letter from a Gitmo prisoner

[aidanjm]

Letter

Letter from someone who has been imprisoned since 2002. The odd thing is he is quite pro-American, despite the torture/ abuse. Very sad. What on earth is the point of behaving like this? (locking up harmless people, and keeping them locked up possibly forever)

Interesting article on Dumbya's apparent quest for absolute power:

"But it has finally become clear that the goal of these foolish efforts isn't really to win the war against terrorism; indeed, nothing about Padilla, Guantanamo, or signing statements moves the country an inch closer to eradicating terror. The object is a larger one, and the original overarching goal of this administration: expanding executive power, for its own sake."

What is it all for?

 

[DealMonkey]

Exactly. Cheney and Bush have seized more executive power and are now unable to cede any ground on issues like warantless wiretapping, indefinite detention without trial, Guantanamo, etc. If they did cede ground, so would they cede that power as well.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Exactly. Cheney and Bush have seized more executive power and are now unable to cede any ground on issues like warantless wiretapping, indefinite detention without trial, Guantanamo, etc. If they did cede ground, so would they cede that power as well.

umm, you guys DO realize that there is an election every four years in the US, right? So if accumulating power was their only goal, don't you think those pesky little elections would get in the way? After all, if the executive branch gathers too much power, said power is transfered to the opposite party the moment the opposite party wins the white house.

duh.

you tinfoil-hat types are always good for a laugh!

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Exactly. Cheney and Bush have seized more executive power and are now unable to cede any ground on issues like warantless wiretapping, indefinite detention without trial, Guantanamo, etc. If they did cede ground, so would they cede that power as well.

umm, you guys DO realize that there is an election every four years in the US, right? So if accumulating power was their only goal, don't you think those pesky little elections would get in the way? After all, if the executive branch gathers too much power, said power is transfered to the opposite party the moment the opposite party wins the white house.

duh.

you tinfoil-hat types are always good for a laugh!

I think you are making three assumptions.

1. That we think any executive (rep or dem) should have that much power (which I don't)

2. That we trust either one more with that power

3. That one wouldn't give back the power

I personally don't think any executive should have that power because it attracts the wrong people. Does absolute power corrupt, or does it attract the corruptable? I think it's a combination of both and that is the reason why there are checks and balances, however, escaping those, as this administration has done, is bad no matter what party is in control of the executive.

Finally, you have the assumption that nobody would give the power back. Considering that the all-powerful executive had it's roots in the Nixon administration, where many of the highest neocons got their start, the continue that tradition in the current admin. However, after Nixon's fall, they were somewhat thwarted and it has taken them years to get back to square 1, where they were in 2000. Now they have built it up again, reaching and exceeding Nixonian control and they are fighting to keep it that way. They took a much more balanced approach, locking in Congress, trying to lock in the Judicial, and locking in the executive. Had they been able to maintain control over Congress for another 2 years they might have sealed the deal on the Judicial and had complete control over the government.

Conspiracy? Tin foil? I don't think so, the pattern of power grab is evident and plethoric and it has it's roots in the same individuals in power now. They failed once and are trying again. Say what you want, but it's enough evidence for me.

As I always ask people who don't believe me; if 1776 had to happen today, again, if we had to get rid of an dictator/king/authoritarian figure who became so currupt that democracy couldn't effectively work, could we? Could we raise our own army, use our own currency, conspire as a people to overthrow a vile and non-representative government? Could we do what Washington and the Continental Congress did to gain independance for the people so that an effective Democracy could once again flourish?

No, we have given up too much at this point. A new 1776 would fail, it's leaders found through warrantless wiretaps, email, bank records, and such. They would be imprisoned as terrorists and the surrounding patriots burned at the stake as terrorists.

The experiment of the Rule of the People has failed.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Exactly. Cheney and Bush have seized more executive power and are now unable to cede any ground on issues like warantless wiretapping, indefinite detention without trial, Guantanamo, etc. If they did cede ground, so would they cede that power as well.

umm, you guys DO realize that there is an election every four years in the US, right? So if accumulating power was their only goal, don't you think those pesky little elections would get in the way? After all, if the executive branch gathers too much power, said power is transfered to the opposite party the moment the opposite party wins the white house.

duh.

you tinfoil-hat types are always good for a laugh!

To gather enough power and influence to void a future election and declare himself President For Life. What would you expect of a grandson of a Nazi sympathizer?

