WoT Most Guantanamo Detainees Are Innocent: Ex-Bush Official

[FarmerJohn]

Ex-Powell aide says innocents in custody

Many at Guantanamo are not enemy fighters, just snared in wartime chaos, Wilkerson said.

By Andrew O. Selsky
Associated Press

SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico - Many detainees locked up at Guantanamo were innocent men swept up by U.S. forces unable to distinguish enemies from noncombatants, a former Bush administration official said yesterday.
"There are still innocent people there," Lawrence B. Wilkerson, a Republican who was chief of staff to then-Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, told the Associated Press. "Some have been there six or seven years."

Wilkerson, who first made the assertions in an Internet posting Tuesday, told the AP he learned from briefings and by communicating with military commanders that the United States soon realized many Guantanamo detainees were innocent but nevertheless held them in hopes they could provide information for a "mosaic" of intelligence.

"It did not matter if a detainee were innocent," Wilkerson wrote in the blog. "Indeed, because he lived in Afghanistan and was captured on or near the battle area, he must know something of importance."

Wilkerson, a retired Army colonel, said vetting on the battlefield during the early stages of U.S. military operations in Afghanistan was incompetent with no meaningful attempt to discriminate "who we were transporting to Cuba for detention and interrogation."

Navy Cmdr. Jeffrey Gordon, a Pentagon spokesman, declined to comment on Wilkerson's specific allegations.

In his posting for the Washington Note blog, Wilkerson wrote that "U.S. leadership became aware of this lack of proper vetting very early on and, thus, of the reality that many of the detainees were innocent of any substantial wrongdoing, had little intelligence value, and should be immediately released."

Former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Vice President Dick Cheney fought efforts to address the situation, Wilkerson said, because "to have admitted this reality would have been a black mark on their leadership."

Wilkerson told the AP in a telephone interview that many detainees "clearly had no connection to al-Qaeda and the Taliban and were in the wrong place at the wrong time. Pakistanis turned many over for $5,000 a head."

Some 800 men have been held at various times at Guantanamo since the prison opened in January 2002, and 240 remain. Wilkerson said two dozen were terrorists, including confessed Sept. 11 plotter Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, who was transferred to Guantanamo from CIA custody in September 2006.

"We need to put those people in a high-security prison like the one in Colorado, forget them, and throw away the key," Wilkerson said. The rest need to be released, he said.

Wilkerson said he did not speak out while in government because some of the information was classified.

He said he felt compelled to do so now because Cheney has said in recent interviews that President Obama was making the United States less safe by reversing Bush administration policies toward terror suspects, including ordering Guantanamo closed.

http://obama.wsj.com/article/0frLdTo9nCfm5?q=Al-Qaeda

 

[Uhhmmm...]

Wow, just wow.

 

[mbo]

You know what "Wow" would be?


Letting any of them enter the U.S. instead of sending them back to Iraq or Afghanistan where they were originally captured on the battlefields.

 

[Uhhmmm...]

Ex-Powell aide says innocents in custody

Many at Guantanamo are not enemy fighters, just snared in wartime chaos, Wilkerson said.

"There are still innocent people there," Lawrence B. Wilkerson, a Republican who was chief of staff to then-Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, told the Associated Press...

In his posting for the Washington Note blog, Wilkerson wrote that "U.S. leadership became aware of this lack of proper vetting very early on and, thus, of the reality that many of the detainees were innocent of any substantial wrongdoing, had little intelligence value, and should be immediately released."

Former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Vice President Dick Cheney fought efforts to address the situation, Wilkerson said, because "to have admitted this reality would have been a black mark on their leadership."

...Some 800 men have been held at various times at Guantanamo since the prison opened in January 2002, and 240 remain. Wilkerson said two dozen were terrorists, including confessed Sept. 11 plotter Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, who was transferred to Guantanamo from CIA custody in September 2006.

"We need to put those people in a high-security prison like the one in Colorado, forget them, and throw away the key," Wilkerson said. The rest need to be released, he said.

Well, if you read and believe this article, then only 12 of the 800 were really terrorists. Yet Rumsfeld and Cheney held the men because their release would maybe make the politicians LOOK bad? Hahahaha - too late for that to be a worry.

So, yeah, wow.

As to where they might be released, I believe that is still a matter under discussion - but your comment is meritorious. Any reparations to the innocent, though, should be paid for personally by the two dirty scum sucking politicians.

