Ex-Gitmo prisoner carries out suicide attack

[UConn James]

Link.

 

The U.S. transferred al-Ajmi to Kuwaiti custody from Guantanamo in 2005. A Kuwaiti court later acquitted him of terrorism charges.

 

Beautiful. I don't think this is the first time, either. People shout to "Close Gitmo!!" and indeed this is something all of the candidates have pledged to do. But meanwhile, back in reality, this is what happens when these people get out or are handed off to other countries' jurisdiction. Those people are there for a reason, and I sleep a little better knowing they're surrounded by chain-link, military guards and 90 miles of shark-infested waters. I can only imagine that somewhere, almost two years gone, BiB is doing this .

 

(Then again, this isn't such a surprise for a country that can't seem to learn to keep Level-3 diddlers off the streets. The judges and lawyers like the repeat business; it makes them seem important and keeps them in a $200K job.)

[GG]

Link.

 

 

 

Beautiful. I don't think this is the first time, either. People shout to "Close Gitmo!!" and indeed this is something all of the candidates have pledged to do. But meanwhile, back in reality, this is what happens when these people get out or are handed off to other countries' jurisdiction. Those people are there for a reason, and I sleep a little better knowing they're surrounded by chain-link, military guards and 90 miles of shark-infested waters. I can only imagine that somewhere, almost two years gone, BiB is doing this .

 

(Then again, this isn't such a surprise for a country that can't seem to learn to keep Level-3 diddlers off the streets. The judges and lawyers like the repeat business; it makes them seem important and keeps them in a $200K job.)

 

Move along, nothing to see here.

[IDBillzFan]

Did nobody die in the attack? So the guy wasn't just a terrorist, but an incompetent terrorist?

[Peter]

Valid point to a certain extent.

 

On the other hand, how many of these guys have we let go after holding them for several years when it became clear that there was no reason to hold them in the first instance?

 

Kristof on Gitmo

[John Adams]

Did nobody die in the attack? So the guy wasn't just a terrorist, but an incompetent terrorist?

 

Like McCain was a bad soldier because he got caught.

[Sketch Soland]

So!

 

Blatant violation of human civil liberties [i.e. Gitmo] is acceptable because:

 

1) It can not be said that 100% of the people who have ever been in Gitmo and/or released from Gitmo have never committed a crime of a terrorist nature after said time in Gitmo.

 

and

 

2) I will sleep better at night.

 

If you're going to advocate the blatant violation of human civil liberties, at least you have two real "slam dunk" reasons like these to fall back on when the rest of the justifications fall by the wayside.

[Alaska Darin]

I fail to see how giving terrorists more reason to recruit is good policy.

 

Gitmo is a BAD idea. When you hold yourself up champion of freedom, it's more than a little hypocritical to lock people up for years without charges or due process.

[John Adams]

I fail to see how giving terrorists more reason to recruit is good policy.

 

Gitmo is a BAD idea. When you hold yourself up champion of freedom, it's more than a little hypocritical to lock people up for years without charges or due process.

 

Yup. That's the issue. We are the good guys and have to hold ourselves to a higher standard.

[Peter]

I fail to see how giving terrorists more reason to recruit is good policy.

 

Gitmo is a BAD idea. When you hold yourself up champion of freedom, it's more than a little hypocritical to lock people up for years without charges or due process.

 

Very well said.

 

A lot of people seem to forget (or do not realize) that freedom, individual rights etc. are "conservative" principles. That is one of the reasons (among others) why I do not consider King George to be a conservative.

[Sketch Soland]

Yup. That's the issue. We are the good guys and have to hold ourselves to a higher standard.

 

Why do we need the "good guy" label? It just gets in the way of the need to be constantly vigilant about how we act as a country. When one thinks of one's self as "the good guy", one can often become complacent, thinking that as "the good guy" the "bad guys" or "everyone else" must/should always fall in line, no matter what, because who in their right minds would go against "the good guys"?

 

Unfortunately, "good guys" and "bad guys" is an almost moronic, simpleton mode of formulating the world and the people/states that inhabit it. The focus of such a schema is on one's ego sense ("I am the good guy, thus you all should do or conform to.....") rather than on vigilant action ("I do good and affirm my goodness by my next act of goodness, thereby setting an example.....").

[UConn James]

I fail to see how giving terrorists more reason to recruit is good policy.

 

Gitmo is a BAD idea. When you hold yourself up champion of freedom, it's more than a little hypocritical to lock people up for years without charges or due process.

 

If feasible and conducted before a military court as enemy combatants, I would support due process and proper ajudication. If they're there wrongly, it should be rectified. Problem is that there are plenty of vocal people who want them charged in civilian courts with virtually the same rights as citizens. The Moussaoui trial is not something we need to be replicating.

