One in 7 who leave Guantanamo involved in terrorism

One in 7 who leave Guantanamo involved in terrorism

www.reuters.com

Reuters

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Seventy-four, or one out of every seven, terrorism suspects formerly held at the U.S. detention site at Guantanamo Bay are confirmed or suspected of having returned to terrorism, the Pentagon said on Tuesday.

Of more than 530 detainees transferred from the U.S. base in Cuba, 27 are confirmed and 47 suspected of "reengaging in terrorist activity," according to a written Pentagon summary.

(visit the link for the full news article)

What does this story really say?

They've released 530 SUSPECTED terrorists. If they really had been terrorists then the Government should never have released them. Obviously they didn't have any proof they were terrorists. Isn't it possible that they weren't terrorists all along?

1 in 7 have engaged in terrorist activities since they were released. OK, then maybe only 1 in 7 actually were terrorists.

Or maybe...

1 in 7 have engaged in terrorist activities since they were released. OK, think about it. You've been held without much hope of release for several years while you and others like you have been tortured. Wouldn't you REALLY HATE the people who did this to you? Maybe the US made 1 in 7 turn to terrorism.

Seems that I remember that one of the detainees was being accused of terrorism because he had a Timex Watch. He was thought to have been a terrorist since Timex Watches are preferred as bomb timers. If this kind of thinking is typical than it's no wonder they couldn't try these people in a REAL court of law.

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

[edit on 26-5-2009 by LazyGuy]

Originally posted by LazyGuy
OK, then maybe only 1 in 7 actually were terrorists.
Or maybe...
1 in 7 have engaged in terrorist activities since they were released. OK, think about it. You've been held without much hope of release for several years while you and others like you have been tortured. Wouldn't you REALLY HATE the people who did this to you? Maybe the US made 1 in 7 turn to terrorism.

I find it peculiar that many people don't consider this and instead jump to "Well, they're engaging in terrorism now that we've released them, so they were obviously terrorists all along!" If they weren't terrorists to begin with, holding them against their will would do a hell of a lot to persuade them toward terrorism against their former captors. I actually expected the number of new or returning terrorists to be higher for this very reason.

And then there's this little disclaimer:

An ex-detainee was suspected of having engaged in terrorism on the basis of "significant reporting" or "unverified or single-source, but plausible reporting," the Pentagon said.

"Unverified or single-source, but plausible reporting"--no, that isn't suspicious; it must be your lack of patriotism shining through. Don't you love your country?

[edit on 26/5/09 by paperplanes]

How did they come up with that number? And what's considered "terrorist activities?" The US government has labeled many of the activities I engage in as "supporting terrorism" so would I fit the criteria that these gentlemen do?

They were released because they apparently had no proof to hold them on. Kinda like people in the US get detained on suspicion of having committed a crime and then released if there is nothing to prove it. Those that went on to commit acts of terrorism obviously were terrorists, if they weren't they wouldn't have gone on to commit those acts of terrorism.

If torture was all it took to turn someone into a terrorist then we would have hundreds, maybe even thousands, of soldiers who have been tortured turn into terrorists. Or have I missed all the reports of POW's being tortured and then once released going on to commit acts of terrorism around the world?

[edit on 26-5-2009 by Jenna]

Originally posted by Jenna
They were released because they apparently had no proof to hold them on. Kinda like people in the US get detained on suspicion of having committed a crime and then released if there is nothing to prove it. Those that went on to commit acts of terrorism obviously were terrorists, if they weren't they wouldn't have gone on to commit those acts of terrorism.
[edit on 26-5-2009 by Jenna]

OK, then if the Government can imprison 530 people with little or no reason just because someone is SUSPECTED of something. I guess you'd be OK with being one of the INNOCENT 6 of the 7.

[edit on 26-5-2009 by LazyGuy]

Originally posted by Jenna
They were released because they apparently had no proof to hold them on. Kinda like people in the US get detained on suspicion of having committed a crime and then released if there is nothing to prove it.