 

[mbo]

Well, if you read and believe this article, then only 12 of the 800 were really terrorists. Yet Rumsfeld and Cheney held the men because their release would maybe make the politicians LOOK bad? Hahahaha - too late for that to be a worry.

So, yeah, wow.

As to where they might be released, I believe that is still a matter under discussion - but your comment is meritorious. Any reparations to the innocent, though, should be paid for personally by the two dirty scum sucking politicians.

that works for me, but somehow I think they'll be trolling the U.S. soil within the year instead (and any "reparations" will come out of the taxpayer's pockets, courtesy Obama-boy)

 

[fredkc]

From the admin who claimed Iraq would cost us $50 billion, tops. They even fired the guy who said it might go as high as $200 billion. Called it "wildly overstated". Well here we are $1 trillion in, roughly $2 trillion more to go before we leave.

They worried more that "to have admitted this reality would have been a black mark on their leadership."

They went ballistic when it was estimated that only 10% were genuine terrorists. Turns out that, of 800 people who went thru Gitmo, only 24 of any value. That's 3% !

Abu Ghraib's population numbered in the thousands. nearly 12,000 in June of 2005. which percentage should we apply?

This can't even be blamed on total incompetence, It's pure evil, and stupid, run amok. Now this administration is going to continue the process, while doing what it can to keep the last crew from ever seeing a jail cell over it. Mostly because it would also cause "A black mark on their leadership" of the Democrats, who went along with it.
________________________________________


Matthew Alexander, a former special intelligence operations officer, who led an interrogations team in Iraq in 2006. Author of "How to Break a Terrorist: The U.S. Interrogators Who Used Brains, Not Brutality, to Take Down the Deadliest Man in Iraq." (Zarqawi)

From his article last year.
"I'm not some ivory-tower type; I served for 14 years in the U.S. Air Force, began my career as a Special Operations pilot flying helicopters, saw combat in Bosnia and Kosovo, became an Air Force counterintelligence agent, then volunteered to go to Iraq to work as a senior interrogator. What I saw in Iraq still rattles me -- both because it betrays our traditions and because it just doesn't work.

I learned in Iraq that the No. 1 reason foreign fighters flocked there to fight were the abuses carried out at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. Our policy of torture was directly and swiftly recruiting fighters for al-Qaeda in Iraq. The large majority of suicide bombings in Iraq are still carried out by these foreigners. They are also involved in most of the attacks on U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq.

It's no exaggeration to say that at least half of our losses and casualties in that country have come at the hands of foreigners who joined the fray because of our program of detainee abuse. The number of U.S. soldiers who have died because of our torture policy will never be definitively known, but it is fair to say that it is close to the number of lives lost on Sept. 11, 2001.

How anyone can say that torture keeps Americans safe is beyond me -- unless you don't count American soldiers as Americans."
Nov. 30, 2008


From Interview:
AG: I want to go to some larger issues, this very important point that you make that you believe that more than 3,000 U.S. soldiers were killed in Iraq -- I mean, this is a huge number -- because of torture, because of U.S. practices of torture. Explain what you mean.

MA: Well, you know, when I was in Iraq, we routinely handled foreign fighters, who we would capture. Many of -- several of them had been scheduled to be suicide bombers, and we had captured them before they carried out their missions.

AG: Coming from where?

MA: They came from all over the area. They came from Yemen. They came from northern Africa. They came from Saudi. All over the place. And the No. 1 reason these foreign fighters gave for coming to Iraq was routinely because of Abu Ghraib, because of Guantanamo Bay, because of torture practices.

In their eyes, they see us as not living up to the ideals that we have prescribed to. You know, we say that we represent freedom, liberty and justice. But when we torture people, we're not living up to those ideals. And it's a huge incentive for them to join al-Qaida.

You also have to kind of put this in the context of Arab culture and Muslim culture and how important shame, the role of shame is in that culture. And when we torture people, we bring a tremendous amount of shame on them. And so, it is a huge motivator for these people to join al-Qaida and come to Iraq.

 

[Publius]

After six weeks anything they knew is out dated and useless its not like they have a very complex military system and need to keep a lid on how some of the equipment works. What the talaban has is old fashion warfare and spend a lot of time trying to find a weakness somewhere, they excel at attacking unarmed relief workers.

 

[Warandra]

Well, if you read and believe this article, then only 12 of the 800 were really terrorists. Yet Rumsfeld and Cheney held the men because their release would maybe make the politicians LOOK bad? Hahahaha - too late for that to be a worry.

So, yeah, wow.

As to where they might be released, I believe that is still a matter under discussion - but your comment is meritorious. Any reparations to the innocent, though, should be paid for personally by the two dirty scum sucking politicians.

Very good idea, but,like Orman's idea about Bush paying back the money he made off of the backs of our citizens, it's never going to come into existence. I also agree that these persons should be taken home, rather than, angrily, walk the streets of the nation that illegally held them for all these years.

 

[Fred]

As a minor note of contention, "most" and "many" are two very different things. The article says "many" detainees were innocent, not "most"

 

[Uhhmmm...]

As a minor note of contention, "most" and "many" are two very different things. The article says "many" detainees were innocent, not "most"

Yes "many" - very, very many. Maybe even most. Maybe even 97%.

 

[SassyinAZ]

WHO is Wilkerson, a Judge of some sort? yeah, that's what I thought.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123741378746277081.html#printMode

MARCH 19, 2009, 3:00 A.M. ET

Guantanamo Detainees May Be Released in U.S. Article

By EVAN PEREZ

WASHINGTON -- Attorney General Eric Holder said some detainees being held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, may end up being released in the U.S. as the Obama administration works with foreign allies to resettle some of the prisoners.

Mr. Holder, in a briefing with reporters, said administration officials are still reviewing individual cases of the approximately 250 detainees to determine which will be put on trial and which may be released to comply with plans to close the detention facility by next year.

Six weeks into his tenure, Mr. Holder is still trying to assemble much of the Justice senior leadership, with several nominees awaiting Senate confirmation. He said he has reviewed the department's handling of white-collar criminal cases in response to the financial crisis and is considering ways to increase coordination on financial fraud among federal prosecutors and state officials. He said he is trying to increase the budget dedicated to white-collar crime, while maintaining funding for national security.

European justice ministers met with Mr. Holder earlier this week and pressed for details on how many Guantanamo prisoners the U.S. planned to release domestically, as part of any agreement for allies to accept detainees. Mr. Holder said U.S. officials would work to respond to the questions European officials have over U.S. Guantanamo plans.

For "people who can be released there are a variety of options that we have and among them is the possibility is that we would release them into this country," Mr. Holder said. "That process is ongoing and we've not made any determinations or made any requests of anybody at this point."

Among the detainees whose fate remains undetermined are 17 ethnic Uighurs, from the Central Asian region of China, who have been ordered released by a judge. The U.S. has refused to turn the men over to China, which considers them part of an separatist group.

Mr. Holder is planning to visit Mexico next month to meet with his counterparts and discuss efforts to fight the trafficking of guns from the U.S. into Mexico and the drug trade from Mexico into the U.S.

"The Mexican government has been courageous in the way it has confronted the problems that now challenge it," Mr. Holder said, noting the violence that has resulted from battles against the drug cartels in Mexico.

Here's more on the 17 Uighurs:

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZGU3NmNmZWIyMjdhZjU1ODBkNzJhNDJmMzA3YjE1NjQ=

Friday, March 20, 2009

Uighurs, and Maybe Other Gitmo Jihadists, to Be Released into the U.S.?

Andy McCarthy

AG Eric Holder — you probably remember him as "the right man at the right time to protect our citizens in the critical years ahead"— has indicated to reporters that some of the jihadists now detained at Guantanamo Bay will be released into the United States, evidently as a gesture to induce European and other countries to take them off our hands and resettle them among their populations.

Militants who have had terrorist training or are affiliated with terrorist organizations are supposed to be excluded from entering our country — even when we are not in a state of war against them — under U.S. statutory law.

As NR's editors observed in October:

In the 2005 REAL ID Act, Congress explicitly provided for the exclusion from the U.S. of any alien who has received terrorist training or has belonged to an organization that promotes terrorism — against anyone. The Uighurs are ineligible on both grounds: Even if one accepts, for argument’s sake, the contention that their dispute is with Beijing, not us, they were trained by a terrorist group for the purpose of conducting operations against China.

I wonder whether the legions of Democrats and law professors who conducted an seven-year jihad against President Bush over his assertion of constitutional authority to ignore statutes that interfered with his commander-in-chief powers will rise up against this imperial president?

Meanwhile, how's this for Change? We've gone from an administration that locks up alien jihadists who've been trained in terror tactics in al Qaeda camps to an administration that will admit them into our country — despite their lack of any lawful immigration status and in violation of U.S. law — so they can live among us . . . just like Mohamed Atta & friends used to.

Or at least that's what this administration does when it is not releasing, to live free and clear in other countries, terrorists like Binyam Mohammed, who plotted to commit mass-murder attacks in American cities.

As I said a few days ago, the war is over and we lost.

Obama may say we are at war, but he made a reckless promise to close Gitmo and — while he and Holder blather about how the new national security is studying how best to handle captured terrorists — the real plan is to release the terrorists we have captured and call it a day.

 

[Y2kO]

Well, if you read and believe this article, then only 12 of the 800 were really terrorists. Yet Rumsfeld and Cheney held the men because their release would maybe make the politicians LOOK bad? Hahahaha - too late for that to be a worry.

This has been common knowledge for a long time. And it is the reason why all people of the world need to demand habeas corpus. No one should be held for any 'crime' without evidence being presented because governments are corrupt and can never be trusted.

 

[Wardogs]

WHO is Wilkerson, a Judge of some sort? yeah, that's what I thought.

No, Wilkerson is a retired United States Army Colonel with many years of devoted service to his country. For the last decade and since '05 especially, he seems to have developed a hatred for Bush and even more so for Cheney.

He was the guy who accused the "neo cons" of trying to start a nuclear war with China in '07 and has been on the antiwar lecture circuit for the last couple years.

As Fred points out he did NOT say "most" as in the title, but "many", and this IS an important distinction. Even more importantly, he has no better knowledge of a detainee's guilt or innocence than any one else. "Innocence" means what exactly? Were they actively fighting troops? Were they caught supplying weapons or support? Who knows? Not me and not him. To say however that US troops just round up anyone they see and ship them off to detention is insulting to our servicemen and demeans their sacrifice. Keep in mind, hundreds HAVE been released including many that there was no doubt about their "status". Without a doubt there were some Pakistanis and Afghanis as well who used the bounty system to settle scores against old grudges.

To say that only 12 of the approximately 775 detainees (now down to 240 or so), are terrorists is simply ludicrous and this is borne out by how many have returned to jihad.

This assertion seems to have been sparked by Cheney's recent criticism of Obama and his statement that the policies of the present administration will result in a more dangerous America. Well, Cheney is absolutely right. They will.

The decision to close Gitmo was a pandering to Obama's radical base, ill conceived and poorly thought out. He counted on EU nations to take most of them (under the same rendition policy as Bush I might add), and when they very predictably backed out, he was left with his thumb up his ass. To release them into the US public is the height of foolishness, but he's now backed himself into a corner. It seems that Obama is worried about "black marks" as well...

Keep Gitmo open and detainees locked up
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/Keep-Gitmo-open-and-detainees-locked-up-41555342.html
By Examiner Editorial
- 3/20/09

President Barack Obama not only plans to close the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, but Janet Napolitano, his Secretary of Homeland Security, recently announced the government will stop referring to the 240 terrorist suspects detained there as “enemy combatants.” But no amount of semantic whitewashing by Obama and Napolitano will change the fact that this group includes dozens of the most dangerous terrorists on the planet, all of whom are sworn enemies of America. Human Events reports that a senior U.S. intelligence official estimated that as many as 102 of the detainees previously released from Gitmo have returned to terrorism, a figure significantly higher than the 61 publicly acknowledged by the Defense Intelligence Agency. They include:

* Said Ali al-Shihiri, released in 2007, who is now the deputy leader of al-Qaeda in Yemen and is believed to have been involved in the bombing of the U.S. embassy there.

* Abdullah Ghulam Rasoul, former deputy to Taliban supreme leader Mullah Omar, who was released after a U.S. review board decided he was no longer a threat. Rasoul is now the Taliban’s operations chief in southern Afghanistan, where attacks on U.S. troops are increasing.

* Abdullah Mehsud, released in 2004, who died in a 2007 suicide attack in Pakistan that killed 31 people three years after being released from Guantanamo.
* Mohammad Naim Farouq, released in 2003, who was listed in 2006 as one of the Pentagon’s “20 Most Wanted” terrorists.

The U.S. Supreme Court put the public at great risk last year by opening our civilian legal system to people like Khalid Sheik Mohammad, another detainee who confessed his role in the 9/11 attacks. There are obvious security problems of transferring violent prisoners from a secure offshore location to the mainland. But even before that, it is unreasonable to expect U.S. combat troops to Mirandize captured terrorists and otherwise observe the complicated rules of evidence required by civilian courts. That means even the most damning evidence against captured terrorists is likely to be thrown out by judges on procedural grounds. The result will be the release of hardened terrorists who will quickly seek another opportunity to kill Americans here at home.