 

The question becomes, if not at Gitmo, where does all this happen? Where will the trials be held? Where will convicted terrorists be held (I patently refuse to support anything with them setting foot in mainland US)? For how long? Will the names of those places not also become terrorist recruiting tools?

 

I question that it's necessarily such a big 'recruiting tool.' People who become terrorists will find some excuse or other to validate their jihad, and what of it that this is one? Are we to blow up the Statue of Liberty b/c the concept of liberty and religious/political freedom is the No. 1 recruiting tool?

 

'Good' and 'Bad' are words. At what point do we need to stop apologizing for taking necessary steps to protect ourselves?

[John Adams]

The Moussaoui trial is not something we need to be replicating.

 

The question becomes, if not at Gitmo, where does all this happen? Where will the trials be held? Where will convicted terrorists be held (I patently refuse to support anything with them setting foot in mainland US)? For how long? Will the names of those places not also become terrorist recruiting tools?

 

 

'Good' and 'Bad' are words. At what point do we need to stop apologizing for taking necessary steps to protect ourselves?

 

Tom makes a good point, over and again. Our way of life comes at a price. The very freedom that makes us leaves us somewhat vulnerable to attack. I'd rather live like that than the other: more gov't control and less freedom. That's me.

 

If everyone in Gitmo had gotten a trial, no problem. But the problem is that many people, including American citizens, are being/have been held without trial. That's a big issue.

[erynthered]

Speaking of Gitmo............Check out the slide show too. Go Terrorism!!!

[Sketch Soland]

'Good' and 'Bad' are words.

 

Yes, I agree.

 

At what point do we need to stop apologizing for taking necessary steps to protect ourselves?

 

At what point does "do what we say, not what we do" become even more absurd than it already is?

 

If we routinely violate the rights of HUMAN BEINGS, how can we expect anyone else to hold themselves to the standard that we preach but don't practice?

[Sketch Soland]

Tom makes a good point, over and again. Our way of life comes at a price. The very freedom that makes us leaves us somewhat vulnerable to attack. I'd rather live like that than the other: more gov't control and less freedom. That's me.

 

If everyone in Gitmo had gotten a trial, no problem. But the problem is that many people, including American citizens, are being/have been held without trial. That's a big issue.

 

Don't look now, Adams, but I think we agree on something, you wascally wabbit!

[Steely Dan]

Link.

 

 

 

Beautiful. I don't think this is the first time, either. People shout to "Close Gitmo!!" and indeed this is something all of the candidates have pledged to do. But meanwhile, back in reality, this is what happens when these people get out or are handed off to other countries' jurisdiction. Those people are there for a reason, and I sleep a little better knowing they're surrounded by chain-link, military guards and 90 miles of shark-infested waters. I can only imagine that somewhere, almost two years gone, BiB is doing this .

 

(Then again, this isn't such a surprise for a country that can't seem to learn to keep Level-3 diddlers off the streets. The judges and lawyers like the repeat business; it makes them seem important and keeps them in a $200K job.)

 

 

 

So!

 

Blatant violation of human civil liberties [i.e. Gitmo] is acceptable because:

 

1) It can not be said that 100% of the people who have ever been in Gitmo and/or released from Gitmo have never committed a crime of a terrorist nature after said time in Gitmo.

 

and

 

2) I will sleep better at night.

 

If you're going to advocate the blatant violation of human civil liberties, at least you have two real "slam dunk" reasons like these to fall back on when the rest of the justifications fall by the wayside.

 

 

 

I fail to see how giving terrorists more reason to recruit is good policy.

 

Gitmo is a BAD idea. When you hold yourself up champion of freedom, it's more than a little hypocritical to lock people up for years without charges or due process.

 

Man I've agreed with AD twice in the last couple of months. Good to see he's coming around to my way of thinking!

 

 

If feasible and conducted before a military court as enemy combatants, I would support due process and proper ajudication. If they're there wrongly, it should be rectified. Problem is that there are plenty of vocal people who want them charged in civilian courts with virtually the same rights as citizens. The Moussaoui trial is not something we need to be replicating.

 

The question becomes, if not at Gitmo, where does all this happen? Where will the trials be held? Where will convicted terrorists be held (I patently refuse to support anything with them setting foot in mainland US)? For how long? Will the names of those places not also become terrorist recruiting tools?

 

I question that it's necessarily such a big 'recruiting tool.' People who become terrorists will find some excuse or other to validate their jihad, and what of it that this is one? Are we to blow up the Statue of Liberty b/c the concept of liberty and religious/political freedom is the No. 1 recruiting tool?

 

'Good' and 'Bad' are words. At what point do we need to stop apologizing for taking necessary steps to protect ourselves?

 

The terrorists don't hate us for our freedom. They hate us because we're there.

 

Tom makes a good point, over and again. Our way of life comes at a price. The very freedom that makes us leaves us somewhat vulnerable to attack. I'd rather live like that than the other: more gov't control and less freedom. That's me.

