can't be bothered to look it up.

 

[The Fool]

They do give reasons; you just call them all liars whereas I don't.

ok what reasons do they give besides "these are all bad people, trust us"?


you do understand that very many of your fellow countrymen have fought and died to resist the very thing that you now cheerfully applaud?

 

[CapelDodger]

I am curious why you distinguish between Taliban and Al Qaeda and what you see as the differences (not to mention any other local group worshiping the same god, that have come up with a cool name for the moment).

The Taliban were/are Afghans fighting a war in Afghanistan for Afghan reasons. "Afghan" is equivalent to Pashtun - the current borders of Afghanistan are an historical accident, dating back to the late 19thCE and the Great Game between the Russian and British Empires. (Which explains the pan-handle through the Hindu Kush to China, which meant there was no common border between said Empires.) Al-Qaeda is an Arabist movement with great-power pretensions that is prepared to make use of lesser Muslim races. I know they're all Muslims, but there are lots of Muslims.

So you would send me to Guantanamo even though I advocate no killing of infidels?

Read my post. If you know what the Guantanamo prisoners' obsessions are, you must be in communication with them, which makes you well-marked as a collaborator with terrorists so off you go. Protest as much as you like - nobody will hear.

 

[Elind]

The Taliban were/are Afghans fighting a war in Afghanistan for Afghan reasons. "Afghan" is equivalent to Pashtun - the current borders of Afghanistan are an historical accident, dating back to the late 19thCE and the Great Game between the Russian and British Empires. (Which explains the pan-handle through the Hindu Kush to China, which meant there was no common border between said Empires.) Al-Qaeda is an Arabist movement with great-power pretensions that is prepared to make use of lesser Muslim races. I know they're all Muslims, but there are lots of Muslims.
Read my post. If you know what the Guantanamo prisoners' obsessions are, you must be in communication with them, which makes you well-marked as a collaborator with terrorists so off you go. Protest as much as you like - nobody will hear. [/B]

Now now, I thought we got past being facetious. We will get nowhere with the collaboration stuff. I simply have some faith that our armed forces have better things to do than drag innocent tourists off to Cuba.

They (enemy combatants) have had reviews and hearings and Red Cross visits and a good number have been released, obviously some in error. You can legitimately ask that more information be released about them, and probably after several years the intelligence advantage in keeping any identities confidential is greatly reduced, but to suggest that they are all, or even most, innocent wedding party revelers who got caught shooting in the sky when a helicopter flew by, is ridiculous.

As to the history lesson on Afghanistan (never mind the insult to "lesser" Muslim races; what is a Muslim "race"?), without the Taliban's support and hospitality Al Qaeda would probably never been able to train the ten of thousands of fanatics that they have. History is irrelevant when it comes to complicity in terrorism today. They worship the same degenerate god - hence they are equivalent. Terrorists that is, not all Muslims. The various names they use are no more than groupings of convenience for them.

 

[Elind]

ok what reasons do they give besides "these are all bad people, trust us"?


you do understand that very many of your fellow countrymen have fought and died to resist the very thing that you now cheerfully applaud?

Foolish comment

 

[The Fool]

Foolish comment

America is not a place I normally associate with support for imprisonment without charge or trial but you are starting to change my mind.

 

[Elind]

America is not a place I normally associate with support for imprisonment without charge or trial but you are starting to change my mind.

There you are! Coming around finally. All I have to do now is threaten to blow you up and you'll be converted.

 

[CapelDodger]

However I would like to ask if you might lay out in a little more detail just how you would like to see, say, 1000 captured supposed terrorists dealt with by our courts, if delivered to them tomorrow.

I'm not a jurist, but I don't doubt a legal structure could be set up by those who are. 60 years ago in a Europe devastated by war, a legal structure was put in place to deal with war criminals. A new structure, but evolved from precedent and representing the principles of the victorious democrats. That system has been criticised, but in my opinion only from an extreme point of view. The idea was worked up while the fighting was still going on, and no doubt there were those who claimed it couldn't be done. That war criminals would be recognisable as such and those that weren't useful post-war could be shot out of hand, or incarcerated indefinitely. But that view did not prevail.

Of course, in those days there was a completely different quality of leader. Churchill, Atlee, Roosevelt, Truman, Stalin, De Gaulle, Adenaur then. Blair, Bush, Putin, Chirac and Scroeder now. Sad. Even Mussolini had more substance than that other clown, Berlusconi.

I presume that you will at least take some of them at their word, that they want nothing more than to kill us and go to their perversion of heaven.

I'd be more likely to take them at their word if I heard them say something. But I'm not allowed to - unlike you, apparently. (Lest you're tempted to appeal to psychic powers, it won't wash with me. )

Could you describe what you would expect to see happen? 1000 Moussauwi (spelling?) trials at once? Johhny C calling up entire platoons of Marines from the field to witness (do you recognize this raghead from a firefight the night of...? Was he shooting at you or was he just trying to get out of the way?....)

Back to the battlefield, where the opposition shoots at you. US Marines in Afghanistan probably expected to be opposed by some Afghans. Mousawi isn't an Afghan captured in Afghanistan. You leap from one to the other. Are you confused, or trying to obfuscate?

 

[CapelDodger]

Now now, I thought we got past being facetious. We will get nowhere with the collaboration stuff.

You chose to bring it up again. I prefer to see it as ironic, even satirical. It makes the point that anyone could fall into this Kafka-esque black-hole if somebody denounces them.

I simply have some faith that our armed forces have better things to do than drag innocent tourists off to Cuba.

