ISIS Suicide Bomber Identified As Former Guantanamo Detainee

[AUFAN78 4,156]

So what should we do with these guys? Release them all? Move them to another facility? Keep them at Guantanamo?

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-02-21/isis-suicide-bomber-identified-former-guantanamo-detainee

[AURaptor 1,137]

 

Quote

 

Perhaps most stunning, after he was detained in Afghanistan on suspicion of being an al-Qaeda fighter, he maintained he had been on a religious holiday in Pakistan immediately before the invasion, and the UK Government paid him compensation for his time in detention, reported to be £1 million.

As WaPo notes, the Obama administration has repatriated or resettled 179 prisoners, cutting the population from 242 when Bush left office. At its peak, the detention center housed more than 700 prisoners.

 

Glad it was the UK govt who paid him compensation. Now they can pay the relatives of those he murdered too. 

[Strychnine 1,808]

14 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

So what should we do with these guys? Release them all? Move them to another facility? Keep them at Guantanamo?

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-02-21/isis-suicide-bomber-identified-former-guantanamo-detainee

 

Indefinite detention is an exercise that the United States should have never been involved in.  If there was enough evidence to warrant putting someone in Guantanamo in the first place, they should have been prosecuted and then sentenced upon conviction.  If there is insufficient evidence to bring charges, then we have no business holding a person in Guantanamo or anywhere else.  What we should do with Guantanamo detainees is what we should have done with them to begin with:  give them their day in court, or release them.

There is a Federal prison in Colorado that is perfect for keeping dangerous people in complete isolation.  If it is secure enough to hold Zacarias Moussaoui and many other convicted foreign terrorists, it is secure enough for anyone that has been in Guantanamo.

[AuburnNTexas 7,315]

8 hours ago, Strychnine said:

 

Indefinite detention is an exercise that the United States should have never been involved in.  If there was enough evidence to warrant putting someone in Guantanamo in the first place, they should have been prosecuted and then sentenced upon conviction.  If there is insufficient evidence to bring charges, then we have no business holding a person in Guantanamo or anywhere else.  What we should do with Guantanamo detainees is what we should have done with them to begin with:  give them their day in court, or release them.

There is a Federal prison in Colorado that is perfect for keeping dangerous people in complete isolation.  If it is secure enough to hold Zacarias Moussaoui and many other convicted foreign terrorists, it is secure enough for anyone that has been in Guantanamo.

I tend to agree with you if we had enough information to know they were a serious threat they should have been tried and put in prison whether in Gitmo or a US prison would not matter to me. One thing I never understood was the mantra from Obama and others that Gitmo was a recruiting tool. If we tried them and put them in prison that would have been used as a recruiting tool also whether in Gitmo or in a US prison.

I think the real recruiting tool was finding individuals with few chances of success and convincing them that being a jihadist would give them eternal life. While there are a few well connected, well educated wealthy people who have joined terrorist cells the majority are poor people either from Muslin countries where they had no chance to succeed or refugee/Immigrants from these countries to other countries where lack of education/skills/etc gave them a small chance to succeed.  Add this to use of religious propaganda and you have fertile recruiting areas.

Lack of hope and opportunity is the driving force behind most of the jihadist recruiting and that is not an easy thing to fix.

Obviously from the number of people who were released from Gitmo then returned to terrorism the vetting process was not very thorough and may have been driven more by political expediency then as a well thought out process.

[TitanTiger 21,238]

If they weren't burning with white-hot hatred for America before they went into Gitmo, indefinite detention for years on end with no contact to the outside world surely weaponized them against us.

[Strychnine 1,808]

17 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

If they weren't burning with white-hot hatred for America before they went into Gitmo, indefinite detention for years on end with no contact to the outside world surely weaponized them against us.

 

Absolutely.  The real kicker to me is that Guantanamo has always been a problem that did not need to be a problem in the first place.  Everyone in Guantanamo should have been tried and either convicted or released within at least a year or two of their capture.  The United States has more than ample facilities to safely incarcerate all security risk inmates.  That said, we know where convicted terrorists would have ended up:  ADX Florence.

