Maybe We Should Keep Them There

Neformore I was a bit heavy handed in my last post for that I am sorry . I will rephrase for the sake of discussion. It is very possible that someone who is near a drug dealer is also buying drugs . Anyway its not like I didn't post a source for the info concerning the evidence against him . You are free to post about his defence from the source or from where ever you see fit.

reply to post by budski


We are all ultimately responsible for our own actions my valued friend...

The Liberal, heavy handed, "pat" excuse that someone was "driven" to actions contrary to societal norms, is getting old through much use. That is all it is really, an excuse, and you know what they say about excuses...

That Terrorist had a choice; either commit an inhuman, animalistic action, or behave like a civilized human. It is clear what his choice was. He should have remained locked up.

Semper

reply to post by dave420

So you don't believe in due process?

Yes for citizens of the United States not engaged in War Crimes or other terror related actions against the security and sovereignty of this nation, or any other nation we are assisting and/or supporting.

Because that's the only stance you can possibly take that will allow anyone to be locked up for anything without any evidence to suggest they've committed a crime.

You apparently read something in the article I was unable to find, in order to come to that conclusion. If you have a point, please make it without inventing or making things up to suit your stance.

Perhaps this will assist you in making further "off the cuff" comments..

Reference Abdallah Saleh Ali Al Ajmi

The detainee is a Taliban fighter:

1. The detainee went AWOL from the Kuwaiti military in order to travel to Afghanistan to participate in the Jihad.
2. The detainee was issued an AK-47, ammunition and hand grenades by the Taliban.

b. The detainee participated in military operations against the coalition.

1. The detainee admitted he was in Afghanistan fighting with the Taliban in the Bagram area.
2. The detainee was placed in a defensive position by the Taliban in order to block the Northern Alliance.
3. The detainee admitted spending eight months on the front line at the Aiubi Center, AF.[sic]
4. The detainee admitted engaging in two or three fire fights with the Northern Alliance.
5. The detainee retreated to the Tora Bora region of AF and was later captured as he attempted to escape to Pakistan.

Wiki

Emphasis Mine

::Note the wording, Admitted::

you'd not be too happy with them.

If I was engaged in actions against their country, I would expect to be treated as a war criminal. No different actually.. I have been in situations where that was a real possibility. I knew the risks then, so did he.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

Well not hardly..

I am proud of my stance on the War and the current assistance we are giving the Democratically elected government in Iraq.

Semper

Originally posted by semperfortis
The Liberal, heavy handed, "pat" excuse that someone was "driven" to actions contrary to societal norms, is getting old through much use. That is all it is really, an excuse, and you know what they say about excuses...

Would that then apply to the fact that the US was "driven" to act in Iraq?

In that case, you're probably right

Originally posted by semperfortis
You apparently read something in the article I was unable to find, in order to come to that conclusion. If you have a point, please make it without inventing or making things up to suit your stance.

Hmm.. Semper Semper Semper, you missed this bit from the same article then...

Al Ajmi's answers to the factors favoring continued detention

Al Ajmi answered each of the factors favoring his continued detention in turn.

* Al Ajmi denied participating in Jihad.
* Al Ajmi stated he went to Pakistan to learn and memorize the Koran -- he never traveled to Afghanistan.
* Al Ajmi denied any contact with the Taliban. He acknowledged that he had previously confessed to the allegations he was being asked to comment on -- but those were false confessions:

"These statements were all said under pressure and threats. I couldn't take it. I couldn't bare [sic] the threats and suffering so I started saying things. When every detainee is captured they tell him that he is either Taliban or Al-Qaida and that is it. I couldn't bare [sic] the suffering and threatening and the pressure so I had to say I was from Taliban [sic] ."

* Al Ajmi denied participating in military operations against the coalition.
* Al Ajmi denied being placed in a defensive position by the Taliban:

"I am not an enemy combatant. I said this only because I was under pressure and threats and suffering."

Are you implying that only the US governments case is truthful? Strikes me that theres two sides to every story

Perhaps this will assist you in making further "off the cuff" comments..

Indeed

[edit on 9/0508/08 by neformore]

[edit on 9/0508/08 by neformore]

If they weren't 'terrorists' before, than being detained without habeous corpus and water boarding assured they would be when done. Most every interrogation professional says torture is a failure for good intel.