Apart from men captured during the actual fighting in Afghanistan (whose continued detention is problematic in itself), the most problematic of the other detainees were picked up by foreign governments at the behest of the US. So US armed forces had nothing to do with it. The wise Fool assures me that you're potentially aware of this, but perhaps you haven't fully integrated all the aspects of this case.

They (enemy combatants) have had reviews and hearings and Red Cross visits and a good number have been released, obviously some in error. You can legitimately ask that more information be released about them, and probably after several years the intelligence advantage in keeping any identities confidential is greatly reduced, but to suggest that they are all, or even most, innocent wedding party revelers who got caught shooting in the sky when a helicopter flew by, is ridiculous.

I'm not suggesting any such thing, in fact I'm not in a position to suggest anything about them because they are being held incommunicado.

As to the history lesson on Afghanistan (never mind the insult to "lesser" Muslim races; what is a Muslim "race"?) ...

So it's true, some people really can't handle irony. It's Arabists who think in these racist terms, not me.

... without the Taliban's support and hospitality Al Qaeda would probably never been able to train the ten of thousands of fanatics that they have.History is irrelevant when it comes to complicity in terrorism today.

And bin Laden would never have gained his status in Afghanistan without the ant-Soviet jihad energetically promoted by the US. Given US involvement with Jihadists such as Hekmatyar, the US was complicit in terror at the time? In fact, they were taking advantage of a useful alliance in pursuit of their goals. The Taliban goal was an ultra-Islamist state in Afghanistan and Central Asia. They're goat-botherers from way back, no threat to anybody while they're confined to their mountains. Al-Qaeda is something else, but still not a really significant threat that requires the suspension of democratic principles.

 

[Elind]

ok what reasons do they give besides "these are all bad people, trust us"?


you do understand that very many of your fellow countrymen have fought and died to resist the very thing that you now cheerfully applaud?

Perhaps I was overly flippant in my earlier response to this. I understand that those same countrymen's sons and daughters are doing the same right now and yes, to a considerable extent, I do trust them based on simple circumstantial evidence; like being capture in a hostile situation.

I'll applaud their efforts to protect our freedoms, and lives, before I applaud the same efforts for our enemies.

 

[Elind]

You chose to bring it up again. I prefer to see it as ironic, even satirical. It makes the point that anyone could fall into this Kafka-esque black-hole if somebody denounces them.[/B]Apart from men captured during the actual fighting in Afghanistan (whose continued detention is problematic in itself), the most problematic of the other detainees were picked up by foreign governments at the behest of the US. So US armed forces had nothing to do with it. The wise Fool assures me that you're potentially aware of this, but perhaps you haven't fully integrated all the aspects of this case.]

Somehow I don't seriously worry about simply being denounced and sent to Cuba. I can only say that you sound somewhat heavily conspiratorial in your concerns and I question your willingness to accuse our armed forces or intelligence agencies of wanting to imprison people just for the hell of it.

[/B] So it's true, some people really can't handle irony. It's Arabists who think in these racist terms, not me.
[/B] And bin Laden would never have gained his status in Afghanistan without the ant-Soviet jihad energetically promoted by the US. Given US involvement with Jihadists such as Hekmatyar, the US was complicit in terror at the time? In fact, they were taking advantage of a useful alliance in pursuit of their goals. The Taliban goal was an ultra-Islamist state in Afghanistan and Central Asia. They're goat-botherers from way back, no threat to anybody while they're confined to their mountains. Al-Qaeda is something else, but still not a really significant threat that requires the suspension of democratic principles. [/B]

I think you trivialize the issues, and the dangers. Way back then, not every fanatic was able to lay his hand on modern weapons and communicate with the internet, or bribe the UN or pay off entire propaganda satellite stations, like Al jazeera, for their propaganda outlets. The war against the soviets was just, by our standards then, but we failed to see that Islamic fanatics were capable of doing nothing but kill and would inevitably continue to do so one way or another. The Taliban arose after all this as a result of internal quabbling between the goathearders, and found their patrons in Al Qaeda and their Muslim friends and apologists. The biggest mistake we, and any other civilized country did after the Soviets fell, was to utterly ignore places like Afghanistan who we supported so strongly once. As I recall, the USA (primarily from Republicans) did not want to be involved in "policing" the world. Inevitably the world has turned, has it not?

Al-Qaeda (read Islam-ist) is not a significant threat? Do you recall what 9/11 actually cost us? Have you noticed what it has cost us in millions of other smaller security oriented overheads since, not to mention a couple of wars and thousands of lives?

What would you consider a threat real enough to treat as other than simple criminal activity? A nuke in San Francisco harbor? A few tens of thousands poisoned in Boston? Then you would no doubt see the threat, that some do already.

 

[The Fool]

Perhaps I was overly flippant in my earlier response to this. I understand that those same countrymen's sons and daughters are doing the same right now and yes, to a considerable extent, I do trust them based on simple circumstantial evidence; like being capture in a hostile situation.

I'll applaud their efforts to protect our freedoms, and lives, before I applaud the same efforts for our enemies.

round and round we go.....you are now back to claiming they were all captured in a hostile situation?

 

[Elind]

round and round we go.....you are now back to claiming they were all captured in a hostile situation?

As you say, round and round we go while you appeal to sacrifices while stabbing that in the back with your insinuations and nitpicking definitions.

I hesitate to ask, because you will probably respond, but do you have any definition of how a fanatical muslim out to kill you (or more likely me) can be defined? Would you accept any evidence, circumstantial or otherwise, by anyone other than yourself or perhaps a severely diminished UN bureaucrat?

Your pious references to those who have given their lives for this country, or other democracies, is insulting to those who do so now and who you imply are lying today. You are a fool.