The Cellar

The Cellar (http://cellar.org/index.php)
-   Politics (http://cellar.org/forumdisplay.php?f=5)
-   -   SCOTUS Grants Guantanamo Prisoners Habeas Corpus (http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=17492)

Aliantha 11-03-2008 11:04 PM

No

DanaC 11-05-2008 11:50 AM

I find myself agreeing with Merc :P not exactly unheard of, but not a right common event either :)

TheMercenary 11-05-2008 06:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DanaC (Post 501496)
I find myself agreeing with Merc :P not exactly unheard of, but not a right common event either :)

Keep hope alive. Yes we can.;)

DanaC 11-05-2008 06:13 PM

Yes we can!!

TheMercenary 11-16-2008 05:04 PM

How long do you think it will take for Obama to completely close Gitmo? Or do you think he can close it at all any time soon?

tw 11-16-2008 09:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMercenary (Post 504964)
How long do you think it will take for Obama to completely close Gitmo? Or do you think he can close it at all any time soon?

Since almost everyone in Gitmo was not guilty, transfers the few guilty ones should not take long. Transfer to the US where they would be if the president was an honest man. Why Guantanamo? Then we might have learned about the hundreds of innocent men held without any judicial review.

Stalin had gulags. Hitler had his concentration camps. George Jr had Gitmo.

TheMercenary 11-16-2008 09:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tw (Post 505043)
Since almost everyone in Gitmo was not guilty, transfers the few guilty ones should not take long.

Since you have no evidence to support that I will just have to ignore you.

On further note, Obama was quoted on 60 min tonight as saying he will close it. I am really happy. Now they need to send all those folks back home immediately. Only the most violent offenders need to be sent to a federal pen in the US.

tw 11-16-2008 10:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMercenary (Post 505051)
On further note, Obama was quoted on 60 min tonight as saying he will close it. I am really happy. Now they need to send all those folks back home immediately.

Where hundreds of Gitmo prisioners have been sent AND remain free. But that too is a fact probably never reported on Fox News.

classicman 11-16-2008 11:19 PM

I heard on the news that the problem is that many countries won't take them back. I'm not sure how true it is, but it was from an interview with a senator.

TheMercenary 11-17-2008 05:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by classicman (Post 505067)
I heard on the news that the problem is that many countries won't take them back. I'm not sure how true it is, but it was from an interview with a senator.

I would tell those countries, to bad. They will be on the next flight home. Cause we ain't keeping them any longer. Do what you want with them. That is not our problem.

classicman 11-17-2008 07:51 AM

If only it were that easy.

tw 11-17-2008 04:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMercenary (Post 505092)
I would tell those countries, to bad. They will be on the next flight home. Cause we ain't keeping them any longer. Do what you want with them. That is not our problem.

Imagine the movie. People routinely shuttled back and forth between countries, living most of the time on airplane, learning where to brush their teeth and take showers in airports. All because some wacko extremist politician lied and because the judicial system was subverted.

Let's see. What would any decent person then do? Become a terrorist - living in airports and on airplanes. Who would be the antagonist and protagonist?

classicman 11-19-2008 03:22 PM

How many are left there - Does anyone know? Are we talking thousands, hundreds...?

tw 11-19-2008 06:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by classicman (Post 505856)
How many are left there - Does anyone know? Are we talking thousands, hundreds...?

Ballpark numbers. We held about 800 prisoners in Guantanamo. At least 400 have recently been released. There may be 250 still imprisoned. Maybe 8 or 20 were dangerous.

Of course, we have created another problem. So many people held inhumanly and criminally by the US - we have now created new terrorists. Which ones? We have no idea. Once you start torturing people, then interrogators say nothing useful can be obtained. We probably do not even know how many terrorists - people inspired to hate Americans - we have created.

classicman 11-19-2008 08:17 PM

In that case just make them "disappear" - there, problem solved.

ZenGum 11-20-2008 05:03 AM

Err, Classic, do you want to add a ;) or a :p or something to that last post, or is that serious?

classicman 11-20-2008 07:42 AM

Yeh, I should have - too late now. Thats what I get for posting way past bedtime. Oh well. here it is now. ;)

ZenGum 11-20-2008 08:04 AM

Ahh, good, moderately right-wing I can get along with ... mass murder is a little more troubling.

classicman 11-20-2008 08:18 AM

Yeh, I'm not into the murder thing.

dar512 11-20-2008 04:55 PM

Judge orders release of 5 terror suspects at Gitmo
 
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...8QV3QD94IU4HO0

classicman 11-20-2008 08:24 PM

Quote:

The Bosnian government already has agreed to take back the detainees, all of whom immigrated there from Algeria before they were captured in 2001.
Put all six of them on the next plane out.

