15
   

Pentagon: 61 ex-Guantanamo inmates return to terrorism

 
 
candide
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jan, 2009 09:49 pm
@Woiyo9,
Maybe they weren't terrorist when they went in
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jan, 2009 10:31 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:
roger wrote:
Well then, have they been properly treated as prisoners of war?


No. It was illegal to torture them.



roger wrote:
As I suggested earlier, they are either one or the other.


There are a variety of statuses. It is possible for an enemy soldier to fail to qualify for coverage under the Third Geneva Convention of 1949, yet still be detained as an enemy fighter.



To expand on that slightly, there are generally three categories.

a) Civilians (not detained)

b) Lawful combatants (can be detained until the end of the war without need for criminal charges, can be prosecuted for war crimes, but cannot be prosecuted for merely engaging in combat)

c) Spies and unlawful combatants (can be detained until the end of the war without need for criminal charges, can be held incommunicado without need for criminal charges, can be prosecuted for being a spy/unlawful combatant, can be prosecuted for merely engaging in combat, and can be prosecuted for war crimes)

(There is a fourth category, non-combatant personnel -- priests, journalists, and the like -- but they are generally treated exactly the same as lawful combatants, so I didn't list them separately.)
0 Replies
 
OGIONIK
 
  2  
Reply Wed 14 Jan, 2009 11:34 pm
@oralloy,
did they "reutrn" to the fight, or are they just utterly ******* pissed they got tortured?

HrmmmmM!M!?!?!?!?!
0 Replies
 
OGIONIK
 
  2  
Reply Wed 14 Jan, 2009 11:35 pm
@candide,
candide wrote:

Maybe they weren't terrorist when they went in


my thoughts exactly!
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jan, 2009 12:30 am
After they close it, that'll leave enough room for Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, etc etc etc.
0 Replies
 
Woiyo9
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jan, 2009 07:14 am
@candide,
Yea. We just picked up anyone with a rag on their head. Rolling Eyes

Open-Source Reporting Identifies Detainees Reengaging in Terrorism
Ibrahim Shafir Sen was transferred to Turkey in November 2003. In January 2008, Sen was arrested in Van, Turkey, and charged as the leader of an active al-Qaida cell.
Ibrahim Bin Shakaran and Mohammed Bin Ahmad Mizouz were transferred to Morocco in July 2004. In September 2007, they were convicted for their post-release involvement in a terrorist network recruiting Moroccans to fight for Abu-Musab al-Zarqawi’s al-Qaida in Iraq (AQI). Recruits were to receive weapons and explosives training in Algeria from the Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat, which has since become al-Qaida in the Lands of the
6/13/2008
Maghreb, before going to fight in Iraq or returning to Morocco as sleeper cells. The organizers of the group reportedly intended to create an al-Qaida-affiliated network in the Maghreb similar to AQI. According to testimony presented at the trial, Bin Shakaran had already recruited other jihadists when Moroccan authorities broke up the plot in November 2005. Bin Shakaran received a 10-year sentence for his role in the plot, while Mizouz received a two-year sentence.
Abdullah Mahsud blew himself up to avoid capture by Pakistani forces in July 2007. According to a Pakistani government official, Mahsud directed a suicide attack in April 2007 that killed 31 people. After being transferred to Afghanistan in March 2004, Mahsud sought several media interviews and became well known for his attacks in Pakistan. In October 2004, he kidnapped two Chinese engineers and claimed responsibility for an Islamabad hotel bombing.
Ruslan Anatolivich Odishev, transferred to Russia in March 2004, was killed in a June 2007 gun battle with Russia’s Federal Security Service. Russian authorities stated that Odijev had taken part in several terrorist acts including an October 2005 attack in the Caucasus region that killed and injured several police officers. Odijev was found with pistols, a grenade, and homemade explosive devices on his body.
Ravil Shafeyavich Gumarov and Timur Ravilich Ishmurat were transferred to Russia in March 2004 and quickly released. Russian authorities arrested them in January 2005 for involvement in a gas line bombing. In May 2006 a Russian court convicted both, sentencing Gumarov to 13 years in prison and Ishmurat to 11 years.
Mohammed Ismail was one of the “juveniles” released from GTMO in 2004. During a press interview after his release, he described the Americans saying, “They gave me a good time in Cuba. They were very nice to me, giving me English lessons.” He concluded his interview saying he would have to find work once he finished visiting all his relatives. He was recaptured four months later in May 2004, participating in an attack on U.S. forces near Kandahar. At the time of his recapture, Ismail carried a letter confirming his status as a Taliban member in good standing.
Maulvi Abdul Ghaffar was captured in early 2002 and held at GTMO for eight months. After his release, Ghaffar reportedly became the Taliban’s regional commander in Uruzgan and Helmand provinces, carrying out attacks on U.S. and Afghan forces. On 25 September 2004, while planning an attack against Afghan police, Ghaffar and two of his men were killed in a raid by Afghan security forces.
Yousef Muhammed Yaaqoub, better known as Mullah Shazada, was released from GTMO in May 2003. Shazada quickly rejoined the Taliban as a commander in southern Afghanistan. In this role, his activities reportedly included the organization and execution of a jailbreak in Kandahar, and a nearly successful capture of the border town of Spin Boldak. Shazada was killed on 7 May 2004 fighting U.S. forces. His memorial in Quetta, Pakistan, drew many Taliban leaders wanted by U.S. forces. At the time of his release, there was no indication he was a member of any terrorist organization or posed a risk to U.S. or Allied interests.

