US releases man, now al quaeda leader again

Doesn't mean they have been giving all rights as American citizens, but the US has been following many Geneva requirements per Prisoner of War (PoW).

Mhmm, and how about the one regarding the release of PoWs? That's a fairly big one. They are clearly not released, as is customary, and they are not given trials as civilians.

Once and for all; what are they? Civilians or PoWs?

It gets really old when you don't want to talk specifics and paint broad strokes across everything.

It gets really old when you go "oh come on, it's not so bad" too.
 
PoW, but "stateless" PoW ...

Mhmm, and how about the one regarding the release of PoWs? That's a fairly big one. They are clearly not released, as is customary, and they are not given trials as civilians.
They have not been released until the war is over with the nation we're at war with, or otherwise negotiated in a prisoner exchange. The problem is the duration this time around, let alone a lot of these combatants are "stateless." There is really no one to "negotiate" with on their behalf in many cases.

So what do we do? I honestly don't know. Obama doesn't. Our European allies don't know either. It's easy to complain and blame, but what do we really do that works for everyone?

Once and for all; what are they? Civilians or PoWs?
PoW, but "stateless" PoW. That's the problem. Not even any of our European allies have figured out how to answer that one, as Obama is finding out.

We've tried the Saudi route, and that's not doing us favors at all. Again, none of our allies in western Europe can even suggest anything at this point. So what do we do?


It gets really old when you go "oh come on, it's not so bad" too.
Dude, the level of rhetoric used against Gitmo and "treating them like animals" gets old. It's far worse in Afghanistan and Iraqi prisons, by far.

And that's before we look at the "stateless PoW" issue. I honestly don't know what to do, especially as the "War on Terror" only gets worse. It's even worse than the "War on Drugs" in that regard, because of the "dedication" aspects.

Some will not give it up until they are slaughtered, sadly enough. But we cannot just slaughter them, and treating them inhumanely only makes it worse. That's why confinement has been the only thing we've done thus far, trying to figure out what we can do.

Options like turning them over to the Saudis have largely failed.

-- ProfV

P.S. BTW, remember that the Geneva Convention was established so states practice the "Golden Rule" with each other with regards to their PoWs. If you read it, much of the text focuses on that, the promise of likewise. The problem with Terrorist is that they are the worst case scenario of the opposite, and are "stateless." So what do you do? I agree inhumane treatment is just immoral, but playing politics around it and claiming it's "inhumane" to hold them at all is part of the problem.

Most will go back to combat against the US. That's why PoW are held until the end of the conflict. But in this case, it's almost "eternal" for most. So what do we do? Do we give them "life imprisonment"? Do we release them and have a 3 or even 2 "strike rule" where we execute them on the 3rd or even 2nd capture? I don't know.
 
You know what, screw the Geneva Convention and all that. Let me cut to the chase here. I know a lot of these people have fought out of uniform/openly carried arms and so on in order to blend with the civilian population. I know a lot of them have targeted civilians. Etc. etc. To put it bluntly, I don't really give a flying fuck what is done to them, because they have involved innocent people in their personal crusade and there is a good chance that they will continue to do so if given the chance. Lock them up and throw away the key for all I care (under humane conditions, I might add).

What I am concerned about is that this might happen to people who actually didn't do any of those things. Given how much room for interpretation there is in the whole "unlawful enemy combatant" issue from what I remember, practically anyone can qualify for the title. What bothers me is that, apparently, no evidence or trial is required (it mentions military trial, but that doesn't seem to happen either). Oh, and it's retroactive too. I sure as hell don't want to end up in a cage for the rest of my life because I, oh I don't know, send a donation to what I thought was a legitimate aid organization. Yeah okay, that may not happen, but it could and it would be perfectly nice and legal if it did. Who would argue (or rather, who with any power to do anything would argue)? That scares me. International laws and whatnot aside, this doesn't strike you as a problem?
 
i have to honestly say fuck the rules when it comes to someone you know would kill you instantly if they had a chance
if theyre not to be executed, then they should be tried, seperated and sent to prison (in general population) in places like Pelican Bay and Angola.
 

Facetious

Moderated
What I am concerned about is that this might happen to people who actually didn't do any of those things.