Quote:

The cases of more than 200 additional Guantanamo detainees are still pending, many in front of other judges in Washington's federal courthouse.
That answers my question from earlier regarding a rough figure of how many are still there.

ZenGum 11-21-2008 04:37 AM

The control order on David Hicks (the Australian who was held at X-ray) is soon lapsing. He is allowed to speak to the media, and soon will no longer have to report to police three times per week etc.

tw 11-21-2008 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZenGum (Post 506459)
He is allowed to speak to the media, and soon ...

A man that dangerous ... even his tongue can massacre Americans.

Meanwhile, last I read, the conditions in Guantanamo did such bad things to David Hicks that rumored suggest he cannot conduct a coherent conversation. We should be so proud that we destroyed another dangerous man.

TheMercenary 11-21-2008 11:08 PM

Sucks to be them, eh?

ZenGum 11-22-2008 04:15 AM

I think he was never terribly bright, but was able to read a statement for a youtube release competently. He was at the very most a very small pawn on the board.

TheMercenary 11-22-2008 06:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tw (Post 506697)
Meanwhile, last I read, the conditions in Guantanamo did such bad things to David Hicks that rumored suggest he cannot conduct a coherent conversation. We should be so proud that we destroyed another dangerous man.

You have no evidence that Hicks was damaged in such a manner by being at Gitmo. I guess he should have thought better of his conscious decision to go and fight the US.

ZenGum 11-22-2008 07:42 AM

Conscious decision to go and fight the US?????????

He was in Afghanistan on a "self-discovery" thing, and as a Muslim was living with a Muslim organisation, when September 11 happened and the US invaded.
I know of no evidence that he ever made a conscious decision to "go fight the US". Maybe you do, though. Wanna share it?

DanaC 11-22-2008 07:58 AM

But...but...surely he'd never have been put in Gitmo if there was no reason, right?

Undertoad 11-22-2008 08:48 AM

Oh yeah, they were all innocent Muslim tourists discovering Islam... they just happened to all choose the shittiest possible freezing cold ugly remote location, where there were lots of weapons, rocks and caves, and not so many elite mosques or troubling electricity or even roads to get where they were.

TheMercenary 11-22-2008 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZenGum (Post 506793)
Conscious decision to go and fight the US?????????

He was in Afghanistan on a "self-discovery" thing, and as a Muslim was living with a Muslim organisation, when September 11 happened and the US invaded.
I know of no evidence that he ever made a conscious decision to "go fight the US". Maybe you do, though. Wanna share it?

Lashkar-e-Toiba
On 11 November 1999, Hicks travelled to Pakistan to study Islam[13][19] and began training with Lashkar-e-Toiba in early 2000[20][21]

In the U.S. military commission charges presented in 2004, the U.S. accused Hicks of training at the Mosqua Aqsa camp in Pakistan, after which he "travelled to a border region between Pakistan-controlled Kashmir and Indian-controlled Kashmir, where he engaged in hostile action against Indian forces".[22]

In a March 2000 letter to his family, Hicks wrote:

don't ask what's happened, I can't be bothered explaining the outcome of these strange events has put me in Pakistan-Kashmir in a training camp. Three months training. After which it is my decision whether to cross the line of control into Indian occupied Kashmir.

In another letter on 10 August 2000, Hicks wrote from Kashmir claiming to have been a guest of Pakistan's army for two weeks at the front in the "controlled war" with India:

I got to fire hundreds of bullets. Most Muslim countries impose hanging for civilians arming themselves for conflict. There are not many countries in the world where a tourist, according to his visa, can go to stay with the army and shoot across the border at its enemy, legally.[23]

During this period, Hicks kept a notebook to document his training in weapon use, explosives and military tactics, in which he wrote that guerilla warfare involved "sacrifice for Allah". He took extensive notes on, and made sketches of, various weaponry mechanisms and attack strategies (including the Heckler & Koch submachine gun, the M16 assault rifle, RPG-7 grenade launcher, anti-tank rockets and VIP security infiltration).[24]

Letters to his family detailed his training:

I learnt about weapons such as ballistic missiles, surface to surface and shoulder fired missiles, anti aircraft and anti-tank rockets, rapid fire heavy and light machine guns, pistols, AK47s, mines and explosives. After three months everybody leaves capable and war-ready being able to use all of these weapons capably and responsibly. I am now very well trained for jihad in weapons some serious like anti-aircraft missiles.[25]

