It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Freed by U.S., Saudi Becomes a Qaeda Chief

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 07:46 AM
link   

Freed by U.S., Saudi Becomes a Qaeda Chief


www.nytimes.com

BEIRUT, Lebanon — The emergence of a former Guantánamo Bay detainee as the deputy leader of Al Qaeda’s Yemeni branch has underscored the potential complications in carrying out the executive order President Obama signed Thursday that the detention center be shut down within a year.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 07:46 AM
link   
I had two reactions to this story that I wanted to share:

1. doesn't the fact that this "detainee" (prisoner) was released before Obama's order, show that the Gitmo system was seriously flawed, both in concept and execution?

We captured this guy somewhere, locked him up, decided we had no grounds to hold him, and let him go. Then he "returned" to terrorist activity. Returned is in quotes because if we had concrete evidence he was involved in the first place, wouldn't we have charged him with a crime and kept him in lockup?

2. The concept of "we should keep these guys locked up because of what they might do" is straight out of science fiction! Literally! I never saw the movie but there was a Sci-Fi flick out a while back (I think starring Tom Cruise?) that I remember the promos for - he was being arrested and locked up because somebody could read the future and determined he WOULD commit a crime.


A final comment, of course nowhere in the article does it suggest that maybe this inmate - who we presumed guilty but never put on public trial - may have turned to extremism because he was pissed off about being locked up for years??

The whole thing stinks of fear-mongering and bad intel. Another quote of "unnamed sources" of course....wonder if these reporters ever realize that maybe, just maybe, they're being fed a line of specially prepared BS to regurgitate???!

www.nytimes.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 23-1-2009 by ChrisR]



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 08:23 AM
link   
There is another possibility to this story ,that this 'terrorist' was released by the Bush administration, knowing either,

A: he'd go back to Al-CIAda and get another terror attack organised on US soil, ready for the US to go to war with another country.

or

B: he'd go back to AL-CIAda and go 'undercover' and get the US a man on the inside seeing as he's probably been brainwashed with all the 'toture' and 'waterboarding' ready to be a mole on the terrorists activities.



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 01:48 PM
link   
reply to post by DataWraith
 


Or the more likely reasons being

A- some sort of clerical error allowing him to be released

B- his identity wasn't accurately established prior to release

By the way, Bush isn't in office any longer, so it's time to start working on some Obama conspiracies.



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlueRaja
reply to post by DataWraith
 


Or the more likely reasons being

A- some sort of clerical error allowing him to be released

B- his identity wasn't accurately established prior to release

By the way, Bush isn't in office any longer, so it's time to start working on some Obama conspiracies.


Oh yeah, we are suppose to forget about all that stuff and 911 now. Happy Days are here again? WE don't work on the conspiracies. WE work on uncovering the conspiracies. So according to this story torture didn't work? Also Obama isn't letting everyone go. They will probably move all the prisoners with evidence against them somewhere else and close the controversial Gitmo.



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 01:58 PM
link   
Who cares? That's the type of leadership Al Qaeda is recruiting now? This guys only accomplishment is being capture on the battlefield and spending years locked up on Cuba.

What's he gonna teach his troops? How to do hard time in an American military brig. I wouldn't want to know that personally.

They should let them all go, but before they do jam tracking devices up their backsides first. Since you know their gonna run straight back to the people you looking for anyway.

Seriously, Are we even trying to win this war?

[edit on 23-1-2009 by huckfinn]



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by stikkinikki

Originally posted by BlueRaja
reply to post by DataWraith
 


Or the more likely reasons being

A- some sort of clerical error allowing him to be released

B- his identity wasn't accurately established prior to release

By the way, Bush isn't in office any longer, so it's time to start working on some Obama conspiracies.


Oh yeah, we are suppose to forget about all that stuff and 911 now. Happy Days are here again? WE don't work on the conspiracies. WE work on uncovering the conspiracies. So according to this story torture didn't work? Also Obama isn't letting everyone go. They will probably move all the prisoners with evidence against them somewhere else and close the controversial Gitmo.


No- is there any evidence that this individual was tortured, much less that it didn't work. You're living in a dream world if you think that all the detainees at Gitmo are "tortured" as a part of their daily activities. My prediction is that you're gonna see a lot more former detainees resume their previous activities, and we're going to have to deal with them again.



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 02:01 PM
link   
I have no isse putting these guys in jail. I have great issue with them being held without charges.

Put them on trial and jail them. No one is usggesting they be let free.

Maybe a few of them were NOT terrorists when they got there but they sure as heck are terrorist now.



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 02:08 PM
link   
Well if they were not the enemies before they were held with not rights in Guantanamo now they will become the enemies of the future.

Hell I would do the same thing if somebody hold me against my will while been Innocent and in a foreign country.

I will become your worst enemy.



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
I have no isse putting these guys in jail. I have great issue with them being held without charges.

Put them on trial and jail them. No one is usggesting they be let free.

Maybe a few of them were NOT terrorists when they got there but they sure as heck are terrorist now.



The problem with this though is that you may know this person is a bad dude, who's gonna kill people when he gets a chance, but not have the evidence that's admissible in court, to put him away forever in a criminal trial? Also, should the US taxpayer have to pay their legal fees, not being US citizens or even a member of a uniformed military force?



