Freed Gitmo Detainee Rejoins Al-Qaeda, Attacks US

"Al Qaeda’s Yemeni branch"

I've heard it all now.

Jeez it's getting like Walmart. "Hurry! Hurry! 50% discount on all items at your local Al-Qaeda branch now!"

I can't believe this propagandic nonsense is still being pumped out in 2009. Do we blame the masses for believing this BS or the media for still trying to pull the fast one? decisions Decisions.
 
Last edited:
gtc said:
Yes.
Click to expand...

nonsense

Al-Qaeda has never existed as an international structured organisation. Neocon propaganda believed by many politicians and others.
Please remain civil.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Tricky
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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...

Except those enemies have been largely fabricated by the Neocons and supporters/believers of such. The threat of the Soviet Union was fabricated and Al-Qaeda which was only really Bin laden, Zawahiri and a few others was also fabricated into this fantasy worldwide structured organization with, according to the laughable lies of Rumsfeld, sleeper cells in over 60 countries. Funnily enough it was Rumsfeld who was spouting lies about the Soviet union in the 70s early 80s. Reagan swallowed it eventually.

Do we blame the gullible who believe this crap or the people that peddle it?
 
Tin Foil Timothy said:
nonsense

Al-Qaeda has never existed as an international structured organisation. Neocon propaganda believed by many politicians and other gullible idiots
Click to expand...
Well of course you believe that because you believe that 911 was an "inside job".
 
WildCat said:
It was never the intention to charge and prosecute the vast majority of them. They were held as enemy combatants,
Click to expand...

But this is simply false. Had they been held as enemy combattants, they would have been subject to treatment as POWs, but our government insisted they were not POWs. When people demanded that they be treated as criminals, and given the rights normally given to criminals, the Bush administration said it didn't need to, because they were combattants.

They weren't treated as soldiers. They weren't treated as criminals. They weren't treated as spies or saboteurs. They were a whole, new, category. They were something called "illegal combattants", which was somehow different from "spies and saboteurs", because the Geneva Convention talks about the rights of spies or saboteurs, but that was inconvenient, so they made up some new category and said that no agreements or laws actually applied.

The word that best describes the Bush administration policy toward these people is "Orwellian".
 
Meadmaker said:
But this is simply false. Had they been held as enemy combattants, they would have been subject to treatment as POWs, but our government insisted they were not POWs. When people demanded that they be treated as criminals, and given the rights normally given to criminals, the Bush administration said it didn't need to, because they were combattants.

They weren't treated as soldiers. They weren't treated as criminals. They weren't treated as spies or saboteurs. They were a whole, new, category. They were something called "illegal combattants", which was somehow different from "spies and saboteurs", because the Geneva Convention talks about the rights of spies or saboteurs, but that was inconvenient, so they made up some new category and said that no agreements or laws actually applied.

The word that best describes the Bush administration policy toward these people is "Orwellian".
Click to expand...
Baloney, Bush was on sound historical precedent with the classification of GITMO detainees. It was Eisenhower that set the president with German POWs:


http://www.lycos.com/info/dwight-eisenhower--soviet-union.html
Following the German unconditional surrender on May 8, 1945, Eisenhower was appointed Military Governor of the U.S. Occupation Zone, based in Frankfurt am Main. Germany was divided into four Occupation Zones, one each for the U.S., Britain, France, and the Soviet Union. Upon full discovery of the death camps that were part of the Final Solution (Holocaust), he ordered camera crews to comprehensively document evidence of the atrocity for use in the war crimes tribunals. He made the decision to reclassify German prisoners of war (POWs) in U.S. custody as Disarmed Enemy Forces (DEFs)... depriving them of the protection of the Geneva convention. As DEFs, their food rations could be lowered and they could be compelled to serve as unfree labor (see Eisenhower and German POWs). Eisenhower was an early supporter of the Morgenthau Plan to permanently remove Germany's industrial capacity to wage future wars.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Meadmaker said:
But this is simply false. Had they been held as enemy combattants, they would have been subject to treatment as POWs, but our government insisted they were not POWs. When people demanded that they be treated as criminals, and given the rights normally given to criminals, the Bush administration said it didn't need to, because they were combattants.
Click to expand...

