This is Why We Have Gitmo

[Tigermike 3,052]

Because Islamist terrorists didn't develop in a vacuum--they grew up and were fostered in Islamist countries that fed and continue to feed, their savagery. In this instance, 19 Islamist savages are freed to continue their "jihad" against the United States.

Yemen Acquits 19 Suspected al-Qaida Members

Sunday July 9, 2006 12:01 AM

AP Photo NN102

By AHMED AL-HAJ

Associated Press Writer

SAN'A, Yemen (AP) - Nineteen alleged al-Qaida members accused of plotting to assassinate Westerners and blow up a hotel used by Americans were acquitted Saturday by a judge who also exonerated some of fighting U.S. troops in Iraq.

The accused denied many of the charges, but some had confessed to fighting U.S. troops in Iraq, and had Iraqi stamps in their passports.

``This does not violate (Yemeni) law,'' presiding judge Ahmed al-Baadani said. ``Islamic sharia law permits jihad against occupiers.''

The 14 Yemenis and five Saudis were accused of forming a gang to assassinate Americans and Westerners in Yemen, and of joining the so-called holy war against the U.S.-led coalition in Iraq.

One defendant testified he had returned home to perpetrate jihad against Americans in Yemen, a U.S. ally and the ancestral homeland of Osama bin Laden.

But the prosecution failed to provide ``adequate evidence that the defendants were plotting attacks against foreigners or planning to assassinate Americans in Yemen,'' al-Baadani said.

The defendants greeted the verdict with cries of ``God is Great!'' from behind the bars of a cage in the courtroom.

Mohammed al-Maqaleh, an expert in Islamist affairs who frequently appears in the Yemeni media, described the verdict as a ``shock'' and a sign that President Ali Abdullah Saleh was trying to drum up support from Muslim radicals ahead of the coming presidential elections.

Yemen, long regarded as a haven for al-Qaida, was the scene of the October 2000 suicide bombing against the USS Cole that killed 17 American sailors. But the country allied itself with the United States after Sept. 11 and waged a crackdown on militants.

Saleh nonetheless has long-standing ties with Islamic militants, who have stood by the administration since the 1980s.

``This (verdict) is a change for the judiciary in Yemen,'' said Ali al-Kurdi, one of the defendants, who spent three years in Afghanistan in the 1990s. ``It is fair, something unusual.''

Al-Kurdi was charged with being linked to al-Qaida.

The defendants were arrested in early 2005 and accused of having contact with al-Qaida in Iraq leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and receiving directions from him to attack a Western-owned hotel in the Yemeni city of Aden. Al-Zarqawi was killed June 7 in a U.S. airstrike in Iraq.

Saleh's announcement that he will again run for president broke earlier promises to step down after 28 years at the helm of this impoverished Arab nation.

Five Yemeni opposition parties have chosen Faisal bin Shamlan, a former oil industry executive to challenge him. Bin Shamlan has spoken out against al-Qaida and denounced corruption.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/stor...5938838,00.html

[GoAU 1,600]

I say we give the Muslims the Holy War they want....

[CCTAU 3,342]

And then more appeasemnet by our own government. This way of thinking that we should give a damn what the world thinks is starting to make me sick.

U.S. will give detainees Geneva rights By ANNE PLUMMER FLAHERTY, Associated Press Writer

24 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration, called to account by Congress in the wake of a Supreme Court ruling blocking military tribunals, said Tuesday all detainees at Guantanamo Bay and in U.S. military custody everywhere are entitled to protections under the Geneva Conventions.

ADVERTISEMENT

White House spokesman Tony Snow said the policy, outlined in a new Defense Department memo, reflects the recent 5-3 Supreme Court decision blocking military tribunals set up by        President Bush. That decision struck down the tribunals because they did not obey international law and had not been authorized by Congress.

The policy, described in a memo by Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England, appears to reverse the administration's earlier insistence that the detainees are not prisoners of war and thus not subject to the Geneva protections.

But the administration has insisted that it has always treated the detainees humanely.

Word of the Bush administration's new stance came as the Senate Judiciary Committee opened hearings Tuesday on the politically charged issue of how detainees should be tried.

"We're not going to give the        Department of Defense a blank check," Republican Sen. Arlen Specter (news, bio, voting record) of Pennsylvania, the committee chairman, told the hearing.

Sen. Patrick Leahy (news, bio, voting record) of Vermont, the committee's top Democrat, said "kangaroo court procedures" must be changed and any military commissions "should not be set up as a sham. They should be consistent with a high standard of American justice, worth protecting."

The Senate is expected to take up legislation addressing the legal rights of suspected terrorists after the August recess — timing that would push the issue squarely into the election season.