It's difficult to imagine that members of our military would waste precious resources on capturing simple innocent "joe blow" civilians within the context of the field of battle, but you never know. :dunno:

Capture is a royal pain in the ass, given all of the processing involved, it's immense !
Oversight has been plentiful, I'm certain that abuses have been limited to an absolute minimum.
 
The purpose of imprisonment ...

You know what, screw the Geneva Convention and all that. Let me cut to the chase here. I know a lot of these people have fought out of uniform/openly carried arms and so on in order to blend with the civilian population. I know a lot of them have targeted civilians. Etc. etc. To put it bluntly, I don't really give a flying fuck what is done to them, because they have involved innocent people in their personal crusade and there is a good chance that they will continue to do so if given the chance. Lock them up and throw away the key for all I care (under humane conditions, I might add).
The purpose of imprisonment isn't merely "punishment" or "deterrence." The main purpose is to prevent someone from being part of society when they are a danger to society.

PoWs are merely combatants that served the call of their nation. Things like the Geneva Convention were designed to guarantee that they were not treated like criminals because, after all, they were not likely guilty of crimes. Now if they purposely targeted or aided civilians, they would have to answer for war crimes after the war was over. But, typically, they were held until they were no longer a danger to the side that captured them, typically the end of the war.

The problem is here that the war is going to last. The even more difficult problem is their "stateless" aspect. Which brings us to the last part, the fact that they will fight after release. In addition, you do have ones that killed civilians or violated Geneva recognized Rules of Engagement (RoE), which still should be proven on a case-by-case basis. In that case, traditionally, they were executed after due process.

I don't know what to do. But I do know one thing. People should stop bitching and try to be part of the solution. Also, when people try to stretch things like materials used by virtually all nations for illumination as "WMDs" and other 100% rhetorical bullshit, yet not mention anything about the "combatants" that target civilians, it gets old. All you're doing is not challenging the people who really kill and mame to stop, and only reward them by focusing on the nations and their soliders that actually care.

The ones that adhere to RoE. The ones that not only do not target civilians, but don't fire when they see civilians. The ones who only kill civilians when they honestly did not know the civilians were in the combat zone, and they made every effort to ensure they were not.

And if you're making statements from a point of scientific ignorance, that really doesn't help your case -- along with statements that are broad and knowingly false, like those commonly made about Gitmo.
 
Released detainee now Yemen al-Qaida commander

WASHINGTON – A released Guantanamo Bay terror detainee has reemerged as an al-Qaida commander in Yemen, highlighting the dilemma facing President Barack Obama in shaping plans to close the detention facility and decide the fates of U.S. captives.

A U.S. counterterror official confirmed Friday that Said Ali al-Shihri, who was jailed in Guantanamo for six years after his capture in Pakistan, has resurfaced as a leader of a Yemeni branch of al-Qaida.

"By Allah, imprisonment only increased our persistence in our principles for which we went out, did jihad for, and were imprisoned for," he said in a video posted on a militant-leaning Web site Friday. It was the second time this week a reference to al-Shihri has shown up on the Web site. He was mentioned in an online magazine on Jan. 19 with a reference to his prisoner number at Guantanamo, 372.

Al-Shihri was released by the U.S. in 2007 to the Saudi government for rehabilitation. But this week a publication posted on a militant-leaning Web site said he is now the top deputy in "al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula," a Yemeni offshoot of the terror group headed by Osama bin Laden. The group has been implicated in several attacks on the U.S. Embassy in Yemen's capital Sana.

The announcement from the militant site came the same day that President Barack Obama signed an executive order directing the closure of the jail at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, within a year.

A key question facing Obama's new administration is what to do with the 245 prisoners still confined at Guantanamo. That means finding new detention facilities for hard-core prisoners while trying to determine which detainees are harmless enough to release.

According to the Pentagon at least 18 former Guantanamo detainees have "returned to the fight" and another 43 are suspected of resuming terrorist activities. Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell declined to provide the identity of the former detainees or what their terrorist activities were.

It is unclear whether al-Shihri's name would be a new addition to that list of 61.

Al-Shihri is one of a small number of deputies in the Yemeni group, the U.S. counterterror official said. The official spoke on condition of anonymity in order to discuss sensitive intelligence.

The militant Web site referred to al-Shihri under his terror nom de guerre, "Abu Sayyaf al-Shihri." The video refers to him as "Abu Sufyan al-Azdi al-Shahri."