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: WHAMPOM

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Exactly. Cheney and Bush have seized more executive power and are now unable to cede any ground on issues like warantless wiretapping, indefinite detention without trial, Guantanamo, etc. If they did cede ground, so would they cede that power as well.

umm, you guys DO realize that there is an election every four years in the US, right? So if accumulating power was their only goal, don't you think those pesky little elections would get in the way? After all, if the executive branch gathers too much power, said power is transfered to the opposite party the moment the opposite party wins the white house.

duh.

you tinfoil-hat types are always good for a laugh!

To gather enough power and influence to void a future election and declare himself President For Life. What would you expect of a grandson of a Nazi sympathizer?

uhh, like I said, this entire theory thrives on copious amounts of tinfoil. voiding elections and "President for Life"? Where do you get this sh*t?!

 

[ProfJohn]

Gee it?s a shame that this nice guy is sitting in a prison huh? I mean he just tried to recruit people for al Qaeda, a charge he denies of course.

But he does admit to traveling to Buffalo and giving a ?fiery speech? Buffalo is interesting because that is where the Lackawanna Six happen to come from. They too talk about this ?fiery speech? All six members of the Buffalo group pled guilty to charges of "providing support or resources to a foreign terrorist organization

It seems that these men where the ones who pointed the finger at the wonderful Mr. Al Dossary. It is believed that Al Dossary may have helped pay for the six members to travel to Pakistan and Afghanistan for their terrorist training.

Aidanjm you seem to forget, or willingly overlook, the fact that the war against terror is as much psychological and publicity oriented as it is violently oriented. We know for a fact that the guys who committed suicide did so in order to advance their cause, remember they believe they go to heaven for such actions. This guy would write a leter saying he believed in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny if he thought it would further his cause.

If this guy did in fact commit a crime then he should stand trail for that crime. But anyone following this in news knows what a mess that has been. He is not an American and he was picked up in a foreign country. So I don?t think we drag him to the local court and charge him with a crime. That is what the whole bit with military tribunals is about. The government is working on away to try people like this in a legal manner. Until then he will sit in his little cell and wait.

BTW: Aidanjm, how do YOU think we should deal with people like this who incite violence against Americans? I see you are from Australia, tell me how many Aussies were killed in the Bali bombings? You do know that the man considered to be the leader of the group that carried out that attack is also in Gitmo? Riduan Isamuddin, look him up on Wikipedia, nice guy.

Here is what one of Isamuddin?s buddies had to say after being released from jail after serving 25 months in answer to one reporter's question as to what the West and the United States can do to make the world safer, Bashir replied,

"They have to stop fighting Islam. That's impossible because it is sunnatullah [destiny, a law of nature], as Allah has said in the Koran. If they want to have peace, they have to accept to be governed by Islam."

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: WHAMPOM

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Exactly. Cheney and Bush have seized more executive power and are now unable to cede any ground on issues like warantless wiretapping, indefinite detention without trial, Guantanamo, etc. If they did cede ground, so would they cede that power as well.

umm, you guys DO realize that there is an election every four years in the US, right? So if accumulating power was their only goal, don't you think those pesky little elections would get in the way? After all, if the executive branch gathers too much power, said power is transfered to the opposite party the moment the opposite party wins the white house.

duh.

you tinfoil-hat types are always good for a laugh!

To gather enough power and influence to void a future election and declare himself President For Life. What would you expect of a grandson of a Nazi sympathizer?

Are you talking about Bush or one of the Kennedy clan?
In case you don?t know it Joe Kennedy was also a Nazi supporter.

As fiercely anti-Communist as they were anti-Semitic, Kennedy and Astor looked upon Adolf Hitler as a welcome solution to both of these "world problems" (Nancy's phrase). No member of the so-called "Cliveden Set" (the informal cabal of appeasers who met frequently at Nancy Astor's palatial home) seemed much concerned with the dilemma faced by Jews under the Reich. Astor wrote Kennedy that Hitler would have to do more than just "give a rough time" to "the killers of Christ" before she'd be in favor of launching "Armageddon to save them. The wheel of history swings round as the Lord would have it. Who are we to stand in the way of the future?" Kennedy replied that he expected the "Jew media" in the United States to become a problem, that "Jewish pundits in New York and Los Angeles" were already making noises contrived to "set a match to the fuse of the world."

 

[Pens1566]

Nice to see that the Lackawanna six is viewed as a legit terror threat. Sort of confirms everyones opinions on your credibility "Prof".

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Gee it?s a shame that this nice guy is sitting in a prison huh? I mean he just tried to recruit people for al Qaeda, a charge he denies of course.

But he does admit to traveling to Buffalo and giving a ?fiery speech? Buffalo is interesting because that is where the Lackawanna Six happen to come from. They too talk about this ?fiery speech? All six members of the Buffalo group pled guilty to charges of "providing support or resources to a foreign terrorist organization

It seems that these men where the ones who pointed the finger at the wonderful Mr. Al Dossary. It is believed that Al Dossary may have helped pay for the six members to travel to Pakistan and Afghanistan for their terrorist training.

Aidanjm you seem to forget, or willingly overlook, the fact that the war against terror is as much psychological and publicity oriented as it is violently oriented. We know for a fact that the guys who committed suicide did so in order to advance their cause, remember they believe they go to heaven for such actions. This guy would write a leter saying he believed in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny if he thought it would further his cause.

If this guy did in fact commit a crime then he should stand trail for that crime. But anyone following this in news knows what a mess that has been. He is not an American and he was picked up in a foreign country. So I don?t think we drag him to the local court and charge him with a crime. That is what the whole bit with military tribunals is about. The government is working on away to try people like this in a legal manner. Until then he will sit in his little cell and wait.

BTW: Aidanjm, how do YOU think we should deal with people like this who incite violence against Americans? I see you are from Australia, tell me how many Aussies were killed in the Bali bombings? You do know that the man considered to be the leader of the group that carried out that attack is also in Gitmo? Riduan Isamuddin, look him up on Wikipedia, nice guy.

Here is what one of Isamuddin?s buddies had to say after being released from jail after serving 25 months in answer to one reporter's question as to what the West and the United States can do to make the world safer, Bashir replied,

"They have to stop fighting Islam. That's impossible because it is sunnatullah [destiny, a law of nature], as Allah has said in the Koran. If they want to have peace, they have to accept to be governed by Islam."

Agree 100%. Very well said. And as a side note, this latest trend of wanting war detainees to have Constitutional rights is appauling, IMHO.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Yea, that whole Constitution thing is way the fvck over rated. Who needs that pesky habeas corpus, warrantless wiretaps for everyone! dumbya's buying (not really, we're all paying for it, one way or another). I can't believe there are still cheerleaders for this administration, then again, they were blind enough to vote for them the first time through, better 'stay the course'.
It's a shame that the majority of the US doesn't goose step along side you, and they had opened their eyes enough to vote for the right choices this past November.
I just hope they hold dumbya et al accountable for every single infraction against the constitution and humanity in general.
If it's finally brought forward that we went to war based on lies, they are then accountable for crimes against humanity, I guess they might see the world through the loop of a noose eventually.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Exactly. Cheney and Bush have seized more executive power and are now unable to cede any ground on issues like warantless wiretapping, indefinite detention without trial, Guantanamo, etc. If they did cede ground, so would they cede that power as well.

umm, you guys DO realize that there is an election every four years in the US, right? So if accumulating power was their only goal, don't you think those pesky little elections would get in the way? After all, if the executive branch gathers too much power, said power is transfered to the opposite party the moment the opposite party wins the white house.

duh.

you tinfoil-hat types are always good for a laugh!

How is any of what I said tinfoil-worthy? The executive branch power-grab under W/Cheney has been extremely well-documented. What hole has your head been in for the past 5-6 years?!?

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
...
Agree 100%. Very well said. And as a side note, this latest trend of wanting war detainees to have Constitutional rights is appauling, IMHO.

Not that I agree with the idea that detainees should have full constitutional rights the same way an American citizen does, but just what about the idea is "appalling"? I mean, obviously the ideas spelled out in the constitution are pretty good ideas, and it would seem to follow that if it's a good idea to treat an American a certain way, it's probably a good idea to at least make some kind of effort to treat everyone who wasn't so fortunate to be born here with similar values. I don't think a legal argument could be made in favor of the detainees, but I'm always surprised that you guys treat giving people constitutional rights like the worst possible thing ever.

 

[imported_Aelius]

They don't need Constitutional rights. They are already protected under International treaties to the same effect. The fact that the US has broken those treaties thousands of times is just proof that they have no intention of ever following any law when it doesn't suit their own political ends.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Pens1566
Nice to see that the Lackawanna six is viewed as a legit terror threat. Sort of confirms everyones opinions on your credibility "Prof".

And if I had called the FBI on Sept 10 2001 and told them that 19 men with box cutters were going to kill 3000 people and bring down both World Trade Center towers they would have laughed me off the phone.

How many people died in Oklahoma City? That was the work of just two people.

I guess you feel that a group is only a ?legit? terror group once it has killed a few dozen people?

 

[ProfJohn]

For those of you bitching about the detainees not having rights and such, how do you think we should try them?

Civilian Court ala Zacarias Moussaoui? That only took 5 years and $50 million dollars.
Let see? there are about 300 people in Gitmo now, only take us about a billion dollars to try them all at that rate, not a big deal right?

 

[DealMonkey]

Freedom isn't free, PJ.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
For those of you bitching about the detainees not having rights and such, how do you think we should try them?

Civilian Court ala Zacarias Moussaoui? That only took 5 years and $50 million dollars.
Let see? there are about 300 people in Gitmo now, only take us about a billion dollars to try them all at that rate, not a big deal right?

well, Im sure the Geneva Convention might have something to say regarding the rights and treatment of prisioners of war.

And if not, then there should be an international governing body that is adequate...no?

did you ever stop to think WHY it cost so much and took so long to try Z. Moussaoui in a US court?

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
For those of you bitching about the detainees not having rights and such, how do you think we should try them?

Civilian Court ala Zacarias Moussaoui? That only took 5 years and $50 million dollars.
Let see? there are about 300 people in Gitmo now, only take us about a billion dollars to try them all at that rate, not a big deal right?

You're right, clearly the only alternative is to hold them without any sort of trial at all while we torture them for information.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
For those of you bitching about the detainees not having rights and such, how do you think we should try them?

Civilian Court ala Zacarias Moussaoui? That only took 5 years and $50 million dollars.
Let see? there are about 300 people in Gitmo now, only take us about a billion dollars to try them all at that rate, not a big deal right?

You're right, clearly the only alternative is to hold them without any sort of trial at all while we torture them for information.

No, if you read my first post in this thread I clearly state he should stand trial, and he will once the legal issues involving such trails are figured out.
I think we have take way to long to start these trails myself and 5 years without charges is not right. However, let's do this the right way and not drag these guys into a Federal Court and give them the rights of an American. NEVER in history have we given people who are essentially POWs constitutional rights, why should we do it now?

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: OrByte
well, Im sure the Geneva Convention might have something to say regarding the rights and treatment of prisioners of war.

Well if they are POWs then they get no trial, they can just sit there until the war is over. Not sure how we decide the war is over, but I am pretty certain that it is not over yet.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Freedom isn't free, PJ.

Does this mean you will not complain about the high cost of defense spending?

 

[Pens1566]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Pens1566
Nice to see that the Lackawanna six is viewed as a legit terror threat. Sort of confirms everyones opinions on your credibility "Prof".

And if I had called the FBI on Sept 10 2001 and told them that 19 men with box cutters were going to kill 3000 people and bring down both World Trade Center towers they would have laughed me off the phone.

How many people died in Oklahoma City? That was the work of just two people.

I guess you feel that a group is only a ?legit? terror group once it has killed a few dozen people?

No. They're a legit concern when a little more effort is put into investigating them instead of arresting the first 6 guys reported to be terrists for a bullsh!t political photo-op.

As for OKC, how many McVeigh clones have been rounded up and placed into permanent detention without legal rep? It's ok, I'll wait ......

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Pens1566
No. They're a legit concern when a little more effort is put into investigating them instead of arresting the first 6 guys reported to be terrists for a bullsh!t political photo-op.

As for OKC, how many McVeigh clones have been rounded up and placed into permanent detention without legal rep? It's ok, I'll wait ......

Which explain why all 6 plead guilty right? They just wanted their pictures on TV?

Let?s look at what they actually did? from PBS, a known right wing news source :roll:

In January 2003, Galab was the first of the "Lackawanna Six" to plead guilty to material support of terrorism. In his plea, he admitted to traveling to the camp, knowing that the trip was illegal, and receiving weapons training. He also acknowledged Osama bin Laden had spoken at the camp.

In May 2001, Goba traveled with Sahim Alwan, Jaber Elbaneh and Mukhtar al-Bakri to Pakistan, where the group split up and made their way into Afghanistan to an Al Qaeda training camp. Goba was considered one of the group's leaders and after returning from Afghanistan he maintained phone and e-mail communication with Derwish, who remained overseas. In his March 2003 guilty plea, Goba admitted having trained to use firearms, including a rocket-propelled grenade launcher, as well as explosives. He also said that Osama bin Laden had spoken at the camp of men "willing to become martyrs for the cause.