I have a daughter. She is exceedingly cute and mobile, though she is neither a kitten nor an automobile. Can she exist?

Within the LOAC, there are classes of persons (and objects, for that matter.) One is combatant. Another is POW. Not all combatants are entitled to the protections afforded POWs. To be entitled to that protection, there are a simple tests set forth in Common Article 2 and Article 4; Geneva III.

Similarly, not all orphanages are protected from deliberate targeting by a High Contracting Party.
 
Texas said:
It was Eisenhower that set the president with German POWs:
Click to expand...

I'm not certain about the specifics of the ordered cited here but the idea that not all combatants qualify for POW protections predate the founding of this country and have been used throughout its history. The footnotes in Quirin does a great job of summarizing the history. I mean, Washington hanged Andre' instead of shooting him.
 
Cylinder said:
I'm not certain about the specifics of the ordered cited here but the idea that not all combatants qualify for POW protections predate the founding of this country and have been used throughout its history. The footnotes in Quirin does a great job of summarizing the history. I mean, Washington hanged Andre' instead of shooting him.
Click to expand...
You are quite right but it is an ongoing battle to refute the view that history started with the election of the 43rd president.
 
fishbob said:
As long as somebody else has already done something shady, it is peachy keen to do it again? Right.
Click to expand...

No.

The point is that captured enemy combatants aren't automatically Prisoners of War.

Why is this so hard to understand?
 
Texas said:
Tin Foil Timothy said:
nonsense

Al-Qaeda has never existed as an international structured organization. Neocon propaganda believed by many politicians and others.
Click to expand...
Well of course you believe that because you believe that 911 was an "inside job".
Click to expand...

And I suppose the British Government believe 911 was an "inside job" do they?

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmfaff/441/4050402.htm

"Destroying al-Qa'ida alone will not resolve the problem. There is no central command, or a single individual, controlling all the terrorist groups but there is a central ideology"


Stop believing the neocon started propaganda about Al-Qaeda being a worldwide structured organization. It's not.


And btw where have I said I believe 911 was an inside job?
 
Smackety said:
we can start by you responding to my link in post #82.
Click to expand...
Post #82 is completely irrelevant. UN approval is not needed for self-defense, nor is there any Contitutional or statutory requirement for UN approval before the US military can take action.

But a nice attempt to change the subject! :rolleyes:
 
Meadmaker said:
But this is simply false. Had they been held as enemy combattants, they would have been subject to treatment as POWs, but our government insisted they were not POWs. When people demanded that they be treated as criminals, and given the rights normally given to criminals, the Bush administration said it didn't need to, because they were combattants.

They weren't treated as soldiers. They weren't treated as criminals. They weren't treated as spies or saboteurs. They were a whole, new, category. They were something called "illegal combattants", which was somehow different from "spies and saboteurs", because the Geneva Convention talks about the rights of spies or saboteurs, but that was inconvenient, so they made up some new category and said that no agreements or laws actually applied.

The word that best describes the Bush administration policy toward these people is "Orwellian".
Click to expand...
You could not be more wrong. All enemy combatants do not qualify for POW treatment, the Geneva Conventions sets forth explicit requirements for that special status. Nor are those who do not qualify as POWs automatically war criminals. They are simply captured enemy combatants who do not qualify for POW status.

There have been multiple threads on this here.
 
WildCat said:
Post #82 is completely irrelevant. UN approval is not needed for self-defense, nor is there any Contitutional or statutory requirement for UN approval before the US military can take action.

But a nice attempt to change the subject! :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

you might want to read beyond the first sentence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom