Report: Ex-Gitmo detainee joins al-Qaida in Yemen

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Obligatory: "He was a good man before he was in Gitmo. He is only joining AQ to get back at us"

Many people at Gitmo are 'innocent'. Some people are people who are innocent but because they have been so badly abused, are now understandably people we have turned into enemies (hey, let's kill them, to further wrong them). Some people in Gitmo are dangerous people and belong in custody.

You people on the right are too idiotic, ignorant, hypocritical to have any idea about justice for the groups you dehumanize, the groups you demonize.

Unable to udnerstand anything about justice, you mock the arguments lkke children. They say 'absolute powr tends to corrupt absoutely', and you prove them right.

500 years ago, this would have been simple. Kill em all, move on.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: Deeko
Hmmm? I said the courts banned torture. I didn't backpedal anywhere, sport. You tried to weasel your way around that until I deftly backhanded you back into place where you belong. I'm going at the issue head on with facts, you're dancing around them with rhetoric.

So what are you getting at there with McCain? We should have a Senate vote? In a Democrat-controlled Senate, with at least one well-known Republican Senator well versed in torture opposed to waterboarding? Are you REALLY sure that's how you want this issue decided, champ?

For how often you play these games, you aren't very good at them.

Been there, done that. That law was vetoed and never became law.

" I said the courts banned torture. "
"To the best of my knowledge, the courts have not specifically ruled on if waterboarding is torture or not. "


Hmm...... which of these is the fact?

 

[winnar111]

Oh, and our previous Attorney General refused to define waterboarding as torture. He was confirmed.

 

[Deeko]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Deeko
Hmmm? I said the courts banned torture. I didn't backpedal anywhere, sport. You tried to weasel your way around that until I deftly backhanded you back into place where you belong. I'm going at the issue head on with facts, you're dancing around them with rhetoric.

So what are you getting at there with McCain? We should have a Senate vote? In a Democrat-controlled Senate, with at least one well-known Republican Senator well versed in torture opposed to waterboarding? Are you REALLY sure that's how you want this issue decided, champ?

For how often you play these games, you aren't very good at them.

Been there, done that. That law was vetoed and never became law.

" I said the courts banned torture. "
"To the best of my knowledge, the courts have not specifically ruled on if waterboarding is torture or not. "


Hmm...... which of these is the fact?

Both of them. The courts have indeed banned torture. Specifically, they ruled that we need to treat detainees in Gitmo in accordance with international law. What's your point? You are continuing to dance around the issue because you know another right hook is waiting around the corner.

'Been there, done that'? Really? So I guess if we put the same motion on the floor, it would get vetoed? Ohh, right, we have a President that isn't a no talent assclown now.

So, I'll ask you again:

So what are you getting at there with McCain? We should have a Senate vote? In a Democrat-controlled Senate, with at least one well-known Republican Senator well versed in torture opposed to waterboarding? Are you REALLY sure that's how you want this issue decided, champ?

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: Deeko

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Deeko
Hmmm? I said the courts banned torture. I didn't backpedal anywhere, sport. You tried to weasel your way around that until I deftly backhanded you back into place where you belong. I'm going at the issue head on with facts, you're dancing around them with rhetoric.

So what are you getting at there with McCain? We should have a Senate vote? In a Democrat-controlled Senate, with at least one well-known Republican Senator well versed in torture opposed to waterboarding? Are you REALLY sure that's how you want this issue decided, champ?

For how often you play these games, you aren't very good at them.

Been there, done that. That law was vetoed and never became law.

" I said the courts banned torture. "
"To the best of my knowledge, the courts have not specifically ruled on if waterboarding is torture or not. "


Hmm...... which of these is the fact?

Both of them. The courts have indeed banned torture. Specifically, they ruled that we need to treat detainees in Gitmo in accordance with international law. What's your point? You are continuing to dance around the issue because you know another right hook is waiting around the corner.

'Been there, done that'? Really? So I guess if we put the same motion on the floor, it would get vetoed? Ohh, right, we have a President that isn't a no talent assclown now.

So, I'll ask you again:

So what are you getting at there with McCain? We should have a Senate vote? In a Democrat-controlled Senate, with at least one well-known Republican Senator well versed in torture opposed to waterboarding? Are you REALLY sure that's how you want this issue decided, champ?

Which would be the law from today forward. It doesn't make it the law in 2003.

If Obama wants to endanger national security, that's his call.

 

[Deeko]

Originally posted by: winnar111
Oh, and our previous Attorney General refused to define waterboarding as torture. He was confirmed.

http://www.miamiherald.com/new...s/AP/story/855838.html

Keep living in the past, sport. Keep crying about the "golden days" where George Bush ruined the country & our international image simultaneously. Ahhh, memories, memories.

You've gotta be a bot. What language are you programmed in? Not bright enough to be something modern. FORTRAN?

 

[Deeko]

Originally posted by: winnar111

If Obama wants to endanger national security, that's his call.

LOL he's a humor bot! Good one!

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: TallBill
500 years ago, this would have been simple. Kill em all, move on.

It was wrong then, and it is wrong now. You don't notice your hypocrisy at condeming people for being 'primitive bloodthirsty killers', as you are one yourself, calling for us to follow in some the worst footsteps of people centuries ago by aggressively mass murdering other societies. You stop short of, say, Vlad the Impaler's technique of killing them by having them sit on a spike, but the permanent psychological damage you support is not far off morally, really. Read the Klein book and then post again.

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: TallBill
500 years ago, this would have been simple. Kill em all, move on.

It was wrong then, and it is wrong now. You don't notice your hypocrisy at condeming people for being 'primitive bloodthirsty killers', as you are one yourself, calling for us to follow in some the worst footsteps of people centuries ago by aggressively mass murdering other societies. You stop short of, say, Vlad the Impaler's technique of killing them by having them sit on a spike, but the permanent psychological damage you support is not far off morally, really. Read the Klein book and then post again.

I never said it was right. You know what happens when you assume right? You look like a wise and beautiful woman.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: TallBill

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: TallBill
500 years ago, this would have been simple. Kill em all, move on.

It was wrong then, and it is wrong now. You don't notice your hypocrisy at condeming people for being 'primitive bloodthirsty killers', as you are one yourself, calling for us to follow in some the worst footsteps of people centuries ago by aggressively mass murdering other societies. You stop short of, say, Vlad the Impaler's technique of killing them by having them sit on a spike, but the permanent psychological damage you support is not far off morally, really. Read the Klein book and then post again.

I never said it was right. You know what happens when you assume right? You look like a wise and beautiful woman.

You are such a poor writer that you post about '500 years ago' without ay context, that's your problem. The classy label you selected with your impressive vocabulary only fits you.

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: Deeko

Originally posted by: winnar111
Oh, and our previous Attorney General refused to define waterboarding as torture. He was confirmed.

http://www.miamiherald.com/new...s/AP/story/855838.html

Keep living in the past, sport. Keep crying about the "golden days" where George Bush ruined the country & our international image simultaneously. Ahhh, memories, memories.

You've gotta be a bot. What language are you programmed in? Not bright enough to be something modern. FORTRAN?

God I love that beer!

*burp*

Excuse me; Malt Liquor.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: loozar111

Which would be the law from today forward. It doesn't make it the law in 2003.

BULLSHIT! Regardless of Mukasey's chickenshit silence on the subject, waterboarding was defined as torture under both U.S. and international law. I hope he's charged for the crime, along with your EX-Traitor In Chief and the rest of his criminal cabal, both in the U.S. and by the International Court at the Hague.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

To loser111 and all the other neo-cons defending torture and other illegality, answer this question:

Are you willing to be locked up in Gitmo for 6+ years without any rights if someone says you are a a terrorist.

If you cannot answer yes, then you have no business supporting what is going on now. Those people have not been proved to be terrorists, any more then you haven't been proved a terrorist. Many people were handed over to us becuase of bounties paid to locals that "captured" terrorists, no proof required. Others are mistaken identity. Others are criminals.

So if you support innocent people being locked up and possibly tortured for years with no rights, you should stand up like the "tough guys" that you wish you were, and be willing to be tortured and detained for 5+ years. If you aren't willing to sacrifice yourself, for the good of the country, then you can't support others having the same thing happen to them.

It's as simple as that.

 

[Sinsear]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: jonks
This guy was released under Bush, not Obama. Obama isn't ordering the release of everyone held at Gitmo, merely that we close the gulag and similar sites and provide humane treatment of people being held indefinitely without charges. And McCain also stated he would close Gitmo had he won.

This article doesn't change the fact that you cannot hold someone indefinitely in a prison without charging them with something. If he was involved in terrorist acts then charge the mofo. If he planned, procured, ordered, organized, conspired, some fucking thing, then present some evidence to a court or tribunal and charge the dick. But we cannot lock up anyone we want forever without giving them a chance to defend themselves. It's the definition of anti-american.

you're comparing club gitmo with the gulag? :roll:

They did something in gitmo called the 'frequent flyer' program where prisoners were woken every hour on the hour and moved from one cell to another. And they did that to some of them for MONTHS. Imagine not being able to get an hours sleep for months on end? It's just shocking these people were committing suicide in there. You'd be crying for your mommy every night tough guy. Other prisoners were regularly beaten and subjected to our "friendly interrogations". Club gitmo my fucking ass.

404 pity not found.

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Americans elected an absolute disaster named George Bush. Electing a disaster has disastrous consequences for those who voted for and against him. This is why it matters how you vote and that you realize that it's assholes who vote for a disaster. Whatever the fallout from repairing the damage know as Gitmo, it's the price we will pay for having a country so full of so many brain dead assholes. Would that it were only the assholes that suffer, but I doubt it will be. But we have met the real enemy, and as always the real and most dangerous enemy is us.

You stupid asshole human turds cowards that would torture the soul of another human to feel safe created this monster shiver in your cowardly boots at the price of repair, you worthless scum.

Ah yes, because without the torture the monster would have not existed. So was the monster inside waiting for a spark? Was it created from thin air, an innocent man twisted and distorted by torture in such a way that he became a monster from a mouse? Or is it possible he was already a monster when brought in?

Just because you are not a fan of gitmo does not mean that every individual serving time there was an innocent with no blood on their hands before being locked up.

The question is easy to answer if you will realize why you don't already know. All you have to do is look in the last place you would ever suspect. How did you become a monster? When you know that you will know EVERYTHING.

Hah this is possibly the most idiotic jumble of words I've ever had the pleasure of reading. I don't even know why I try to understand the minds of extremists on the right or the left. All of you are whack jobs. Oh look inward and you will see that the only reason we don't run naked in the forest and sing campfire songs with chipmunks on our shoulders is because of... One person.

 

[SagaLore]

You guys are really missing the point of all this.





Has anyone stopped to consider, that our military wants them to reinsert into terrorist groups? Anybody heard of tracking devices?

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: Craig234

You are such a poor writer that you post about '500 years ago' without ay context, that's your problem. The classy label you selected with your impressive vocabulary only fits you.

Actually my sentence was incredibly simple. It was a quick and logical tidbit. Sorry if it's not up to the standards of the typical volumes of history that you rifle through constantly.

The second part is a joke on a joke. Congrats at being on the internet moral high ground though! I suggested that you were a part of a female anatomy. You suggested that I was a a primitive bloodthirsty killer.

 

[Craig234]

NM, clearly a waste of time.

 

[mxyzptlk]

Originally posted by: SagaLore
Anybody heard of <rectally inserted> tracking devices?

*shudder*

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: mxyzptlk

Originally posted by: SagaLore
Anybody heard of <rectally inserted> tracking devices?

*shudder*

Those don't even last 24 hours.

 

[Jhhnn]

Heh. If this guy is #2 in alQ in yemen, then #1 has to be an idiot. Any terrorist organization worthy of the name has no use for any released detainee other than maybe as a human detonator for a car bomb, and even then they already have lots of stupid young zealots begging for the job.

why? Because, after all these years, the chances that these guys have been "turned" by our forces are simply too great to ignore. They cant be trusted, period, and anybody w/ half a brain knows that.

And ya gotta love the sources- an internet statement, whatever that means, or the US military, who've been bobbing and weaving whenever any sort of specifics are demanded... as if a few recidivists actually justify what they've done at the bidding of their neocon masters...

When it's all said and done, what we'll learn is that our govt never had enough evidence to hold the vast majority of detainees in the first place, and have hopelessly screwed up the possibility of ever bringing to justice those few who deserve prosecution.

That was never the goal, anyway. It was an exercise in political grandstanding, a demonstration of being "Tough on Terrar!", a sop for the faithful and the fearful. And it worked. They got the congressional majority they wanted in 2002, followed by the greatest class warfare looting spree in the history of the world... They knew all along that they'd leave the whole stinking pile behind for their successor to clean up, or not...

The same wrt the current financial crisis- Thanks and goodbye, chumps.

 

[HeXploiT]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Seems that one of the problems with closing Gitmo is the fact that the people at Gitmo are terrorists!!!!

It will be very interesting to see how Obama handles this issue. I wouldn't be surprised if Gitmo is still there in a year or if we just move these guys to a prison in another country and essentially keep things as they are.
link

A Saudi man released from Guantanamo after spending nearly six years inside the U.S. prison camp is now the No. 2 of Yemen's al-Qaida branch, according to a purported Internet statement from the terror network.