Obama’s first constitutional duty is to protect Americans from this very real threat. Even his own Justice Department admitted in a federal court submission last week that limiting presidential authority to detain only “persons captured on the battlefields” would “unduly hinder both the President’s ability to protect our country from future acts of terrorism and his ability to gather vital intelligence...” Funny, this is the same argument the Bush administration made to justify keeping Gitmo open.

 

[Hfcomms]

To say that only 12 of the approximately 775 detainees (now down to 240 or so), are terrorists is simply ludicrous and this is borne out by how many have returned to jihad.

No one can say for certainty how many are terrorists or not as until they are actually prosecuted and tried and found either guilty or not guilty in a lawful proceeding. It's unamerican and wrong to keep a 'detainee' for years on end with no due process and never being tried for their accused crimes. I don't care if they are muslim or not and neither if they were picked up in Iraq or the Stan.

If we don't have the evidence to prosecute then they need to be returned to their country of origen. I would rather let some bad guys go loose then to lock up the innocent for years on end. Some of the hatred that we have garnered unfortunately is well deserved and if the shoe were on the other foot we would feel the same way in reverse.

 

[Wardogs]

No one can say for certainty how many are terrorists or not as until they are actually prosecuted and tried and found either guilty or not guilty in a lawful proceeding. It's unamerican and wrong to keep a 'detainee' for years on end with no due process and never being tried for their accused crimes. I don't care if they are muslim or not and neither if they were picked up in Iraq or the Stan.

If we don't have the evidence to prosecute then they need to be returned to their country of origen. I would rather let some bad guys go loose then to lock up the innocent for years on end. Some of the hatred that we have garnered unfortunately is well deserved and if the shoe were on the other foot we would feel the same way in reverse.

I think it's safe to say that the ones who returned to Jihad are terrorists.

You make the same mistake as many do in misinterpreting the purpose and function of Camp Delta...and the fact that they are Muslims is irrelevant.

As Gabriel Malor so succinctly put it...

"Guantanamo Bay was not designed or ever intended to bring terrorists to justice. It was intended to be a prison for combatants in the War on Terror. It has also been used for intelligence gathering. Obama's preoccupation with "justice" stems from his desire to pretend that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are police actions with criminal justice goals, rather than wars for the safety and survival of the United States and American interests at home and abroad."

wardogs

 

[Hfcomms]

It was intended to be a prison for combatants in the War on Terror.

Perhaps so, yet it is still wrong, unamerican and immoral to summarily lock someone away for years on end with no due process, never being adjucated as guilty of a crime and never being confronted with your accuser. These constitutionally guaranteed rights are not just the rights of Americans but the founders saw them as the inherent rights that God granted to all men. I took an oath several times to support the constitution (as you did as well) and for us to do this is reprehensible. Even if it's in a military tribunal at least they have the opportunity to mount a defense. If they are guilty then keep them locked away....if they are not then release them.

 

[Wardogs]

Perhaps so, yet it is still wrong, unamerican and immoral to summarily lock someone away for years on end with no due process, never being adjucated as guilty of a crime and never being confronted with your accuser. These constitutionally guaranteed rights are not just the rights of Americans but the founders saw them as the inherent rights that God granted to all men. I took an oath several times to support the constitution (as you did as well) and for us to do this is reprehensible. Even if it's in a military tribunal at least they have the opportunity to mount a defense. If they are guilty then keep them locked away....if they are not then release them.

I have to respectfully disagree with you on this point my friend.

It was bin Laden who declared war on the US in 1998 and other radicals did so both before and after by their actions.

Previously unseen tape shows bin Laden's declaration of war
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/08/19/terror.tape.main/index.html

Both of our oaths also bind us to defend our country against all enemies both foreign and domestic.

When we win the war we can release them as we have done with 2/3 of them already...sometimes, as shown in a previous post, at great risk to American lives.

wardogs

 

[SassyinAZ]

Flying with ya, Wardogs and wanting to add this, primarily in response to Y2K0 but that post was before you so eloquently responded.