When I read this story in the MSM, the first thing that came to mind is they're reporting this in order to get support and justification for keeping people locked up with out due process. Semperfortis you went with it hook line and sinker, like a true tax paying slaver. You're better than that.

What I'd really like to know is how many prisoners did they release that have not been caught being involved in an attack or bombing? That wouldn't fit with the slant of the story, so that's never one that will make the front page or even be considered, will it?

I suggest as some others here have, that the acts we are doing over in these war zones as well as the Gitmo are creating more terrorists that we or our descendants will have to deal with eventually. Is that the kind of world we want to live in or leave for our children?

As long as the Middle East Royalty's, World Oil Baron's and World Bankers make money, it matters not they've turned us all against one another. While we fight amongst ourselves and against our created enemies the baron's will continue to rule the planet and laugh while we slave and slaughter each other.

Its time we wake up get to the bottom of who's screwing us all and decide to rule ourselves again.

[edit on 9-5-2008 by verylowfrequency]

reply to post by xpert11


No, in fact, he couldn't. As a noncitizen, he would never so much as get filed in the American court system. As the United States is not part of the ICC, he couldn't go there either. And the American media is far too busy tossing salad for the Republicans to ever give air time to a "convicted" (that is, accused) terrorist.

Now, as a Kuwaiti national he could file something with hte Kuwaiti government to try to get some recompense from the American government THAT way... but the Kuwaiti government is about as corrupt as you can possibly get and still have a functioning nation (sort of) and is burrowed as deep into America's pocket as any other of our "allies" in the region. The man would mysteriously vanish, and next thing you know there's a corpse with no hands or teeth floating in the Persian Gulf.

So is a terror attack a reasonable alternative? I can't say it is. Perhaps in this man's mind it was, though, and we can certainly see where he would get that sort of notion.

reply to post by semperfortis


So... I want to make sure I get this straight.

We invade a nation (Afghanistan in this case). The standing army of this nation fights back. And you label them as war criminals for this?

That's just weird.

reply to post by TheWalkingFox


Well the fact that he may not have had legal any recourse available to him isnt the US or anyone else problem . The same corruption that that may have prevented him from seeking his release probably saw him go Scott free. I suspect that when the US handed this nut over to Kuwait they mistakenly thought that there was a good chance he would end up behind bars again or face the death penalty.

If you think about his story rationally it doesn't make much sense he would be in Afghanistan for peace purposes after he had gone Awol(SP?). As for the fact he claims that he was tortured I am hardly going to take the word of a deserter and terrorist at face value.

Relevant information....

From Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp

Since the beginning of the War in Afghanistan, 775 detainees have been brought to Guantanamo, approximately 420 of which have been released. As of August 9, 2007, approximately 355 detainees remain. More than a fifth are cleared for release but may have to wait months or years because U.S. officials are finding it increasingly difficult to allocate places to send them, according to officials and defense lawyers. Of the roughly 355 still incarcerated, U.S. officials said they intend to eventually put 60 to 80 on trial and free the rest. On February 9, 2008, it was reported that 6 of the detainees at the Guantanamo Bay facility would be tried for conspiracy in the 9/11 terrorist attacks.[4]. As of May 2008, according to the US Military at least 10 detainees who have been subsequently released from Guantanamo had gone on to commit terrorist attacks, including one suicide-bombing in Iraq.

Lets pick the higher figure of 80 out of 775 to be tried, the rest to go free, so thats 10% of the total figure detained, since 2002.

Of the 420 released, 2% are estimated to have then showed up again.

reply to post by semperfortis


Ultimately we are, yes.

BUT, given a choice between Rock and Hard PLace, which one would you choose?

Also, bear in mind a persons humanity, their emotions (in this situation at least), religious beliefs, and the historical differences in culture.

There's also the very human reasoning process, where some are apt to say "if I'm going to be treated as a terrorist, then I will act as a terrorist and take my revenge"

Is it not possible that the very act of detention is what made this person into a bomber?

In some respects I am a liberal - however, I agree that there is too much wishy-washy PC that tries to turn every criminal into a victim.

However, each instance should be examined on its merits rather than making a generalisation that outside factors have no influence EVER, on a persons actions.

reply to post by TheWalkingFox


Mixing Apples and Oranges to make a point..