The announcement, made this week on a Web site commonly used by militants, came as President Barack Obama ordered the detention facility closed within a year. Many of the remaining detainees are from Yemen, which has long posed a vexing terrorism problem for the U.S.

The terror group's Yemen branch ? known as "al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula" ? said the man, identified as Said Ali al-Shihri, returned to his home in Saudi Arabia after his release from Guantanamo about a year ago and from there went to Yemen, which is Osama bin Laden's ancestral home.

The Internet statement, which could not immediately be verified, said al-Shihri was the group's second-in-command in Yemen, and his prisoner number at Guantanamo was 372.

"He managed to leave the land of the two shrines (Saudi Arabia) and join his brothers in al-Qaida," the statement said.

Documents released by the U.S. Defense Department show that al-Shihri was released from the facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba in November 2007 and transferred to his homeland. The documents confirmed his prisoner number was 372.

Saudi Arabian authorities wouldn't immediately comment on the statement. A Yemeni counterterrorism official would only say that Saudi Arabia had asked Yemen to turn over a number of wanted Saudi suspects who fled the kingdom last year for Yemen, and a man with the same name was among those wanted. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because he wasn't authorized to speak to the press and would not provide more details.

Yemen is a U.S. ally in the fight against terror, but it also has been the site of numerous high-profile, al-Qaida-linked attacks including the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole in the Gulf of Aden, which killed 17 American sailors.

Yemen's government struggles to maintain order. Many areas of the California-size country are beyond government control and Islamic extremism is strong. Nearly 100 Yemeni detainees remain at Guantanamo, making up the biggest group of prisoners.

Al-Shihri's case highlights the complexity of Obama's decision to shut down the detention center within a year despite the absence of rehabilitation programs for ex-prisoners in some countries, including Yemen. The Pentagon also has said more former ex-detainees appear to be returning to the fight against the U.S. after their release.

Rep. Jane Harman, D-California, who heads the House Homeland Security subcommittee on intelligence, said the reports about al-Shihri should not slow the Obama administration's determination to quickly close the prison.

"What it tells me is that President Obama has to proceed extremely carefully. But there is really no justification and there was no justification for disappearing people in a place that was located offshore of America so it was outside the reach of U.S. law," she told CBS's "The Early Show."
But Rep. Pete Hoekstra, of Michigan, the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, criticized the executive order Obama signed Thursday to close the facility as "very short on specifics."

Interviewed on the same program, he said there are indications that as many as 10 percent of the men released from Guantanamo are "back on the battlefield. They are attacking American troops."

The militant Web statement said al-Shihri's identity was revealed during a recent interview with a Yemeni journalist. That journalist, Abdelela Shayie, told The Associated Press in a telephone interview on Friday that 35-year-old Saudi man had joined the kingdom's rehabilitation program after his release and got married before leaving for Yemen.

Shayie said al-Shihri told him that several other former Guantanamo detainees had also come to Yemen to join al-Qaida.

Al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula is an umbrella group of various cells. Its current leader is Yemen's most wanted fugitive Naser Abdel Karim al-Wahishi, who was among 23 al-Qaida figures who escaped from a Yemeni prison in 2006.

Since the prison break, al-Qaida managed to regroup. It set up training camps, has attracted hundreds of young men and launched dozens of bloody attacks against Westerners, government institutions and oil facilities. Most recently, gunmen and two vehicles packed with explosives attacked the U.S. Embassy in Yemen in September, killing 17 people, including six militants. Al-Qaida claimed responsibility for the attack.

According to the Defense Department, al-Shihri was stopped at a Pakistani border crossing in December 2001 with injuries from an airstrike and recuperated at a hospital. Within days of his release, he became one of the first detainees sent to Guantanamo.

Al-Shihri allegedly traveled to Afghanistan 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.
He also was accused of meeting extremists in Iran and briefing them on how to enter Afghanistan, according to the documents.

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

Are we still talking about this in 2009?
Because some may be guilty we hold many others who aren't?
There will always be murderers and terrorists in the world and we can't stop them all by eliminating law that protects the just.

/Discussion.
This thread needs to die.

 

[Deadtrees]

If you were put in a place like Gitmo, you'd want to join al-Qaida.

 

[theflyingpig]

Originally posted by: Deadtrees
If you were put in a place like Gitmo, you'd want to join al-Qaida.

This is excellent. We should release them all immediately and monitor their movements. As soon as they contact Al-Qaida, we can kill them. You must see the good in every situation.

 

[Budmantom]

"Let's close Gitmo so we can release more terrorists"

That's the Barrrack Hussein Obama plan.