Most rational people had no real issue with suspected terrorists and insurgents being detained and interrogated.  My disagreement came from the torture employed during those interrogations, and the subsequent indefinite detention.  Those are two practices that should not be employed or condoned by any government that claims to represent any group of human beings, much less the self-proclaimed bastion of freedom, democracy, and justice.

[AURaptor 1,137]

Right. And we should never put criminals into prison, or they'll really REALLY become criminals if / when they ever get out. 

 

 

[AuburnNTexas 7,315]

2 hours ago, AURaptor said:

Right. And we should never put criminals into prison, or they'll really REALLY become criminals if / when they ever get out. 

 

 

Actually he said we should put criminals into prison but first we should try them I don't see how anybody can have a problem with that..  If we tried them and convicted them and we felt that they might bring their Jihadist mind set into the American prison system I would have no problem keeping them in Gitmo I know some only want them in normal US prisons but I think that is a minor point compared to no trial and conviction.

[TitanTiger 21,238]

3 hours ago, AURaptor said:

Right. And we should never put criminals into prison, or they'll really REALLY become criminals if / when they ever get out. 

Thank you for this bit of anti-logic and inaccurate hyperbole.  Let me know when you're ready to actually discuss the issue like an adult.

[Strychnine 1,808]

1 hour ago, AuburnNTexas said:

Actually he said we should put criminals into prison but first we should try them I don't see how anybody can have a problem with that..  If we tried them and convicted them and we felt that they might bring their Jihadist mind set into the American prison system I would have no problem keeping them in Gitmo I know some only want them in normal US prisons but I think that is a minor point compared to no trial and conviction.

 

If they were tried and convicted, they would most likely be in the same Federal prison that currently houses convicted foreign terrorists: H-Unit at ADX Florence.  Perpetual solitary confinement, extremely limited outside communication, no inside communication, and no general population to mingle with.  It is quite a terrible place, but it was purpose-built to house the kind of inmate that is a constant security threat to basically everyone.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

22 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

If they weren't burning with white-hot hatred for America before they went into Gitmo, indefinite detention for years on end with no contact to the outside world surely weaponized them against us.

Exactly, so why release them?

[TitanTiger 21,238]

2 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

Exactly, so why release them?

So let me get this straight...we should imprison people simply for fighting against us.  We shouldn't give them access to lawyers or their families.  We don't have to allow access by any outside human rights organizations unless we feel like it.  We can hold them indefinitely with no charges for years on end.  And then you want to make the argument that, "well, since we effed them over in every conceivable way even if we had no evidence of terrorism and made them mad, not we REALLY can't let them go?"

What sort of twisted logic is this?  That is the thinking of a sociopath, not the greatest country in the world.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

This thread is interesting but there seems to be some  false opinions. I'm not a lawyer but as I understand things, once we bring a guy from GITMO to any US prison he has a whole new set of rights and new trial rules. One huge reason for keeping them in GITMO is for interrogation over a period of time. Interrogators have learned how valuable it is to talk to them and then tell them what another one said. This is how  they found out about the courier that ultimately led them to BinLaden. If you really want to increase your knowledge  in this area read "Enhanced Interrogation" by James Mitchell.

 

[TitanTiger 21,238]

Just now, Proud Tiger said:

This thread is interesting but there seems to be some  false opinions. I'm not a lawyer but as I understand things, once we bring a guy from GITMO to any US prison he has a whole new set of rights and new trial rules. One huge reason for keeping them in GITMO is for interrogation over a period of time. Interrogators have learned how valuable it is to talk to them and then tell them what another one said.

We years ago passed the point at which any of these guys knew anything current and of value.  Most of them were just dudes that heard a call to arms for their homeland and didn't know jack.  A few were high value targets.  And even their value has been greatly diminished.  They have no new info and have been cut off for so long they don't know anything going on now. 

 

Just now, Proud Tiger said:

This is how  they found out about the courier that ultimately led them to BinLaden.