In January 2001, Hicks was provided with funding and an introduction letter from Lashkar-e-Toiba. He then travelled to Afghanistan to attend training at Al-Qaeda camps.[22]


[edit] Afghanistan
Upon arrival in Afghanistan, Hicks went to an al-Qaeda guest house where he met Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, a high ranking al Qaeda member. He turned over his passport and indicated to them that he would use the alias "Muhammad Dawood".[22] Hicks allegedly "attended a number of al-Qaeda training courses at various camps around Afghanistan, learning guerilla warfare, weapons training, including landmines, kidnapping techniques and assassination methods.[21] He also allegedly participated in an advanced course on surveillance, in which he conducted surveillance of the U.S. and British embassies in Kabul, Afghanistan." On one occasion when al-Qaeda founder Osama bin Laden visited an Afghan camp, Hicks questioned bin Laden about the lack of English in training material and subsequently "began to translate the training camp materials from Arabic to English".[21] Hicks wrote home that he'd met Osama bin Laden 20 times but later told investigators he had exaggerated, that he had seen bin Laden about eight times and spoken to him only once.

There are a lot of Muslims who want to meet Osama Bin Laden but after being a Muslim for 16 months I get to meet him.[25]

Prosecutors also allege Hicks was interviewed by Muhammad Atef, an al-Qaeda military commander, about his background and "the travel habits of Australians". In a memoir that was later repudiated by its author, Guantanamo detainee Feroz Abbasi claimed Hicks was "Al-Qaedah's 24 [carat] Golden Boy" and "obviously the favourite recruit" of their al-Qaeda trainers during exercises at the al-Farouq camp near Kandahar. The memoir made a number of claims, including that Hicks was teamed in the training camp with Filipino recruits from the Moro Islamic Liberation Front and that during internment in Camp X-Ray. Hicks described his desire to "go back to Australia and rob and kill Jews... crash a plane into a building", and to "go out with that last big adrenalin rush"..[26]

On 9 September 2001, Hicks travelled from Afghanistan to Pakistan to visit a friend.[10] A US Department of Defense statement claimed that, "viewing TV news coverage in Pakistan of the September 11, 2001 attacks against the United States" led Hicks to return to Afghanistan to "rejoin his al-Qaeda associates to fight against U.S., British, Canadian, Australian, Afghan, and other coalition forces".[21][13] Hicks arrived in the southern Afghan city of Kandahar where he reported to Saif al Adel, who was assigning individuals to locations, and "armed himself with an AK-47 automatic rifle, ammunition, and grenades to fight against coalition forces". Hicks was given a choice of three locations and chose to join a group of al-Qaeda fighters defending the Kandahar airport. After Coalition bombing commenced in October 2001, Hicks began guarding a Taliban tank position outside the airport. After guarding the tank for a week Hicks, with an LET acquaintance, traveled closer to the battle front in Kunduz where he joined others including John Walker Lindh.[22][21]

Colonel Morris Davis, chief prosecutor for the US office of Military Commissions said "He eventually left Afghanistan and it's my understanding was heading back to Australia when 9/11 happened. When he heard about 9/11, he said it was a good thing (and) he went back to the battlefield, back to Afghanistan, and reported in to the senior leadership of al-Qaeda and basically said, 'I'm David Hicks and I'm reporting for duty'". Davis also compared Hicks' alleged actions to that of those who carried out terrorist attacks such as Bali, the London and Madrid bombings and the Beslan school siege.[27]

Terry Hicks, however, claimed that his son seemed at first unaware, then skeptical, of the September 11 attacks when they spoke on a mobile phone in early November 2001. He also noted David Hicks commented about "going off to Kabul to defend it against the Northern Alliance".[28][12]

In October and November 2001 Hicks wrote multiple letters to his mother Sue King back in Australia. He asked that replies were to be directed to Abu Muslim Australia, a pseudonym he used to circumvent non-Muslim spies he believed intercepted correspondence. In these letters he detailed the validity of Jihad and his own prospect of "martyrdom".

