ISIS Suicide Bomber Identified As Former Guantanamo Detainee

[LakeBum 187]

15 minutes ago, Strychnine said:

 

If you are going to quote me in response, I would appreciate it if you actually responded to my point.  I am not debating the goodness or evil of anyone, or everyone, that has ever been detained in Guantanamo.  I am arguing for the application of justice.  Charge them with a crime(s), try them in court, and give the convicted appropriate sentences.  If we can apply that concept to someone like Zacarias Moussaoui, we can and should apply it to Guantanamo detainees.  That is justice.  What is the problem with this?

Just hold them as prisoners of war. No need for a trial, no need for torture or inhumane treatment.  Seems like a simple solution.

[TitanTiger 20,544]

Just now, LakeBum said:

Just hold them as prisoners of war. No need for a trial, no need for torture or inhumane treatment.  Seems like a simple solution.

Except that it's wrong.  You can't just hold people for decades or forever.  We don't even have a formal declaration of war per se to be pulling this rhetorical shell game with.  

[LakeBum 187]

Well, it is wrong what ISIS and Al-Qaeda and others that build their lives around a war of terror and destruction upon the innocent people of the world.  Maybe they should do what is right and give it up and we wouldn't have to detain these soldiers of war anymore. I don't see any reason to release them until this war is over. They will just go back and start killing innocent people again.

[Strychnine 1,804]

8 minutes ago, LakeBum said:

Just hold them as prisoners of war. No need for a trial, no need for torture or inhumane treatment.  Seems like a simple solution.

 

Indefinite detention is itself inhumane treatment.  That said, why do we need to hold them at all?  If we lack sufficient evidence to warrant bringing charges and a subsequent trial, then we have no ethical justification for holding them.  If we have sufficient evidence to bring charges and try them, then why not do so and be done with it?

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

1 hour ago, TitanTiger said:

And I could recommend "The Interrogator" by Glenn Carle.  He also interrogated GITMO and other high level Al Qaida captives, including ones at various "black sites" around the globe.  The experts you like are not the only nor final say on the matter.

Many if not most of the GITMO prisoners weren't cutting anyone's heads off.  They were merely rounded up in the wars in Afghanistan or Iraq because they were fighting in the other side's "army" such as it was.  To paint them all as the worst of the worst deserving of lifelong detainment is an inaccurate exaggeration.

When you have situations like this:

Mike Mone, the Boston lawyer who represented Ali Shaabaan, a Syrian who had been held in Guantanamo without charge for 12 years, flew down to Uruguay last week to greet him on his release. Mone was shocked that Shaabaan and the five other long-term detainees, who had been cleared by the US military of any terrorist activity, were forced to fly to Montevideo from Cuba in shackles, blindfolds and earplugs.

...it is completely non-credible for you to tell me that our only choice is to hold people forever or years on end because even if they didn't actually do anything other than take up arms against us, it's now too dangerous to do the right thing and let them go.

I'm not TELLING you anything, just expressing an OPINION that I will rely on the people who are more qualified than. you or me to make the neccessary decisions. But heck what do I know......you may be smarter than all of them.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

1 hour ago, Strychnine said:

 

If you are going to quote me in response, I would appreciate it if you actually responded to my point.  I am not debating the goodness or evil of anyone, or everyone, that has ever been detained in Guantanamo.  I am arguing for the application of justice.  Charge them with a crime(s), try them in court, and give the convicted appropriate sentences.  If we can apply that concept to someone like Zacarias Moussaoui, we can and should apply it to Guantanamo detainees.  That is justice.  What is the problem with this?

Sorrry. I didn't mean to misquote you. I appreciate your opinion. All I'm saying is I will leave it in the hands of the people closer to the intelligence area who know all the facts surrounding these guys.

[TitanTiger 20,544]

23 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

I'm not TELLING you anything, just expressing an OPINION that I will rely on the people who are more qualified than. you or me to make the neccessary decisions. But heck what do I know......you may be smarter than all of them.

You keep tossing out this notion that you trust people who have experience in this while I'm just spouting off stuff from my own mind.  That's not the case, and I showed you that's not the case.  It's not that I'm smarter than them, it's that many of "them" don't agree with you.

I still haven't heard a sufficient explanation for why we get to screw up in holding people indefinitely but then because we've probably made them mad by doing the wrong thing, we now get to keep on holding them for our own safety.  In what universe is that remotely moral or ethical?

[TitanTiger 20,544]

I'll also mention, for those who consider things like fiscal responsibility...GITMO (just the prison camp) is costing American taxpayers almost a half a billion dollars a year to keep open.  And that's just with the 75 or so prisoners left in there.