In Afghanistan, al-Bakri and the others met Osama bin Laden, who visited the camp. Al-Bakri says he told the Al Qaeda leader he was worried because his parents didn't know where he was. He hoped that he would be allowed to leave but he says bin Laden responded by suggesting he write his parents a letter, telling them where he was. Al-Bakri also said that he was made to stay an additional week at the camp for "extra training."
Al-Bakri came under increased surveillance after the U.S. government reviewed and analyzed an e-mail he sent while traveling in Saudi Arabia months before his arrest. The e-mail referred to an upcoming "big meal" that authorities interpreted as a code for an impending terrorist attack. Al-Bakri told the FBI he had overheard a conversation about an attack but did not know any details. He said he had used a code because he was afraid his e-mail was being monitored.

Mosed pled guilty to material support in March 2003. In his plea deal with the U.S. government, he admitted to knowing beforehand that the planned trip was illegal and that the training camp they were going to was associated with Osama bin Laden. He said he performed guard duty at the camp and also received training in mountain climbing and weapons. He told the government that he heard bin Laden speak of "50 men who were on a suicide mission" when the Al Qaeda leader visited the camp.

So 6 guys visit a terrorist training camp and meet with Osama himself, and yet you call their arrests a photo-op?

I ask again, what do they have to do to make them a ?legit? terror threat?

 

[Pens1566]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Pens1566
No. They're a legit concern when a little more effort is put into investigating them instead of arresting the first 6 guys reported to be terrists for a bullsh!t political photo-op.

As for OKC, how many McVeigh clones have been rounded up and placed into permanent detention without legal rep? It's ok, I'll wait ......

Which explain why all 6 plead guilty right? They just wanted their pictures on TV?

Let?s look at what they actually did? from PBS, a known right wing news source :roll:

In January 2003, Galab was the first of the "Lackawanna Six" to plead guilty to material support of terrorism. In his plea, he admitted to traveling to the camp, knowing that the trip was illegal, and receiving weapons training. He also acknowledged Osama bin Laden had spoken at the camp.

In May 2001, Goba traveled with Sahim Alwan, Jaber Elbaneh and Mukhtar al-Bakri to Pakistan, where the group split up and made their way into Afghanistan to an Al Qaeda training camp. Goba was considered one of the group's leaders and after returning from Afghanistan he maintained phone and e-mail communication with Derwish, who remained overseas. In his March 2003 guilty plea, Goba admitted having trained to use firearms, including a rocket-propelled grenade launcher, as well as explosives. He also said that Osama bin Laden had spoken at the camp of men "willing to become martyrs for the cause.

In Afghanistan, al-Bakri and the others met Osama bin Laden, who visited the camp. Al-Bakri says he told the Al Qaeda leader he was worried because his parents didn't know where he was. He hoped that he would be allowed to leave but he says bin Laden responded by suggesting he write his parents a letter, telling them where he was. Al-Bakri also said that he was made to stay an additional week at the camp for "extra training."
Al-Bakri came under increased surveillance after the U.S. government reviewed and analyzed an e-mail he sent while traveling in Saudi Arabia months before his arrest. The e-mail referred to an upcoming "big meal" that authorities interpreted as a code for an impending terrorist attack. Al-Bakri told the FBI he had overheard a conversation about an attack but did not know any details. He said he had used a code because he was afraid his e-mail was being monitored.

Mosed pled guilty to material support in March 2003. In his plea deal with the U.S. government, he admitted to knowing beforehand that the planned trip was illegal and that the training camp they were going to was associated with Osama bin Laden. He said he performed guard duty at the camp and also received training in mountain climbing and weapons. He told the government that he heard bin Laden speak of "50 men who were on a suicide mission" when the Al Qaeda leader visited the camp.

So 6 guys visit a terrorist training camp and meet with Osama himself, and yet you call their arrests a photo-op?

I ask again, what do they have to do to make them a ?legit? terror threat?

Why not post a link to that so we can all determine if it's really from PBS and what context it was in. IIRC that was the verbatim govt. story.

Wasn't the arrest of the Lackawanna group the one that had to be announced the minute Ashcroft got to moscow, even thought they'd been arrested a month before? Photo-op is being polite.