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 02:10 PM
link   
reply to post by marg6043
 


You're assuming they were innocent in the first place.



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 02:13 PM
link   
reply to post by BlueRaja
 


By that reasoning everybody is a potential killer at some point in their life, so should we put in jail the entire world.



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 02:14 PM
link   
reply to post by BlueRaja
 


And were is the evidence that they were not, so far that is the entire problem here, holding people in jails with not evidence of foul play.

If they were not the enemy then they will be after.



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 02:17 PM
link   
reply to post by BlueRaja
 



If we cannot abide by the precepts and tennants of our Constitution then we are no better than those we decry.

Those are the limitations based in our system. And whos word do we take? An administration that bascially fabricated the evidence in the run up to the Iraq war?

Id agree with you however, evidence attained by using torture like water boarding would be inadmissiable in a US court.

 


You cannot simply decide which parts of the US Constitution and Bill of Rights you can follow and conviently obfusticate, or ignore others.




[edit on 1/23/09 by FredT]



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
reply to post by BlueRaja
 


By that reasoning everybody is a potential killer at some point in their life, so should we put in jail the entire world.





Neither you nor I have access to the information on each of the detainees, and the circumstances involving their capture and detainment. You're assuming that they were captured for no reason, and sent to Gitmo.
There have been a large number of detainees that were released(though ~15-20% went right back to the battlefield). One might assume that there was some reason why others haven't been released, that again neither you nor I are privy to. It has been said that of those remaining, 60-90 have cases that could be taken to trial, and the others are in danger if sent back to their home countries. Of these- just because there isn't a strong enough criminal case to convict them, doesn't mean that they're innocents, haven't killed(or won't kill again).



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
reply to post by BlueRaja
 



If we cannot abide by the precepts and tennants of our Constitution then we are no better than those we decry.

Those are the limitations based in our system. And whos word do we take? An administration that bascially fabricated the evidence in the run up to the Iraq war?

Id agree with you however, evidence attained by using torture like water boarding would be inadmissiable in a US court.

 


You cannot simply decide which parts of the US Constitution and Bill of Rights you can follow and conviently obfusticate, or ignore others.




[edit on 1/23/09 by FredT]


These folks are not US citizens, so they don't fall under the Constitution. They are not uniformed soldiers, so they fall into a very grey category with regard to Geneva/Hague Conventions.



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 02:23 PM
link   
reply to post by ChrisR
 




We captured this guy somewhere, locked him up, decided we had no grounds to hold him, and let him go. Then he "returned" to terrorist activity. Returned is in quotes because if we had concrete evidence he was involved in the first place, wouldn't we have charged him with a crime and kept him in lockup?


So, you think he was just some farmer who hates the US now and was thrust in to the high ranks of Al'qaeda? Come on man, you don't really beleive that?

He was picked up on the battlefield and was always a high ranking Al'Qaeda chief. You cant expect soldiers to be police detectives to.


reply to post by FredT
 



If we cannot abide by the precepts and tennants of our Constitution then we are no better than those we decry.

Those are the limitations based in our system. And whos word do we take? An administration that bascially fabricated the evidence in the run up to the Iraq war?


First of all, there have been many times in our past where we have ad to make concessions for the better of the country. In fact, its American traditional. The idea the we lower ourselves to their level by imprisoning terrorist who want to kill us is ridiculous. The people we are fighting decapitate prisoners with dull knives, burn them alive or shoot them in the head. You're thrusting yourself and everyone else on this moral pedestal, that will be built with the bodies of victims of the Guantanamo prisoners.

It will be interesting to see how you all react when Obama uses the same policies out of necessity.

No, the administration did not "basically fabricate evidence". It was faulty intelligence and there is loads of evidence to back that up. The way you can tell the onslaught against Bush is politically motivated, is Democrat reactions to their own part in the war. Al Gore was one of the main reason I grew up knowing we would go back to Iraq. He beat that drum all the way to invasion and only turned on it when it became unpopular.

Do any of you or anyone in the media charge Gore with any loss of credibility at all? Nope.





[edit on 23-1-2009 by Bakane]



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 02:23 PM
link   
reply to post by BlueRaja
 


No we don't know what if any charges or evidence the government has on them. You are 100% right.

SO charge them in our courts and let them ROT in leavenworth for the rest of thier sorry lives. But allow them to go through due process.



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
reply to post by BlueRaja
 


No we don't know what if any charges or evidence the government has on them. You are 100% right.

SO charge them in our courts and let them ROT in leavenworth for the rest of thier sorry lives. But allow them to go through due process.



I just have a big problem with my tax dollars going to the legal defense fund of folks that were captured trying to kill Americans.



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 02:29 PM
link   
Here's the plain truth, you let these guys go and they will work to hit us again. Obama screwed up again. He hasn't done anything right since his iniguration. He couldn't say the inogural oath, he hamstrung the CIA so we are now blind, he sent out a new wave of leaders from Guantanomo to Al Queda, he set up Billary as sec of state, all she will do is solicite foreign money for her next campaign. I can't wait for the next big Al Queda attack that Obama is allowing to happen by being an idiot. The amount of egg all over peoples faces is going to be enormous. His people are even declaring an end to the war on terror, get ready to be bombed Obamerica.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join