Terrorist released from Gitmo becomes suicide bomber in Iraq

Little-Acorn

Little-Acorn

New member
Score one for the people who want to close Guantanamo Bay prison for captured terrorists. They managed to rack up some civilians and/or American and Iraqi troops. And now they can bash the Bush Administration for even more deaths, as a side benefit!

--------------------------------------------------------

http://opinionjournal.com

from "Best of the Web"
by James Taranto

From Detainee to Detonatee

"A Kuwaiti man released from the U.S. prison in Guantanamo Bay in 2005 has carried out a suicide bombing in Iraq, his cousin told Al Arabiya television on Thursday," Reuters reports from Dubai:

A friend of Abdullah Saleh al-Ajmi in Iraq informed his family that Abdullah carried out the attack in Mosul, his cousin Salem told the Dubai-based television channel.

"We were shocked by the painful news we received this afternoon . . . through a call from one of the friend's of martyr Abdullah in Iraq," said Salem al-Ajmi in a telephone interview aired by Arabiya.

He did not say when the suicide bombing happened.
Click to expand...

Over at The Volokh Conspiracy, blogger and law professor Jonathan Adler makes a manful effort at evenhandedness:

What does this prove? Nothing really, but I'm sure partisans in the debate over Guantanamo and the treatment and detention of alleged [sic] enemy combatants will see this as evidence that confirms their respective points of view. On the one hand, Abdullah Saleh al-Ajmi may have been a dangerous enemy combatant all along, and should never have been released. On the other hand, he may have been wrongfully detained in the first place, only to become radicalized by his (mis)treatment by the U.S. military. In other words, we either had a terrorist and let him go, or we created one.

If Adler is right, though, he has focused on a trivial difference between the two sides of the debate while ignoring both an important point of agreement and the truly crucial area of contention.
Click to expand...

According to Adler, both sides agree that the detainees at Guantanamo are terrorists, differing only over how they became terrorists. The real distinction is that one side (the side this column is on, in case it's not clear) favors keeping the terrorists at Guantanamo so as to prevent terrorism, whereas the other side wants to release the terrorists so that they can murder more Muslims in Iraq and elsewhere.
 
Welp, guess that means everyone who's held without access to an attorney or a fair trial is a terrorist.
 
ib1yysguy said:
Welp, guess that means everyone who's held without access to an attorney or a fair trial is a terrorist.
Click to expand...
No, but it does mean people captured in a war zone are prisoners of war, which has completely different rules of treatment than if they were arrested by civil authorities.

Do not think I support in any way the torture or other types of unethical questioning that Gitmo is now infamous for. I can't believe our administration actually defended those practices. And it shames me that the Marine Corps was involved in some of that shit.

But to keep harping about attorneys or legal trials for POWs is assinine. By international treaty POWs can be kept in military prison until the conflict they were captured under is resolved.
 
If they are officially declared POW's and fall under the Geneva conventions concering POW's. The current administration has deliberately avoided this.
 
uscitizen said:
If they are officially declared POW's and fall under the Geneva conventions concering POW's. The current administration has deliberately avoided this.
Click to expand...
That claim comes under the Geneva Convention exception for combatants who do not fight in uniform or under specified flag. Technically the administration is correct that they are not due the usual protections of the Geneva Convention. Technically we could summarily hang the whole bunch of them as spies.

That does NOT, however, excuse how we have treated our prisoners. Geneva Convention or no, there is a humanitarian obligation on how we treat enemy combatants, whether they are in uniform or not. While that does NOT include lawyers, trials, and the other claptrap I've heard people demanding, it DOES include decent treatment to include respecting their religious icons, questioning without unusual duress, reasonable food, reasonable medical care, etc. If we can not live up to the humanitarian obligation our society has expected of itself and others over the last century, then we have failed ourselves and our posterity miserably.
 