Even BO is back-tracking, he just doesn't want to use the T word:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gLy-7Qsm2KeE15rL6Is9p56BcWhwD972J6LG0

Obama criticizes some Guantanamo release decisions

By LOLITA C. BALDOR

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama says the U.S. hasn't done a good job sorting out who should be released from the Guantanamo Bay detention center.

Obama says in a broadcast interview that some of the people released from the facility in Cuba have rejoined terrorist groups. He also says U.S. officials have not always been effective in determining which prisoners will be a danger once they are let go.

But he says the Bush administration's policy of holding detainees for years on end with no trials is "unsustainable,' and has only fueled anti-American sentiments.

In a taped interview with CBS' "60 Minutes," he also disputes former Vice President Dick Cheney's claim that plans to close Guantanamo will make America less safe.

CBS released excerpts Saturday from the interview. The show will air Sunday evening.

 

[Hfcomms]

It was bin Laden who declared war on the US in 1998 and other radicals did so both before and after by their actions.

Sure, Bin Laden and the other radicals. But does that automatically mean that anyone picked up and rendered is a radical and guilty before being tried? That's how toltalitarian dictatorships are run, not a supposed constitutional republic. Lock you up, throw away the key and have a show trial if that. Hey, if we have the goods on them then it's no problem with bringing them up before a tribunal within a year or two. If the tribunal finds them guilty (and the standards are much looser than with civilian trials) then lock them up. When we lock people up for years on end with no due process and never having the chance to confront their accusers it's wrong. This is a moral issue as well as a constitutional one.

 

[buff]

But does that automatically mean that anyone picked up

I have faith that our military was picking up combatants...

 

[Hfcomms]

Blind faith is as bad as no faith. If Obama deploys the military for civilian disturbances and happens to pick you or a member of your family up then are you also o.k. with that? No recourse, no due process, no rights. They couldn't make a mistake could they? They could not of picked you up because an informant gave them bad information at all. No sir, the right to due process and the right to be confronted by your accusers is a fundamental right for all people, even designated enemy combatants. If the military picked up bonafied combatants then it shouldn't be too hard to prove. So prove it then. Our system of justice, our constitution and plain decency demand no less.

 

[vetus]

Innocent, anyone must be demented to belive these people are innocents. They were at least, at least killing Americans (and anyone else who didn't face east and pray 5 times a day).

Bet ya he is just a left wing-nut job looking for a job in the black house. (I say black house because once they excluded white new reporters form the press award ceremony they confirmed their raciest bent).

 

[buff]

If Obama deploys the military for civilian disturbances and happens to pick you or a member of your family up then are you also o.k. with that?

sorry..I don't buy into your paranoid fantasies...ain't gonna happen...

I do trust our men in uniform...and at times have trusted them with my life.

Innocent, anyone must be demented to belive these people are innocents.

exactly right...they were caught doing something to be sent there...If we were rounding up people left and right, wouldn't there be thousands upon thousands there?...what about the twenty or so documented cases were we've caught gitmo releases back on the battlefield???...you are ok with letting them go to get another crack at our troops or other innocent people?

No recourse, no due process, no rights

thats right...these animals are not US citizens, and therefore have no rights..hey they got busted trying to fight against us...

I could give a squat what happens to these hajis as long as they are not tried in American courts..they don't have that right..they gave it up the minute they confronted our troops..

this scum is living better than some American families..
wouldn't bother me one bit if we torture them one more time to get some practice in and then set them adrift in a leaky boat.

 

[kozanne]

Here ya go, from the One his own self:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090321/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_guantanamo

Obama criticizes some Guantanamo release decisions
By LOLITA C. BALDOR, Associated Press Writer Lolita C. Baldor, Associated Press Writer
Sat Mar 21, 2:35 pm ET

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama says the U.S. hasn't done a good job sorting out who should be released from the Guantanamo Bay detention center.

Obama says in a broadcast interview that some of the people released from the facility in Cuba have rejoined terrorist groups. He also says U.S. officials have not always been effective in determining which prisoners will be a danger once they are let go.

But he says the Bush administration's policy of holding detainees for years on end with no trials is "unsustainable,' and has only fueled anti-American sentiments. [oh noooes, everybody hates us! oh noooes! koz]

In a taped interview with CBS' "60 Minutes," he also disputes former Vice President Dick Cheney's claim that plans to close Guantanamo will make America less safe.

CBS released excerpts Saturday from the interview. The show will air Sunday evening.

 

[SassyinAZ]

Look up, Koz, post 18 -- some people just ignore what they don't want to hear (not meaning you of course).