No, not "kinda like people in the U.S." Can you cite any example of a common suspect being held in an American jail for years without any verifiable evidence to compel a proper trial?

Those that went on to commit acts of terrorism obviously were terrorists, if they weren't they wouldn't have gone on to commit those acts of terrorism.
If torture was all it took to turn someone into a terrorist then we would have hundreds, maybe even thousands, of soldiers who have been tortured turn into terrorists. Or have I missed all the reports of POW's being tortured and then once released going on to commit acts of terrorism around the world?

No, not exactly. The terrorist suspects held in the Middle East have been captured by an enemy that has been occupying their countries for years. This enemy, the United States, represents a cultural and religious force entirely antithetical to their cultural norms. It is, in their eyes, an offense by its very military presence in their homeland--an affront to their religion and their ethos. It has been waging war in their countries for years, regardless of where you place the blame. Common villagers, as most of these suspected terrorists are, don't see much other than the bombs--international diplomacy doesn't generally factor in, you see. They aren't legitimate soldiers captured while fighting on enemy lines--they are either grassroots terrorists or innocent bystanders to conflict. They are not comparable to POWs (trained soldiers fighting on behalf of a nation).

Torture alone is unlikely to compel an individual toward terrorism against an entire nation or culture, or group of nations or cultures. Occupying their land AND capturing them (especially if they are genuinely innocent) AND torturing them? Now that might just do the trick.

[edit on 27/5/09 by paperplanes]

Originally posted by CuriousSkeptic
How did they come up with that number? And what's considered "terrorist activities?" The US government has labeled many of the activities I engage in as "supporting terrorism" so would I fit the criteria that these gentlemen do?

In a world where quoting the Constitution can be considered as an indicator that you MIGHT be a terrorist anything the Government says can be considered to be BS.

[edit on 26-5-2009 by LazyGuy]

Originally posted by paperplanes
No, not "kinda like people in the U.S." Can you cite any example of a common suspect being held in an American jail for years without any verifiable evidence to compel a proper trial?

You're right, I should have said exactly like, not kinda. And there are several examples of people in the US being held in prison for years when they were actually innocent of the crimes they were convicted for. Meaning the evidence they had was either evidence of someone else's wrongdoing or evidence that was falsified.

They are not comparable to POWs (trained soldiers fighting on behalf of a nation.

Either they are comparable, meaning they have surrendered or were captured by their enemy during a time of war or fall under the definition of the Geneva Convention, or they have none of the rights a POW is supposed to have. So which is it?

Torture alone is unlikely to compel an individual toward terrorism against an entire nation or culture, or group of nations or cultures. Occupying their land AND capturing them (especially if they are genuinely innocent) AND torturing them? Now that might just do the trick.

That's your assumption, but that doesn't make it necessarily true. If that was what it took to turn someone into a terrorist then all of those were captured and tortured should have became terrorists, but by all accounts not all of them did.

reply to post by LazyGuy


Did I say that they should have been detained anyway if there was nothing to hold them on? I didn't think so.

Accuse someone of something they didn't do, hold them against their will, treat them like garbage, and I guarantee any semblence of peacefulness they might have had will be replaced with malice and lust for vengeance.

Maybe we are creating MORE terrorists by treating people this way?

Actually those odds rise dramatically if you count the american politicians who authorized the torture, tha american officers who ordered the torture and the american servicemen and women who carried out the torture. I as an american demand that these three groups of terrorists be removed from our government services, and from receiving government benefits, that they be arrested and charged with crimes against humanity. This small group of people do not have the right to break our laws with impunity simply because they wear a uniform. What they did is against american law as well as international law. Far from being exempt from american justice....military personnel are subject to "double jeopardy" they can be charged for the same crime twice.

reply to post by mostlyspoons


Then please explain the majority of those held who were released and did not commit any acts of terrorism. How did they manage to not become terrorists?

Originally posted by Jenna

Originally posted by paperplanes
Can you cite any example of a common suspect being held in an American jail for years without any verifiable evidence to compel a proper trial?

