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.

 

Released Guantanamo Bay Detainee Involved in Benghazi Attack

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 10 2014 @ 12:50 PM
link   
If I'm reading this all correctly, in the rush to release those "poor Guantanamo Bay prisoners" who obviously "didn't do anything" and were "illegally detained indefinitely"...Sufian bin Qumu went home, prepared and killed American citizens in Benghazi. So...to all of you bleeding-hearts of the opinion that Bush's Guantanamo was a bad thing and that those "poor people" held illegally were martyrs...LIVE WITH THIS!

FoxNews

Going out on a limb here because I don't know the timing, but Bush put this guy away and Obama released him? Is that how this went down?




posted on Jan, 10 2014 @ 12:53 PM
link   
And this quote from FoxNews is just priceless.

"Ansar al-Shari'a in Benghazi and Ansar al-Shari'a in Darnah have been involved in terrorist attacks against civilian targets, frequent assassinations, and attempted assassinations of security officials and political actors in eastern Libya, and the September 11, 2012 attacks against the U.S. Special Mission and Annex in Benghazi, Libya," the department said. "Members of both organizations continue to pose a threat to U.S. interests in Libya."

Thats one hell of a YouTube video isn't it?



posted on Jan, 10 2014 @ 01:36 PM
link   
reply to post by WeAreAWAKE
 


You're right it couldn't possibly have been being "illegally detained indefinitely" that radicalized his view of Americans....or the fact that 86 of them have been detained for no reason an cleared for release but can't be released because now their own countries consider them radicals.....it is a self perpetuating cycle...Kafka at Gitmo: Why 86 prisoners are cleared for release but might never get it



posted on Jan, 10 2014 @ 01:37 PM
link   
reply to post by WeAreAWAKE
 


All I can say about this is if you capture enemy combatants, whether in real or pseudo war, lock them away indefinitely and torture them for years in total disregard to the Geneva convention and then let them out you better expect the worst.

I don't condone what they did but it's understandable. We (US) are also the main instigator of the problem too begin with I'm ashamed to say. What we have here is the Neo-Con present from hell, we wrapped it ourselves and Obama unwrapped it.
edit on 861pm2121pm12014 by Bassago because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2014 @ 01:56 PM
link   
Yeah, and the US state dept. doesn't lie... does it!

They all keep changing the story every time they have a new angle to push. It's all BS and of course they never have to provide one shred of evidence because, well, they are the government!

So, back to the Libya situation. There were no Islamic fundies running around killing people in cold blood until we "liberated" the country and brought peace and democracy to them. We stole their wealth, we destroyed their civilian infrastructure, we armed and aided Islamic fundamentalists and installed puppet leaders and a private central bank to enslave them, then just walked away and left the place in a state of social and political disarray! Yet, people get their panties in a bundle because a handful of US citizens get blown away? How utterly inconsiderate, considering the pain and suffering the US helped to inflict on the people of Libya.

Blowback is a bitch. Stop dicking around in other countries and maybe fewer of the citizens will go home in a box or jar!



posted on Jan, 10 2014 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Bassago
reply to post by WeAreAWAKE
 


All I can say about this is if you capture enemy combatants, whether in real or pseudo war, lock them away indefinitely and torture them for years in total disregard to the Geneva convention and then let them out you better expect the worst.

I don't condone what they did but it's understandable. We (US) are also the main instigator of the problem too begin with I'm ashamed to say. What we have here is the Neo-Con present from hell, we wrapped it ourselves and Obama unwrapped it.
edit on 861pm2121pm12014 by Bassago because: (no reason given)


Quoting again because you said it so well.

I'd also add that our "War on Terror" has been fundamentally flawed from the get-go because such a venture risks creating a Hydra-like effect. Civilian casualties tend to be a fact of war, no matter how we try to minimize them. They still happen. When we go into a country and bomb the crap out of them, how many of those families who may have been neutral became radicalized because of the loss of a loved one? So much of what we have done so far I could very easily construe as simply creating more terrorists than eliminating the problem.

Shock and awe was the way to go, right?

edit on 10/1/14 by WhiteAlice because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2014 @ 03:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Bassago
 



All I can say about this is if you capture enemy combatants, whether in real or pseudo war, lock them away indefinitely and torture them for years in total disregard to the Geneva convention and then let them out you better expect the worst.


Well... Guantanamo wasn't a place of torture. That was the showcase with Pizza, Pepsi and 750,000 dollar soccer fields for the IRC representatives, Amnesty International and legal counsels to come see, whine about and file lawsuits over. The Soccer field and Pepsi aren't jokes..BTW. Really happened. Still happening, in fact.

Now.. If they'd been prisoners out of the CIA's black site prison network, I'd tend to agree with their coming out more vicious than they ever went in...and the difference is simple. If you've seen the movie Rendition? You've seen what happens to people that drop into the black sites....although most simply never leave there again. He was an exception.

Gitmo was where they brought people to "look good"...for as good as holding terrorist killers ever looks. Summary Execution in the field would have worked better for me, for a good % of them......as VERY FEW who went beyond the first series of reviews and appeals to find ways to reduce numbers, were actually worth letting go, IMO. Most were killers before we ever got to them (Afghanistan kept merrily on with the civil war for the 15 or so years the US left them to their own devices between the Soviet defeat and 2001).



posted on Jan, 10 2014 @ 03:50 PM
link   
Do people really not do any research on topic meant to polarize people ?

Hell dogma is how the political game is played.

People act like rendition only started with the last administration which is not the truth.

The American government has been 'illegally detaining terrorists' aka rendition for a long arse time.

From the time of Vietnam all the way through the 90s all the way to the current regime from modor.

Putting terrorists in prison is evil, but killing them outright is 'better'.

To set the record straight:



The current policy traces its roots to the administration of former President Bill Clinton


www.aclu.org...

Pay attention to the excuse:



Following the attacks of September 11, 2001, however, what had been a limited program expanded dramatically, with some experts estimating that 150 foreign nationals have been victims of rendition in the last few years alone.



'We don't kidnap and torture' !

Yeah we did, but it was just limited!

Alrightie then.

ETA:



as this snatch from Richard Clarke's book (Against All Enemies, 143-4) demonstrates:


Hmmm:



extraordinary renditions", were operations to apprehend terrorists abroad, usually without the knowledge of and almost always without public acknowledgement of the host government.... The first time I proposed a snatch, in 1993, the White House Counsel, Lloyd Cutler, demanded a meeting with the President to explain how it violated international law.


Read the rest here:

www.huffingtonpost.com...
edit on 10-1-2014 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2014 @ 05:02 PM
link   
Your argument is ridiculous. To justify the forced detainment and torture of hundreds of people who have never been proven to have done anything wrong because at least one of those people was an actual terrorist, is absurd. Utterly absurd. While Bush was at it, why didn't he just lock up every single American citizen who posts on ATS, just on the off chance that one of them might ignite a violent revolution?

You cannot justify tactics as horrible as those used at Gitmo by listing one or even a handful of instances of when it worked out for the worst. If the majority of people who were locked up were innocent, I would rather let everyone go, including the few guilty, than keep everyone there. That mindset is horrible. To think you would disregard the basic human rights of how many people, justifying your actions on the grounds that at least some of them are terrorists...This is the same mindset that will come with the American police state, and you will be singing a different tune then. In fact, it has already started; the mindset, I mean.




top topics



 
4

log in

join