Not really...

Quote

 

One of the big arguments the Central Intelligence Agency has used to defend its enhanced interrogation techniques is that information stemming from those interrogations led to the killing of Osama bin Laden.

More specifically, officials have argued that those types of questionings led to important information about Abu Ahmad al-Kuwaiti, the courier that led the U.S. to bin Laden's compound in Pakistan.

After an exhaustive three-year investigation, the Senate Intelligence Committee came to the conclusion that those claims are overblown or downright lies.

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2014/12/09/369646177/torture-report-did-harsh-interrogations-help-catch-osama-bin-laden

 

 

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

7 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

We years ago passed the point at which any of these guys knew anything current and of value.  Most of them were just dudes that heard a call to arms for their homeland and didn't know jack.  A few were high value targets.  And even their value has been greatly diminished.  They have no new info and have been cut off for so long they don't know anything going on now. 

 

Not really...

 

I'm not going to get into an argument with you but your lack of facts in this area is clear. And you say my logic is twisted. I have learned that any logic that disagrees with your's  is twisted so why waste my time? Again I suggest you read "Enhanced Interrogation" by James Mitchell.

[TitanTiger 21,238]

5 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

I'm not going to get into an argument with you but your lack of facts in this area is clear.

My facts are just fine.  They just don't happen to be ones you like.

 

Quote

And you say my logic is twisted. I have learned that any logic that disagrees with your's  is twisted so why waste my time?

The logic that says we should be able to lock people up indiscriminately, deny them basic human rights, give them zero ability to plead their case with a lawyer, never file any formal charges, then claim that even if they weren't that dangerous when we first caught them we've not made them that way through our immoral behavior toward them so we can't do the right thing now....that's twisted.  

That logic might work when we're talking about a dog you mistreated all its life.  All you may be able to do is put it down.  But these are people, many of whom you have deeply wronged and were not deserving of such treatment.  You don't get to create a monster from your own unethical and immoral conduct then say you get to lock them up forever for your own protection.

[AuburnNTexas 7,315]

2 hours ago, Strychnine said:

 

If they were tried and convicted, they would most likely be in the same Federal prison that currently houses convicted foreign terrorists: H-Unit at ADX Florence.  Perpetual solitary confinement, extremely limited outside communication, no inside communication, and no general population to mingle with.  It is quite a terrible place, but it was purpose-built to house the kind of inmate that is a constant security threat to basically everyone.

That would be fine with me but for those who for whatever reason don't want them on US territory.  I would personally not care if they were in Gitmo the trial and conviction is my main point. We can't become like the terrorists and ignore the very laws our country was built on.

Changing the subject a little that is why I want Judges who will rule on what the Constitution and laws actually say and not try try and interpret them to meet their personal political views. If there is something in the laws or constitution they don't like get their people elected to office and change it through new laws or amendments.

[LakeBum 187]

On 2/24/2017 at 3:05 PM, AuburnNTexas said:

That would be fine with me but for those who for whatever reason don't want them on US territory.  I would personally not care if they were in Gitmo the trial and conviction is my main point. We can't become like the terrorists and ignore the very laws our country was built on.

Changing the subject a little that is why I want Judges who will rule on what the Constitution and laws actually say and not try try and interpret them to meet their personal political views. If there is something in the laws or constitution they don't like get their people elected to office and change it through new laws or amendments.

 

It seems like prisoners of war are held until the war is over.  During that time, I don't believe that they are normally given a trial.  Perhaps at the end of the war, some are tried for war crimes.  

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

12 hours ago, LakeBum said:

It seems like prisoners of war are held until the war is over.  During that time, I don't believe that they are normally given a trial.  Perhaps at the end of the war, some are tried for war crimes.  

I think you are correct

[Strychnine 1,808]

13 hours ago, LakeBum said:

It seems like prisoners of war are held until the war is over.  During that time, I don't believe that they are normally given a trial.  Perhaps at the end of the war, some are tried for war crimes.  