 

If everyone in Gitmo had gotten a trial, no problem. But the problem is that many people, including American citizens, are being/have been held without trial. That's a big issue.

 

Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.

Benjamin Franklin

 

Yes, I agree.

 

 

 

At what point does "do what we say, not what we do" become even more absurd than it already is?

 

If we routinely violate the rights of HUMAN BEINGS, how can we expect anyone else to hold themselves to the standard that we preach but don't practice?

 

 

The only trials offered by the U.S. to Gitmo prisoner's were trials if they would agree to plead guilty.

[yall]

The terrorists don't hate us for our freedom. They hate us because we're there.

 

If you are going to view the "they hate us because of our freedom line is simplistic" approach, the same can easily be said for your response.

 

Radical Islam and it's desire to subjugate has been around a lot longer than the US. To say their hatred is fueled only by our presence in the ME ignores history and the nature of their religion and it's intolerance of other ways of life and belief systems.

 

 

Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.

Benjamin Franklin

 

 

It's a nice quote, but I wonder how BF (not BlueFire )would have felt in the age of nukes and suicide bombers? I have a feeling there might be a caveat or two there.

 

I'm not advocating trouncing all over human rights, but try to look at the situation with a bit more objectivity. AFAIK, the population at Gitmo consists of what are essentially POW's. The unfortunate part is, we can't just let them go, back to their places of origin as the bulk of them will simply seek to reorganize and continue to attack innocent people who don't agree with their interpretation of Islam. You let POW's go home when the war is over and one side has won. That simply hasn't happened yet, and it may never happen. But how do you give them a trial? Of what crimes are they guilty other than being enormous douches that will most likely attempt to kill people if they are released? I just don't see a good solution. If there are genuinely detainees who are there with no just cause, everything should be done to send them home. But ferreting those out wont happen overnight.

 

As a side note, my best friend is a guard at Gitmo. He has always been pretty liberal, both socially and politically. His take on the situation is that every single person they have there is a killer. They will do everything they can to inflict harm upon any human being that doesn't share their POV.

 

Edit: Also regarding the articles claiming prisoner abuse - again, according to a person who I consider a best friend, it's utter BS.

 

He claims the prisoners are treated with kid gloves and are not beaten or mistreated. Yeah, they are still prisoners and that no doubt is awful, but these stories of beatings sound like complete nonsense, and are more likely propaganda after listening to his first hand accounts. He has been there almost a full year, so perhaps things have greatly changed, but again, according to a guard with first hand experience, the abuse allegations are nonsense.

[blzrul]

It's not unusual for someone to enter a prison either as an innocent man/woman, or as a petty criminal, only to emerge a REAL criminal, and commit REAL criminal acts.

 

What we're learning is that a number of these people at Gitmo who were held for years had absolutely NO ties to terror. I'd imagine if someone took me prisoner for no reason and held me for 5 years (leaving aside the question of torture), I would probably emerge hating them and wanting to exact a toll on them. I personally don't think I'd actually do anything, but you just never know.

 

I don't know if that's the case with this guy. But I wouldn't bet MY life that Gitmo, or the threat of Gitmo, would dissuade anyone already leaning toward terrorism. Anyone who thinks that clearly is not understanding what creates and drives a terrorist.

[Alaska Darin]

If feasible and conducted before a military court as enemy combatants, I would support due process and proper ajudication. If they're there wrongly, it should be rectified. Problem is that there are plenty of vocal people who want them charged in civilian courts with virtually the same rights as citizens. The Moussaoui trial is not something we need to be replicating.

 

The question becomes, if not at Gitmo, where does all this happen? Where will the trials be held? Where will convicted terrorists be held (I patently refuse to support anything with them setting foot in mainland US)? For how long? Will the names of those places not also become terrorist recruiting tools?

My issue is not with it being in Guantanamo Bay. My issue is holding people for years without charging them and giving them their day in ANY court. That IS NOT what America is all about, regardless of the WHY these people are being held.

 

I question that it's necessarily such a big 'recruiting tool.' People who become terrorists will find some excuse or other to validate their jihad, and what of it that this is one? Are we to blow up the Statue of Liberty b/c the concept of liberty and religious/political freedom is the No. 1 recruiting tool?

I don't see the correlation. We're taking these people's lives away from them, for a really long time. Each of them has a family and community at home that we're basically telling to "fug off" because they're not important. That's not a very smart idea, PERIOD.

'Good' and 'Bad' are words. At what point do we need to stop apologizing for taking necessary steps to protect ourselves?

We're not protecting ourselves. We're continuing the same silly pattern that gives credence to this crap in the first place. We'll win the war on drugs before we win the war on terrorism.

[Wacka]

Speaking of Gitmo............Check out the slide show too. Go Terrorism!!!

 

Looks bigger and nicer than some NYC "apartments".