You're right, I should have said exactly like, not kinda. And there are several examples of people in the US being held in prison for years when they were actually innocent of the crimes they were convicted for. Meaning the evidence they had was either evidence of someone else's wrongdoing or evidence that was falsified.

You seem to have misunderstood my statement. Of course there are plenty of individuals who have been wrongfully convicted in stateside prisons. What we're talking about in relation to terror suspects is individuals held in prisons for YEARS without any conviction, wrongful or justified; without any evidence (and this has been freely admitted by the military in several cases) to compel a trial.

Common U.S. prisoners are indeed sometimes convicted and sent to prison for crimes they didn't commit, but some form of evidence (falsified or genuine) is always required and the individual is given a trial. Guantanamo (et al) and stateside prisons for U.S. citizens present entirely different scenarios.

Either they are comparable, meaning they have surrendered or were captured by their enemy during a time of war or fall under the definition of the Geneva Convention, or they have none of the rights a POW is supposed to have. So which is it?

What do you mean, "which is it"? This isn't even a part of our discussion. Whether these terror suspects fall under Geneva Conventions or other international protections is apparently a legal grey area, but alas, we aren't discussing the legality of it--only whether or not it can be expected that torture subjects might turn to terrorism. Despite my great distaste for torture and ethical opposition to it, I've said nothing about whether or not terror suspects have a legal right not to be tortured. Quit moving the goal posts.

If that was what it took to turn someone into a terrorist then all of those were captured and tortured should have became terrorists, but by all accounts not all of them did.

It would be helpful for all parties involved if you would be more attentive to the words I've written. I've tried my best to extend to you that same courtesy.

Nowhere in my posts have I said that every individual tortured would turn to torture, that "all of those captured and tortured should have become terrorists". Nowhere. What I did say was that "torture alone is unlikely to compel an individual toward terrorism against an entire nation or culture, or group of nations or cultures. Occupying their land AND capturing them (especially if they are genuinely innocent) AND torturing them? Now that might just do the trick." Notice that last sentence: "That might just do the trick." Torture is, of course, not going to turn everyone into a terrorist. Nor will destroying the subjects home, taking over their homeland, etc. turn every victim into a terrorist. My argument has been that, all things considered, the actions of the U.S. toward Middle Eastern citizens can very well persuade some toward terrorism if they aren't already involved in it. Hence the "it might just do the trick".

Now, I won't be around ATS until the beginning of next week, so unfortunately I'll miss any reply until then. I do hope that I've clarified the points and a reply isn't necessary, but if it is, I'll respond as soon as I'm able to.

[edit on 28/5/09 by paperplanes]

Originally posted by paperplanes
What do you mean, "which is it"? This isn't even a part of our discussion. Whether these terror suspects fall under Geneva Conventions or other international protections is apparently a legal grey area, but alas, we aren't discussing the legality of it--only whether or not it can be expected that torture subjects might turn to terrorism.

Unfortunately the legality of them being held at all is indeed part of the equation. If they were legally held for however long they were there, then the length of time they were there doesn't matter. If they were not, then it does. You, and others, keep mentioning the length of time they were held, thus my question.

What I did say was that "torture alone is unlikely to compel an individual toward terrorism against an entire nation or culture, or group of nations or cultures. Occupying their land AND capturing them (especially if they are genuinely innocent) AND torturing them? Now that might just do the trick." Notice that last sentence: "That might just do the trick."

Yep, read it the first time you posted it and responded to it with "If that was what it took to turn someone into a terrorist then all of those were captured and tortured should have became terrorists, but by all accounts not all of them did."

Torture is, of course, not going to turn everyone into a terrorist. Nor will destroying the subjects home, taking over their homeland, etc. turn every victim into a terrorist. My argument has been that, all things considered, the actions of the U.S. toward Middle Eastern citizens can very well persuade some toward terrorism if they aren't already involved in it. Hence the "it might just do the trick".

Do we know for certain that any of those who did commit acts of terrorism after their released were indeed tortured while they were being held? If there is proof that they were, then you might be right. If there is not or is proof otherwise, then your argument would be wrong.