What about contractors in Iraq ? are they to be accorded geneva convention rights ? If captured by the Iraqi ?
 
uscitizen said:
What about contractors in Iraq ? are they to be accorded geneva convention rights ? If captured by the Iraqi ?
Click to expand...
Contractors are not combatants. (duh!)
Their private security people, however, are combatants - and having no national uniform nor are they technically fighting under a specified flag, are not accorded Geneva protections. That is one of many reasons private security forces are a BAD idea.
 
Good Luck said:
No, but it does mean people captured in a war zone are prisoners of war, which has completely different rules of treatment than if they were arrested by civil authorities.

Do not think I support in any way the torture or other types of unethical questioning that Gitmo is now infamous for. I can't believe our administration actually defended those practices. And it shames me that the Marine Corps was involved in some of that shit.

But to keep harping about attorneys or legal trials for POWs is assinine. By international treaty POWs can be kept in military prison until the conflict they were captured under is resolved.
Click to expand...

So people can randomly be held for life as long as a "conflict" is happening?

I assume that I can just be held at any time for the rest of my life, huh? Because of this made up "war on terror"?
 
Anyway,

1. BUSH released the man.

2. Out of the thousands we've held, only one has been a terrorist? That doesn't seem like a good ratio for the neoconservative America haters.
 
Abdullah Saleh al-Ajmi is an ungratful wretch. We housed, fed and intertained him for YEARS on the taxpayer dime. We protected him from lawyers and Judges who wanted him released before he was educated properly. Now imagine after all we did for him since 2003 the ingrate (well so his cousin says anyway) had gone and turned on us.

Ill tell you the hell what guys. When you lock people up for five years and torture them they go fucking crazy and they hate you for it. Gee who would have thunk it?
 
uscitizen said:
I wonder did Gitmo make the guy a terrorist ?
It might me.
Click to expand...

That's exactly what I was about to post.

After spending time in Gitmoo, which I'm sure reinforced every evil thing he's ever heard about America, it could very well be that we are doing in Gitmo the very same thing we're doing throughout the muslim world .. we are creating terrorists.

There is a real simple solution .. If you don't like terrorism, stop using it.
 
Then times that by everyone who is a family member of this guy and all the people who knew him.

Bush ,creating terror for terrors sake.
 
Desh said:
Then times that by everyone who is a family member of this guy and all the people who knew him.

Bush ,creating terror for terrors sake.
Click to expand...

I said years ago that Bush should be Terrorist Magazine's Man of the Decade. He exploded terrorist recruiting at an exponential rate.

George Bush, Man of the Decade.
 
I wonder when he got out of Gitmo and went back home how many of his friends and relatives had been killed while he was locked away ?
 
I love how conservatives are willing to take the word of a suicide bombers alleged cousin, as told by Al Arabiya television.

If it benefits there version of reality, why not!
 
If someone holds me against my will for long periods of time, deprives me of sleep, causes me pain and discomfort and continues to do so until I lie about who I am and then finally releases me, I am going to kill someone that means something to that person, or that government. I am going to blow something up that means something to that person or government. What did you think? That all of them were going to just go home and be thankful they were no longer being detained? Fuck that. The US actually has threatened a Australian with re-arrest if he speaks out about what happened to him there. This is what happens when you cast to broad a net. You catch more than the sharks.
 
Socrtease said:
If someone holds me against my will for long periods of time, deprives me of sleep, causes me pain and discomfort and continues to do so until I lie about who I am and then finally releases me, I am going to kill someone that means something to that person, or that government.
Click to expand...

Good point. Why do we release them, again?
 
Socrtease said:
If someone holds me against my will for long periods of time, deprives me of sleep, causes me pain and discomfort and continues to do so until I lie about who I am and then finally releases me, I am going to kill someone that means something to that person, or that government. I am going to blow something up that means something to that person or government. What did you think? That all of them were going to just go home and be thankful they were no longer being detained? Fuck that. The US actually has threatened a Australian with re-arrest if he speaks out about what happened to him there. This is what happens when you cast to broad a net. You catch more than the sharks.
Click to expand...

Yeah I still don't care much for the military.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top