A big AMEN from me, Biff!!!!

 

[kozanne]

Look up, Koz, post 18 -- some people just ignore what they don't want to hear (not meaning you of course).

A big AMEN from me, Biff!!!!

Whoops.

 

[SassyinAZ]

No worries, Koz, I just thought I was losing my mind (yet again)

 

[dragonslayer2001]

yeah

and if you were picked up, innocent, incarcerated for years under torture,


I think the odds are pretty good you might be looking for a little payback:



To say that only 12 of the approximately 775 detainees (now down to 240 or so), are terrorists is simply ludicrous and this is borne out by how many have returned to jihad

 

[rhughe13]

Well if they weren't terrorist before, they probably will be now after being held innocently for years.

 

[vetus]

Well if they weren't terrorist before, they probably will be now after being held innocently for years.

Ok, as simply as I can put it. These guys (not gals) were on the field of battle. They weren't killed outright because it not polite to kill the enemy anymore.

They weren't arrested by the police, with probable cause, and evidence bags and crime scene teams, you know the CSI folk. Just soldiers trying to do their job.

NOW, someone, with a big 0 says there is some doubt about what they did, we can't prove the did any thing wrong.

You and O man need to go there and do the job before you say it was done wrong.

INNOCENT MY ASS.

 

[Wardogs]

and if you were picked up, innocent, incarcerated for years under torture, I think the odds are pretty good you might be looking for a little payback:
To say that only 12 of the approximately 775 detainees (now down to 240 or so), are terrorists is simply ludicrous and this is borne out by how many have returned to jihad

That is just the attitude and mindset I would expect from you DS. You just assume that they were innocent and tortured when all evidence is to the contrary.

Obama's own investigation said that Gitmo met all standards of humane treatment and are in compliance with the Geneva Conventions article on treatment of prisoners.

DoD Says Gitmo Complies with Geneva
http://www.military.com/news/article/dod-says-gitmo-complies-with-geneva.html?col=1186032310810

Three cases of waterboarding in '02-'03 that actually resulted in the arrests of the planners of 9/11 and were outlawed in 2006. Renditions still go on as do drone attacks that kill innocents. Gitmo is still open and I predict it will stay that way despite the pandering of Obama to his far left base, with maybe a couple of show trials for effect.

Do you truly believe that those who have returned to Jihad did so because of their incarceration? What nonsense.

Which came first, the hatred or our response? Do they go through the same thought process..."How long should we go, until all Americans or Christians hate us?" Of course not. This self-flagellation is completely one-sided, and that is the problem. We just saw how the Iranians reacted to the appeaser-in-chief's videotape, or the Taliban's response to our desire to engage their "moderates"; can't you see the truth right in front of your eyes that our defense against terrorist attack is not the cause of the problem but the response?

Probably not. To the hate America first crowd, we are always to blame. I mean look how well appeasement and "understanding" is working out in the UK and Europe...

Turkey May Block Denmark's PM From Becoming Next NATO Chief Because he Refused to Apologize for the Mohammed Cartoons....
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/22/20090322/tpl-uk-nato-chief-turkey-81f3b62.html

UK Training Civilian Anti-Terror Force...aka...Army of Islamophobes....
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=89350&sectionid=351020601

Report claims al-Qaeda can recruit in UK at street level
http://www.sundayherald.com/news/he...alqaeda_can_recruit_in_uk_at_street_level.php

UK: Gov't Severs Ties With Muslim Council of Britain After Leader Caught Signing Declaration of Jihad Against Royal Navy.....
http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.2702,css.print/pub_detail.asp

This guy was just hired to teach here in the US...

Rotterdam: Tariq Ramadan Being Investigated by Municipality That Pays his Salary After his Real Views on Islam are Caught on Tape....
http://europenews.dk/en/node/21393

UK: Four of the Most Dangerous al-Qaeda Suspects in Custody Have Their Bail Renewed, Still Free to Roam the Streets.....
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...-still-in-UK-despite-Home-Secretarys-vow.html

This is the result of PC "multiculturalism..."

Articles like the OP will be coming more and more frequently as the Chosen One's minions scuttle to keep the focus off of the rape of our country and the death of our way of life.

Keep the distractions coming...straight from the Alinsky playbook:

Alinsky Rules for Radicals
http://www.scribd.com/doc/6916928/Alinsky-Rules-for-Radicals

wardogs

 

[rhughe13]

Ok, as simply as I can put it. These guys (not gals) were on the field of battle. They weren't killed outright because it not polite to kill the enemy anymore.