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/d20080613Returntothefightfactsheet.pdf
0 Replies
 
Fountofwisdom
 
  2  
Reply Thu 15 Jan, 2009 07:33 am
Is this from the people who claimed Iraq had wmd? i think if I had been imprisoned without trial, tortured and abused, then I would possibly have a touch of anger towards my jailors. I notice none of these 61" terrorists" have actually been tried, I think it would be a good idea if America adopted the idea of innocent until proven guilty.

George
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jan, 2009 07:44 am
Quote:
...c) Spies and unlawful combatants (can be detained until the end of the war without need for criminal charges, can be held incommunicado without need for criminal charges, can be prosecuted for being a spy/unlawful combatant, can be prosecuted for merely engaging in combat, and can be prosecuted for war crimes)...

They should be prosecuted. If there is no evidence of the unlawfulness of their
combat, then they should not be detained. If there is evidence, then they should
be tried. If they are found guilty, then they should be punished.
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jan, 2009 08:02 am
@Fountofwisdom,
Quote:
Is this from the people who claimed Iraq had wmd?


Ironically, Woiyo was one of those people. LOL
Woiyo9
 
  0  
Reply Thu 15 Jan, 2009 08:12 am
@Fountofwisdom,
Laughing

Yes. These are the same "people" who said Iraq "HAD" WMD.

Prisoners of war should be entitled to American Constitutional rights? Hmmm. Did you feel the same way about German POW's during WW2?
Woiyo9
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jan, 2009 08:12 am
@ebrown p,
Laughing

So did you asshole!
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jan, 2009 08:15 am
@Woiyo9,
No.

If you treat them as Prisoners of War, they should enjoy the protections of the Geneva Convention regulating the treatment of Prisoners of War. For example, they should not be tortured.

However, if you don't treat them as Prisoners of War, but rather detain them as criminals or terrorists, then they should enjoy the protections of detainees under the US criminal justice system.
Woiyo9
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jan, 2009 08:30 am
@old europe,
They are being treated as POW's in Guantanamo.

We will certainly disagree on the definition of torture. That is a diffrent discussion.
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jan, 2009 08:35 am
@Woiyo9,
Woiyo9 wrote:
They are being treated as POW's in Guantanamo.


As far as I know, they've never officially been designated Prisoners of War.

In fact, quite the opposite:

Quote:
Donald Rumsfeld, the US Defence Secretary, has firmly ruled out prisoner-of-war status for any of the suspected al- Qa'ida and Taliban fighters held at the Guantanamo Bay naval base on Cuba after Colin Powell, the Secretary of State, joined the debate on the detainees' status.


I know that the Supreme Court eventually determined that they were due the rights accorded under Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, but that's a far cry from treating them as POWs.
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jan, 2009 08:38 am
@Woiyo9,
You are wrong about that. I questioned the existence of WMDs from the beginning.
0 Replies
 
Woiyo9
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jan, 2009 08:39 am
@old europe,
If the USSC determined they were due rights under the Geneva Convention, then it tells me they are POW's.
old europe
 
  2  
Reply Thu 15 Jan, 2009 08:44 am
@Woiyo9,
Which, in turn, tells me that you are clueless.

Here is the text of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions:

Quote:
In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:

(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed 'hors de combat' by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

(b) taking of hostages;

(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;

(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

(2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.

An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.

The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the present Convention.

The application of the preceding provisions shall not affect the legal status of the Parties to the conflict.



In no way do the protections afforded by Common Article 3 make anyone a "Prisoner of War".
JTT
 
  2  
Reply Thu 15 Jan, 2009 09:35 am
@old europe,
Quote:
Re: Woiyo9 (Post 3534652)
Which, in turn, tells me that you are clueless.


Woiyo, clueless. What would lead anyone to think that?
0 Replies
 
Woiyo9
 
  0  
Reply Thu 15 Jan, 2009 10:17 am
@old europe,
Sure it does, unless you have a unique definition of what an "armed conflict " is.
old europe
 
  2  
Reply Thu 15 Jan, 2009 10:32 am
@Woiyo9,
Common Article 3 doesn't talk about an "armed conflict", but about an "armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties".

Common Article 3 doesn't even mention the term "Prisoner of War".

Common Article 3 does not confer POW status upon anybody.


The most casual reading of Common Article 3 would tell you all of these things. You're either being deliberately obtuse, or you have some serious reading comprehension problems.

I don't have a problem with treating the detainees as POWs. It's just not what this administration has done. In fact, this administration has fought tooth and nail to avoid the detainees being designated POWs. Holding somebody as a POW has a certain meaning, and that's not "detaining somebody we label 'enemy combatant' until the end of times". There's a definition of the rights of POWs and of the limits of POW status, and even though the United States have signed and ratified the treaties which outline those rights and limits, this administration has at no point treated the inmates of Guantanamo accordingly, and has stated often enough that it had no intention whatsoever of doing so.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/25/2024 at 07:04:31