 

Prisoners of war are also protected by the Geneva Conventions.  Guantanamo detainees are specifically identified as unlawful combatants.  That is how the United States got around Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, which is the prohibition of torture, cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment.  Unlawful combatants are identified as such so that they may be prosecuted under the domestic laws of the detaining state.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

1 hour ago, Strychnine said:

 

Prisoners of war are also protected by the Geneva Conventions.  Guantanamo detainees are specifically identified as unlawful combatants.  That is how the United States got around Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, which is the prohibition of torture, cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment.  Unlawful combatants are identified as such so that they may be prosecuted under the domestic laws of the detaining state.

So that's a good reason they should not be moved from GITMO to a "detaining state?"

[Strychnine 1,808]

25 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

So that's a good reason they should not be moved from GITMO to a "detaining state?"

 

The United States is the detaining state.  As unlawful combatants, we should charge, try, convict, and subsequently imprison them.  If there is insufficient evidence to warrant charges, they should be released.  That is what should have been done with them in the first place.  The United States has laws that cover terrorism, and has successfully prosecuted and imprisoned plenty of terrorists.  How can modern civilized human beings even disagree with this premise?

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

10 minutes ago, Strychnine said:

 

The United States is the detaining state.  As unlawful combatants, we should charge, try, convict, and subsequently imprison them.  If there is insufficient evidence to warrant charges, they should be released.  That is what should have been done with them in the first place.  The United States has laws that cover terrorism, and has successfully prosecuted and imprisoned plenty of terrorists.  How can modern civilized human beings even disagree with this premise?

I may be uncivilized but neither are these guys who regularly cut off the heads of innocent and outright kill thousands of others. I wiil just go along with the judgement of the experts who detain and interrogate these people. If you are interested in the experience of someone who has interrogated the GITMO guys, read "Enhanced Interrogation" by James Mitchell

[TitanTiger 21,238]

9 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

I may be uncivilized but neither are these guys who regularly cut off the heads of innocent and outright kill thousands of others. I wiil just go along with the judgement of the experts who detain and interrogate these people. If you are interested in the experience of someone who has interrogated the GITMO guys, read "Enhanced Interrogation" by James Mitchell

And I could recommend "The Interrogator" by Glenn Carle.  He also interrogated GITMO and other high level Al Qaida captives, including ones at various "black sites" around the globe.  The experts you like are not the only nor final say on the matter.

Many if not most of the GITMO prisoners weren't cutting anyone's heads off.  They were merely rounded up in the wars in Afghanistan or Iraq because they were fighting in the other side's "army" such as it was.  To paint them all as the worst of the worst deserving of lifelong detainment is an inaccurate exaggeration.

When you have situations like this:

Mike Mone, the Boston lawyer who represented Ali Shaabaan, a Syrian who had been held in Guantanamo without charge for 12 years, flew down to Uruguay last week to greet him on his release. Mone was shocked that Shaabaan and the five other long-term detainees, who had been cleared by the US military of any terrorist activity, were forced to fly to Montevideo from Cuba in shackles, blindfolds and earplugs.

...it is completely non-credible for you to tell me that our only choice is to hold people forever or years on end because even if they didn't actually do anything other than take up arms against us, it's now too dangerous to do the right thing and let them go.

[Strychnine 1,808]

9 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

I may be uncivilized but neither are these guys who regularly cut off the heads of innocent and outright kill thousands of others. I wiil just go along with the judgement of the experts who detain and interrogate these people. If you are interested in the experience of someone who has interrogated the GITMO guys, read "Enhanced Interrogation" by James Mitchell

 

If you are going to quote me in response, I would appreciate it if you actually responded to my point.  I am not debating the goodness or evil of anyone, or everyone, that has ever been detained in Guantanamo.  I am arguing for the application of justice.  Charge them with a crime(s), try them in court, and give the convicted appropriate sentences.  If we can apply that concept to someone like Zacarias Moussaoui, we can and should apply it to Guantanamo detainees.  That is justice.  What is the problem with this?