"HE" was a citizen of Kuwait

Semper

reply to post by neformore


Nef,

Of course that is what he said in Kuwait...

He wanted to get out and continue his Terrorist ways..

See the impasse' here is that you are under the assumption the U.S. is always evil and that Gitmo is horrible. Therefore everything that happens involving someone that was there, must be the fault of Gitmo and the U.S.

I on the other hand, do not believe that the U.S. is evil and I approve of Gitmo and it's function..

You are going to accept excuses for anyone that was held there as truth for what ever heinous actions that commit.

I am going to hold each person responsible for their own actions and ignore the usual blame. (Not like every criminal I arrest doesn't blame someone else)

So, Impasse'

Semper

reply to post by semperfortis


Semper - a popular misconception is that people who dislike shrub&co dislike america in general.

For me, that's just not the case, although I wouldn't presume to speak for others...

I also think that gitmo and aby ghraib have been hugely damaging for the US image as perceived by the world - you're supposed to be the good guys, and yet resort to barbarities on prisoners, none of whom have been proven guilty.

Innocent until proven guilty is one of the foundations of justice, and yet that has been circumvented, with many of those held being released through lack of evidence that they did ANYTHING wrong.

We can talk about pre-emptive measures, but that doesn't alter the basic inhumanity which has been encouraged by bush&co.

I am firm in my belief that such measures help to create more terrorists, rather than deter them.

Originally posted by semperfortis
You are going to accept excuses for anyone that was held there as truth for what ever heinous actions that commit.

No I'm not I'm going to say that out of the 775 people that have been detained illegally by a country that supposedly prides itself on a constitution sees all people as being equal, it looks possible that less than 10% of them may actually have done any harm to anyone. And of that 10% a fair and due process of prosecution has not, until recently, been afforded to them - which is hardly a beacon of freedom and fairness and adds fuel to the fire of those who would wish to harm individuals from the United States, because it provides them with an excuse to carry on with their actions

I'm also going to say that places like Gitmo breed resentment, and that resentment can turn into hatred, and that hatred can very easily turn into people dying.

I am going to hold each person responsible for their own actions and ignore the usual blame. (Not like every criminal I arrest doesn't blame someone else)

I'm sure you will

" Maybe We Should Keep Them There "

NO. we let them loose and get them later. But this time they won't be seeing a jail cell, they'll be seeing 72 virgins. Those people already hated us for what we have here in The United States.

I honestly believe that the more we help other countries, then the more they will hate us. Nobody likes to be helped and will feel guilty and later hate us. You can make all the excuses you want to why they hate us but only one shines true. We have everything in this country including every race on earth who want what we have. Freedom and a chance to pursue happiness and to live their dreams without fear. I don't see any Americans getting due process in Afghanistan.

reply to post by semperfortis


Clearly you've already made up your mind that this guy is a brown devil, hell-bent on destroying the USA because he hates American freedoms.

My points still stand, regardless of whether your reading comprehension, or vicious nationalism, allows you to understand them.

Originally posted by dave420
reply to post by semperfortis

 

Clearly you've already made up your mind that this guy is a brown devil, hell-bent on destroying the USA because he hates American freedoms.

My points still stand, regardless of whether your reading comprehension, or vicious nationalism, allows you to understand them.

I'm not sticking up for anyone here (semper is more than capable of doing that himself) but before you question a persons reading ability or understanding, I'd recommend taking a look at sempers profile - or anyone else's for that matter if you disagree with them, in order to understand where they are coming from.

This isn't a bash at you either dave420 - just an observation that we all have different opinions and ways of expressing them.

Being liberal and conservative has nothing to do with this issue, no matter what you try to label someone's idea or opinion on an issue.

I don't know why everyone wants to put a label on others. It's that type of thinking and irrational prejudice that limits us as a society. Same with the rest of the world. If people didn't hold such prejudice over political and religious issues, we wouldn't have half the wars that we do.

Anyway, back to the OP:

There are WAY too many people picked up and released after interrogation that go on to live a normal life ... as they always had. You cannot take this incident and make a case to indefinitely hold people in a military prison.

That's just a ridiculous idea ... and if you continue to think in this manner, maybe China or Pakistan would be a better country for you to live in.

Even though our liberties are being eroded rapidly, thank God we still have the frame work of a democratic justice system here in the U.S.