An online magazine posted to the The Internet site said al-Shihri is the group's second-in-command in Yemen. "He managed to leave the land of the two shrines (Saudi Arabia) and join his brothers in al-Qaida," the statement said.

Included in the site's material was a message to Yemen's populace from al-Qaida figure Ayman al-Zawahiri, bin Laden's top deputy. SITE Intel Group, which monitors extremist Web sites, provided a partial translation of the magazine article and the video.

According to Pentagon documents, al-Shihri was stopped at a Pakistani border crossing in December 2001 with injuries from an airstrike and recuperated at a hospital in Quetta for a month and a half. Within days of leaving the hospital, he became one of the first detainees sent to Guantanamo.

Al-Shihri allegedly traveled to Afghanistan two weeks after the Sept. 11 attacks, provided money to other fighters and trained in urban warfare at a camp north of Kabul, according to a summary of the evidence against him from U.S. military review panels at Guantanamo Bay.

An alleged travel coordinator for al-Qaida, he was also accused of meeting extremists in Mashad, Iran, and briefing them on how to enter Afghanistan, according to the Defense Department documents.

Al-Shihri, however, said he traveled to Iran to buy carpets for his store in Riyadh. He said he felt bin Laden had no business representing Islam, denied any links to terrorism, and expressed interest in rejoining his family in Saudi Arabia.

Yemen is rapidly reemerging as a terrorist battleground and potential base of operations for al-Qaida and is a main concern for U.S. counterterrorism officials. Al-Qaida in Yemen conducted an "unprecedented number of attacks" in 2008 and is likely to be a launching pad for attacks against Saudi Arabia, outgoing CIA Director Michael Hayden said in November.

The most recent attack, in September, killed 16 people. It followed a March mortar attack, and two attacks against Yemen's presidential compound in late April.

The impoverished country on the southern tip of the Arabian peninsula has a weak central government and a powerful tribal system. That leaves large lawless areas open for terrorist training and operations.

Yemen was also the site of the 2000 USS Cole bombing that killed 17 American sailors. Seventeen suspects in the attack were arrested; ten of them escaped Yemen's jails in 2003. One of the primary suspects in the attack, Jamal al-Badawi, escaped jail in 2004. He was taken back into custody last fall under pressure from the U.S. government.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090123/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/guantanamo_al_qaida

so I guess in theory.......... Obama closing Gitmo will cause a bunch of terrorist leaders to rise? Can we be thankful to Obama and proud of him as president? Absolutely not :nono:

I count 4 mentions of Obama in this post but not one mention of the guy who actually let the fucker go free while miraculously maintaining the claim with a straight face that his policies kept America "safe".:dunno:
 
I fail to follow the logic of people considering it's better to keep few hundreds civilians in prison just in case one of them might be a terrorist...

If that is your idea of justice, i beleive we don't use the same definition for that word.

I also fail to see the democratical value of that logic as justice is one of the foundation of any form of democratical system.
 
How about invading Israel? They've got nuclear weapons too, and they're killing people every day. But I guess Palestenians don't count as much as others do.

Anyhow, this whole GTMO bullshit is so ridiculous, because that whole thing has surely caused more damage than good. Detaining innocent people, torturing them and no trials at all. Things like that breed anger and hatred.

But this whole conflict will never be solved anyways, not in our lifetime, not in 1000 years. There will always be people who don't trust each other, Israelis, Arabs, Iranians, and those who dream of peace should dream on because this will not come true.
 
How about invading Israel? They've got nuclear weapons too
But unlike Iran, Israel hasn't threatened to wipe the other off the planet. ;)

and they're killing people every day. But I guess Palestenians don't count as much as others do.
Apparently people count "differently," because they don't seem to point out the gorilla forces that use civilians for cover, and how many times Israel does not strike because of that fact.

One-sided rhetoric, pure and simple. There is a huge difference between an objective argument and a subjective one.
 
I count 4 mentions of Obama in this post but not one mention of the guy who actually let the fucker go free while miraculously maintaining the claim with a straight face that his policies kept America "safe".:dunno:

Yeah, his policies kept us safe - except for one single day - 9/11 !

Great record!

:bowdown:
 
Apparently people count "differently," because they don't seem to point out the gorilla forces that use civilians for cover, and how many times Israel does not strike because of that fact.

Whoa!!! They're using gorillas in combat now? I didn't even know they lived in the Middle East!

:1orglaugh
 
Top