[Strychnine 1,804]

Just now, Proud Tiger said:

Sorrry. I didn't mean to misquote you. I appreciate your opinion. All I'm saying is I will leave it in the hands of the people closer to the intelligence area who know all the facts surrounding these guys.

 

That is still not addressing the issue.  Intelligence personnel are in the intelligence business, and that work has been completed for quite some time.  They are not in the business of detention, incarceration, or justice, which is the arena that Guantanamo drifted into over a decade ago.  Intelligence personnel are not prosecutors or the judge, nor are they adequate substitutes.  If any detainees did (or were involved in planning) something to justify this indefinite detention, then surely sufficient evidence must exist to prosecute them for it.  If not, then intelligence agencies or military units have no business detaining them further.  Guantanamo is not the sort of precedent that we (or the world itself) need to see set or maintained.

 

[Mims44 1,903]

On 2/22/2017 at 8:39 AM, Strychnine said:

 

Indefinite detention is an exercise that the United States should have never been involved in.  If there was enough evidence to warrant putting someone in Guantanamo in the first place, they should have been prosecuted and then sentenced upon conviction.  If there is insufficient evidence to bring charges, then we have no business holding a person in Guantanamo or anywhere else.  What we should do with Guantanamo detainees is what we should have done with them to begin with:  give them their day in court, or release them.

There is a Federal prison in Colorado that is perfect for keeping dangerous people in complete isolation.  If it is secure enough to hold Zacarias Moussaoui and many other convicted foreign terrorists, it is secure enough for anyone that has been in Guantanamo.

The rights and burden of proof is different for an American citizen and a foreign local national detained by our military in a country we are at war with.... just sayin'.

Many more people are against that being done to people here than are against it happening to random LN in Afghanistan or Iraq... just super saiyan.

[Mims44 1,903]

11 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

I'll also mention, for those who consider things like fiscal responsibility...GITMO (just the prison camp) is costing American taxpayers almost a half a billion dollars a year to keep open.  And that's just with the 75 or so prisoners left in there.

Crap, I'll go halfies with ya Titan if you want to draft up a letter to Trump. We'll watch them all for a cool 300Mill.

[TitanTiger 20,544]

4 minutes ago, Mims44 said:

The rights and burden of proof is different for an American citizen and a foreign local national detained by our military in a country we are at war with.... just sayin'.

Many more people are against that being done to people here than are against it happening to random LN in Afghanistan or Iraq... just super saiyan.

But in this instance, it's not "citizens have more rights and detainees have less," it's "citizens have rights and detainees have none  Not even basic human rights."  It's simply not justifiable to imprison someone for going on 13 years, never charge them, give them no recourse for appeals or access to lawyers, never have to present any evidence and basically say - "Tough s***...whether you were bad when you got here or this unfair incarceration and treatment made you that way, you'll die here.  Condolences to your loved ones."

[Mims44 1,903]

4 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

But in this instance, it's not "citizens have more rights and detainees have less," it's "citizens have rights and detainees have none  Not even basic human rights."  It's simply not justifiable to imprison someone for going on 13 years, never charge them, give them no recourse for appeals or access to lawyers, never have to present any evidence and basically say - "Tough s***...whether you were bad when you got here or this unfair incarceration and treatment made you that way, you'll die here.  Condolences to your loved ones."

It's a tricky situation though isn't it. Normal wars you take prisoners, you keep them with no recourse for them until their country barters for them back or the war ends.

But they can't be bartered for since we don't do that with terrorists, and the war isn't nation vs nation so giving prisoners back at the conclusion isn't really an option either.

 

 

I'm sure most on both sides would disagree with me, but I would simply execute them all.

[TitanTiger 20,544]

Just now, Mims44 said:

It's a tricky situation though isn't it. Normal wars you take prisoners, you keep them with no recourse for them until their country barters for them back or the war ends.

But they can't be bartered for since we don't do that with terrorists, and the war isn't nation vs nation so giving prisoners back at the conclusion isn't really an option either.

 

 

I'm sure most on both sides would disagree with me, but I would simply execute them all.

Good Lord.

[Mims44 1,903]

1 minute ago, TitanTiger said:

Good Lord.

It would solve the problem, and save a half billion + for our country.

[TitanTiger 20,544]

1 minute ago, Mims44 said:

It would solve the problem, and save a half billion + for our country.

This would be true if our only problems in this scenario were safety and money.

[Strychnine 1,804]

7 minutes ago, Mims44 said:

The rights and burden of proof is different for an American citizen and a foreign local national detained by our military in a country we are at war with.... just sayin'.

Many more people are against that being done to people here than are against it happening to random LN in Afghanistan or Iraq... just super saiyan.

 

There is nothing in international or United States law that provides the right to detain anyone indefinitely without charge or trial.  I suppose the good news for the United States is that it withdrew from the ICC, so it cannot be prosecuted, and no nation of consequence would dare sanction us for it.  However, that does not make it right or just.

The purpose of distinguishing unlawful combatants from prisoners of war was not so that unlawful combatants could be tortured or detained indefinitely.  The purpose was to distinguish that a lawful combatant was not committing a crime in the act of killing an enemy soldier, while an unlawful combatant was.  In other words, it is to justify criminal prosecution and incarceration of captured unlawful combatants.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

53 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

I'll also mention, for those who consider things like fiscal responsibility...GITMO (just the prison camp) is costing American taxpayers almost a half a billion dollars a year to keep open.  And that's just with the 75 or so prisoners left in there.

So why didn't Obama close it.? He said he would when it was first elected. Did he learn something classified to change hie mind?How much money do you think it would cost the taxpayer to house them in an American prison and then prosecute them, considering we would have to pay prosecutors and public defender(s)?

[TitanTiger 20,544]

Just now, Proud Tiger said:

So why didn't Obama close it.? He said he would when it was first elected. Did he learn something classified to change hie mind?How much money do you think it would cost the taxpayer to house them in an American prison and then prosecute them, considering we would have to pay prosecutors and public defender(s)?

Actually there's plenty of information about that out there.  He actually did get rid of a lot of them.  Hundreds were released under Bush.  There have been 775 detainees go through there, 220 were still remaining when Obama took office and as of January 19th, there are 41 remaining.  But along the way there was a lot of politics going on, including various provisions slipped into large defense bills by Republicans to block the removal or relocation of Gitmo detainees.  

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

43 minutes ago, Mims44 said:

It's a tricky situation though isn't it. Normal wars you take prisoners, you keep them with no recourse for them until their country barters for them back or the war ends.

But they can't be bartered for since we don't do that with terrorists, and the war isn't nation vs nation so giving prisoners back at the conclusion isn't really an option either.

 

 

I'm sure most on both sides would disagree with me, but I would simply execute them all.

OK with me. They abide by the Quran which says kill infidels., namely us. So lets play eye for eye and every time we see they have killed an innocent person we kill one of them. Reverse ransom?

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

2 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Actually there's plenty of information about that out there.  He actually did get rid of a lot of them.  Hundreds were released under Bush.  There have been 775 detainees go through there, 220 were still remaining when Obama took office and as of January 19th, there are 41 remaining.  But along the way there was a lot of politics going on, including various provisions slipped into large defense bills by Republicans to block the removal or relocation of Gitmo detainees.  

Thank goodness for the Republicans. But you didn't answer the question of the cost to the taxpayer in both options.

 

[Mims44 1,903]

2 hours ago, Proud Tiger said:

OK with me. They abide by the Quran which says kill infidels., namely us. So lets play eye for eye and every time we see they have killed an innocent person we kill one of them. Reverse ransom?

I would enjoy their execution just as much if they were Christians... just so we're clear.

[TitanTiger 20,544]

3 hours ago, Proud Tiger said:

Thank goodness for the Republicans. But you didn't answer the question of the cost to the taxpayer in both options.

 

I would venture to guess that the cost of placing them in an existing Supermax prison would be far less than continuing to keep the Gitmo detention camp open.  The Supermax prison is there anyway and will continue to be for the worst of the worst criminals.  If Gitmo closes tomorrow, the American taxpayer immediately starts saving money.  Whatever defense attorneys and prosecutors cost for up to 41 prisoners, something tells me it's far, far south of half a billion a year.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

1 hour ago, TitanTiger said:

I would venture to guess that the cost of placing them in an existing Supermax prison would be far less than continuing to keep the Gitmo detention camp open.  The Supermax prison is there anyway and will continue to be for the worst of the worst criminals.  If Gitmo closes tomorrow, the American taxpayer immediately starts saving money.  Whatever defense attorneys and prosecutors cost for up to 41 prisoners, something tells me it's far, far south of half a billion a year.

I would guess differently but obviously neither of us know.

[TitanTiger 20,544]

8 hours ago, Proud Tiger said:

I would guess differently but obviously neither of us know.

The Supermax federal prison in Colorado spends about $60,000 per year, per inmate to keep inmates in permanent isolation. Housing an inmate in Guantanamo Bay costs taxpayers approximately $900,000 per year.  In other words, we could house all 41 Gitmo detainees (assuming all need to be kept and held in solitary confinement) for less than it currently costs to house 3 of them at Gitmo.

I have a pretty good idea that attorney fees for up to 41 prisoners won't exceed $440 million a year for the rest of their natural lives.  I'm decent at math.