As a Muslim young and fit my responsibility is to protect my brothers from aggressive non-believers and not let them destroy it. Islam will rule again but for now we must have patience we are asked to sacrifice our lives for Allahs cause why not? There are many privileges in heaven. It is not just war it is jihad. One reward I get in being martyred I get to take ten members of my family to heaven who were destined for hell, but first I also must be martyred. We are all going to die one day so why not be martyred?[25]

In November 2005, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation program Four Corners broadcast for the first time a transcript of an interview with Hicks, conducted by the Australian Federal Police (AFP) in 2002 and other material including a report that Hicks had signed a statement written by American military investigators stating that he had trained with al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, learning guerrilla tactics and urban warfare.[13] The program also reported that Hicks had met Osama bin Laden. That he claimed to have disapproved of the September 11 attacks but to have been unable to leave Afghanistan. He denied engaging in any actual fighting against US or allied forces.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hicks

tw 11-23-2008 12:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMercenary (Post 506792)
You have no evidence that Hicks was damaged in such a manner by being at Gitmo.

Statements attiributed to people who know Hicks easily trump your post based in zero facts and no knowledge.

xoxoxoBruce 11-23-2008 02:45 AM

But the people that know Hicks, don't know if he was damaged when he got there. They hadn't seen him in a long time and he'd been through a lot.

DanaC 11-23-2008 06:52 AM

Actually, that's a good point Bruce.

Though, having heard some of the stories that have come out from people who've left Gitmo (particularly the three lads from Tipton and the Manchester lad) I am inclined to think that the prisoners have been treated appallingly.

TheMercenary 11-23-2008 07:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DanaC (Post 507066)
Actually, that's a good point Bruce.

Though, having heard some of the stories that have come out from people who've left Gitmo (particularly the three lads from Tipton and the Manchester lad) I am inclined to think that the prisoners have been treated appallingly.

Solitary will do strange things to people. It does not mean they were tortured or physically harmed. Sucks to be those guys who got caught up in the dragnet. Others should probably stay til death, but given the state of affairs I would even release those to their host countries whether they wanted them or not.

xoxoxoBruce 11-23-2008 07:42 AM

Host countries or home countries?

TheMercenary 11-23-2008 07:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce (Post 507082)
Host countries or home countries?

Thank you, home countries.

xoxoxoBruce 11-23-2008 07:46 AM

OK, where they came from and not where they were caught. At least for the ones that it's not the same.

TheMercenary 11-23-2008 07:55 AM

Correct, I would send them back to their home countries and let the government do with them as they pleased.

Aliantha 11-23-2008 03:27 PM

I think they should all be sent back to their home countries.

I'm glad Hicks was sent home. He's been a free man for almost a year now and hasn't blown anything up yet. After being held for such a long time with no charges laid and then bullshit ones laid in the end, it's no wonder he went a bit nuts...just like all the others in Gitmo. I'd be inclined to say most of them are probably more dangerous coming out than they were going in. They certainly have more reason to hate America after the experience.

xoxoxoBruce 11-23-2008 03:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aliantha (Post 507192)
I'd be inclined to say most of them are probably more dangerous coming out than they were going in.

Right... kill 'em.

Aliantha 11-23-2008 04:00 PM

Yeah well, I'm sure there are plenty who'd support that notion.

I wouldn't though, not that it matters, even if the prisoners are Australian citizens.

ZenGum 11-23-2008 05:57 PM

The problem with sending them back to their home countries is that those countries are often far less squeamish about using torture than the USA. Prolonged solitary confinement and waterboarding are kid's stuff compared to what goes on in some places.

I'll be very curious to see what happens to any repatriatees after they are sent home (and whether any start begging to be let back into Guantanamo Bay!)

TheMercenary 11-23-2008 08:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZenGum (Post 507246)
The problem with sending them back to their home countries is that those countries are often far less squeamish about using torture than the USA. Prolonged solitary confinement and waterboarding are kid's stuff compared to what goes on in some places.

I'll be very curious to see what happens to any repatriatees after they are sent home (and whether any start begging to be let back into Guantanamo Bay!)

To bad... so sad. Tough shit. You can't have it both ways. I say we pass them off and make them some one else's problem and then judge them like the US has been judged on how they deal with them. Personally I can't wait....

classicman 11-23-2008 09:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZenGum (Post 507246)
I'll be very curious to see what happens to any repatriatees after they are sent home (and whether any start begging to be let back into Guantanamo Bay!)

We'll never know. If they do anything to them not only are they not afraid to do much worse than waterboarding, but they won't tell anyone about it either. Those repatriotees will vanish.

TheMercenary 11-23-2008 09:29 PM

Seriously. You bleeding hearts want to end GITMO, fine, most of us fully support it. Just don't whine when these guys have their heads chopped off as they get off the airplane when they get home. That blood will be on your hands. I welcome the chance to say I told you so.

classicman 11-23-2008 09:50 PM

Would you prefer the situation remain as it is? Should we keep it open indefinitely? At what cost, both politically and financially? The current situation is untenable - something has to change. what???