Do really expect to win a politically correct battle? The problem started way before the war.

They weren't arrested by the police, with probable cause, and evidence bags and crime scene teams, you know the CSI folk. Just soldiers trying to do their job.

NOW, someone, with a big 0 says there is some doubt about what they did, we can't prove the did any thing wrong.

You and O man need to go there and do the job before you say it was done wrong.

INNOCENT MY ASS.

Hell yea it was done wrong. It should have been airial war till there was nothing left standing and no turban left walking. Then come home.

Instead your B man did a half ass job, broke our country, and your O man is in lockstep right behind him.

 

[FarmerJohn]

Ok, as simply as I can put it. These guys (not gals) were on the field of battle. They weren't killed outright because it not polite to kill the enemy anymore.

They weren't arrested by the police, with probable cause, and evidence bags and crime scene teams, you know the CSI folk. Just soldiers trying to do their job.

NOW, someone, with a big 0 says there is some doubt about what they did, we can't prove the did any thing wrong.

You and O man need to go there and do the job before you say it was done wrong.

INNOCENT MY ASS.

I would like to point out that a lot of the detainees were not picked up on the field of battle or captured by soldiers. They were turned in by Pakistani civilians for a substantial bounty. I've heard the figure $25,000 mentioned. Do you have any idea how far that will go in Pakistan?

If you were a Pakistani with an unpleasant neighbor you could solve that problem AND get yourself five years worth of income for very little effort. No wonder President Bush has already ordered two-thirds of the detainees released.

It's no wonder that some of them have blown themselves up in Iraq or something like that. Years of unjustified detention with nothing to do but read the Quran, occasional mild torture like simulated drownings (they don't know that their interrogators are not actually planing to kill them, only nearly so), sleep deprivation and 'stress positions' and combinations thereof might well leave an innocent Pakistani somewhat embittered and with an enormous grudge against his oppressors. I find it amazing that only a very few have officially been designated actual terrorists.

How many of us would be so reserved if we had been on the receiving end of that kind of treatment?

FJ

 

[kozanne]

There are names, and acts recorded. The best way to settle this dispute is to wait for one of the alumni to try launching an attack on US soil, then come back and finish up this thread.

And there have been people unjustly imprisoned throughout history that did not resort to blowing up cars in Yemen, et al, when they got out. Alexander Solzynhitsin comes to my mind. Josep Terelya, for another. Tell me they weren't unjustly imprisoned and not tortured. Go ahead.

But the argument will be settled if ONE of them is set free on our soil.

 

[Wardogs]

I would like to point out that a lot of the detainees were not picked up on the field of battle or captured by soldiers. They were turned in by Pakistani civilians for a substantial bounty. I've heard the figure $25,000 mentioned. Do you have any idea how far that will go in Pakistan?

If you were a Pakistani with an unpleasant neighbor you could solve that problem AND get yourself five years worth of income for very little effort. No wonder President Bush has already ordered two-thirds of the detainees released.

It's no wonder that some of them have blown themselves up in Iraq or something like that. Years of unjustified detention with nothing to do but read the Quran, occasional mild torture like simulated drownings (they don't know that their interrogators are not actually planing to kill them, only nearly so), sleep deprivation and 'stress positions' and combinations thereof might well leave an innocent Pakistani somewhat embittered and with an enormous grudge against his oppressors. I find it amazing that only a very few have officially been designated actual terrorists.

How many of us would be so reserved if we had been on the receiving end of that kind of treatment?

FJ

FJ I think you are falling for the BS put out by the left and anti war folks. "Bounties" are used for capturing known people, not for just anyone that is brought in like cordwood, there had to be a reason for a bounty being placed on a person in the first place. Have there been instances of abuse or of bounties being used to settle grudges? Probably, but we don't know how many or how often it may have happened, or that the fact wasn't discovered and the person released. Remember, 2/3 of all the prisoners who were ever run through Camp Delta HAVE been released.

Bounties can be an effective way to find people and they have been used for centuries. Sometimes they work, sometimes not. In July of '07 the US Senate upped the bounty on bin Laden to $50M and it still hasn't provided any results. (at least that we are aware of).

In Iraq, bounties were very successful in capturing many of the high level fugitives, including Sadaam himself.

Being captured as the result of a bounty in no way means they were innocent.

wardogs