TheMercenary 11-23-2008 10:02 PM

Close it. Immediately and send them all home but for the few bad guys whom are known to be such. The rest go free. Put them up in Pico's house for good measure and to show them good faith.

Aliantha 11-24-2008 12:21 AM

Oh here you are anyway.

It's like deja vous

dar512 11-25-2008 06:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMercenary (Post 507345)
Seriously. You bleeding hearts want to end GITMO, fine, most of us fully support it. Just don't whine when these guys have their heads chopped off as they get off the airplane when they get home. That blood will be on your hands. I welcome the chance to say I told you so.

Seems like you've been doing most of the talking about sending them home, so why isn't the blood on your hands?

All I ever promoted was a fair trial in a fair amount of time without being mistreated in the meantime.

We grabbed these people and that means we now have the responsibility of doing the right thing by them. For some I assume that means incarceration. For others that would mean sending them home. For still others, it would mean letting them find a host country.

Just because you're tired of the situation doesn't mean that you get to make a bulk decision for individuals.

Oh, and the last I checked my heart is just fine.

TheMercenary 11-25-2008 09:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dar512 (Post 508240)
Seems like you've been doing most of the talking about sending them home, so why isn't the blood on your hands?

Now that is funny as hell...



Quote:

All I ever promoted was a fair trial in a fair amount of time without being mistreated in the meantime.

We grabbed these people and that means we now have the responsibility of doing the right thing by them. For some I assume that means incarceration. For others that would mean sending them home. For still others, it would mean letting them find a host country.

Just because you're tired of the situation doesn't mean that you get to make a bulk decision for individuals.

Oh, and the last I checked my heart is just fine.
I see bleeding... You can't have it both ways.

dar512 11-25-2008 10:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMercenary (Post 508316)
I see bleeding... You can't have it both ways.

I see. fairness = bleeding. Will there be a ministry of peace, soon?

DanaC 11-26-2008 04:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dar512 (Post 508240)
We grabbed these people and that means we now have the responsibility of doing the right thing by them. For some I assume that means incarceration. For others that would mean sending them home. For still others, it would mean letting them find a host country.

...

Just because you're tired of the situation doesn't mean that you get to make a bulk decision for individuals.

Well said.

TheMercenary 11-26-2008 08:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dar512 (Post 508333)
I see. fairness = bleeding. Will there be a ministry of peace, soon?

Fairness? Where? I see a majority of people caught up in a dragnet and mix in with a few very bad actors. Let the mass go home, put the few bad actors in prison for life after the tribunals. So far they have done a pretty good job.

classicman 12-31-2009 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMercenary (Post 507372)
send them all home but for the few bad guys whom are known to be such. The rest go free.

Free to do as they please . . .
Quote:

SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico – As a prisoner at Guantanamo, Said Ali al-Shihri said he wanted freedom so he could go home to Saudi Arabia and work at his family's furniture store.

Instead, al-Shihri, who was released in 2007 under the Bush administration, is now deputy leader of al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula, a group that has claimed responsibility for the Christmas Day attempted bomb attack on a Detroit-bound airliner.

His potential involvement in the terrorist plot has raised new opposition to releasing Guantanamo Bay inmates, complicating President Barack Obama's pledge to close the military prison in Cuba. It also highlights the challenge of identifying the hard-core militants as the administration decides what to do with the remaining 198 prisoners.

Like other former Guantanamo detainees who have rejoined al-Qaida in Yemen, al-Shihri, 36, won his release despite jihadist credentials such as, in his case, urban warfare training in Afghanistan.

He later goaded the United States, saying Guantanamo only strengthened his anti-American convictions.

"By God, our imprisonment has only increased our persistence and adherence to our principles," he said in a speech when al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula formed in Yemen in January 2009. It was included in a propaganda film for the group.
Link

I'm not picking on anyone here, but I'm still concerned about how many of these situations we are gonna have. Should this guy have gone free? Was his time spent there a contributing factor?
Were/are their options? There is only one know to me - This situation sux.

TheMercenary 12-31-2009 02:35 PM

Well people wanted it closed... this is only the beginning.

classicman 12-31-2009 02:50 PM

Quote:

al-Shihri, who was released in 2007

TheMercenary 12-31-2009 03:17 PM

Only the beginning...

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009...ned-terrorism/


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:29 AM.

Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.