Guantanamo has been a flash point for both U.S. and international debate over the treatment of detainees without trial and over allegations of torture, denied by U.S. officials. Even U.S. allies in the war on terrorism have criticized the facility and process.

The camp came under worldwide condemnation after it opened more than four years ago, when pictures showed prisoners kneeling, shackled and being herded into wire cages. It intensified with reports of heavy-handed interrogations, hunger strikes and suicides.

Snow insisted that all U.S. detainees have been treated humanely. Still, he said, "We want to get it right."

"It's not really a reversal of policy," Snow asserted, calling the Supreme Court decision "complex."

Steven Bradbury, acting assistant attorney general of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, told the Senate hearing that the Bush administration would abide by the Supreme Court's ruling that a provision of the Geneva Conventions applies.

But he acknowledged that the provision — which requires humane treatment of captured combatants and requires trials with judicial guarantees "recognized as indispensable by civilized people" — is ambiguous and would be hard to interpret.

"The application of common Article 3 will create a degree of uncertainty for those who fight to defend us from terrorist attack," Bradbury said.

Snow said efforts to spell out more clearly the rights of detainees does not change the president's determination to work with Congress to enable the administration to proceed with the military tribunals, or commissions. The goal is "to find a way to properly do this in a way consistent with national security," Snow said.

Snow said that the instruction manuals used by the Department of Defense already comply with the humane-treatment provisions of Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. They are currently being updated to reflect legislation passed by Congress and sponsored by Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record), R-Ariz., to more expressly rule out torture.

"The administration intends to work with Congress," Snow said.

"We want to fulfill the mandates of justice, making sure we find a way properly to try people who have been plucked off the battlefields who are not combatants in the traditional sense," he said.

"The Supreme Court pretty much said it's over to you guys (the administration and Congress) to figure out how to do this. And that is where this is headed."

Under questioning from the committee, Daniel Dell'Orto, principal deputy general counsel at the        Pentagon, said he believes the current treatment of detainees — as well as the existing tribunal process — already complies with Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions.

"The memo that went out, it doesn't indicate a shift in policy," he said. "It just announces the decision of the court."

"The military commission set up does provide a right to counsel, a trained military defense counsel and the right to private counsel of the detainee's choice," Dell'Orto said. "We see no reason to change that in legislation."

[otterinbham 0]

Sorry guys. I'm as conservative as the next guy. But the evidence of torture on our part at Gitmo and elsewhere is irrefutable. Torture is not the American way and has shredded our credibility abroad...credibility that is critical to our success in this mission.

So if you support American values, then you need to support the American way of fighting a way: According to the laws of civilized conduct, regardless of what our enemies do.

[Tigermike 3,052]

Irrefutable? How is it irrefutable? If it is, please provide links and proof. I don't know if those allegations are true or not. But simply judging from where they come from raises more doubt than proof.

Recent headlines have been along the lines of:

U.N. "uncovers torture" at Gitmo

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...L&feed=rss.news

And many more along the same lines, you can Google if you wish.

20%: Gitmo Prisoners Treated Unfairly

June 22, 2005--A Rasmussen Reports survey found that 20% of Americans believe prisoners at Guantanamo Bay have been treated unfairly. Seven-out-of-ten adults believe the prisoners are being treated "better than they deserve" (36%) or "about right" (34%).

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2005/Gitmo.htm

Did the UN uncover torture at Gitmo?

Well, not exactly. But hey, that News Journal/A.P. headline really pulls you in, eh?

U.N. human rights experts said Thursday they have reliable accounts of detainees being tortured at the U.S. base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

The experts, who report to U.N. bodies on different human rights issues, said their request for a visit was "based on information, from reliable sources, of serious allegations of torture, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of detainees, arbitrary detention, violations of their right to health and their due process rights."

"Many of these allegations have come to light through declassified (U.S.) government documents," they said.

Where are these declassified documents? Are these "reliable sources" as "reliable" as, say, Newsweek's or CBS's? What exactly does "cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment" constitute? As for "arbitrary detention" and "due process rights," each and every detainee in Gitmo has already had a hearing -- which means detainee detention is not "arbitrary," and they've gotten all the due process they're entitled to thus far.

Manfred Nowak, the U.N. special investigator on torture, said his team needed full access to Guantanamo's facilities and prison population, but the United States refused to guarantee him the right to speak to detainees in private.

"At a certain point, you have to take well-founded allegations as proven in the absence of a clear explanation by the government," Manfred Nowak

And just what will the detainees say Mr. Nowak? That they're being "mistreated"? Certainly! It's right out of the al Qaeda training manual, (.PDF file, pg. 16-17) after all. http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/manualpart1_4.pdf

An appropriate headline would be "U.N. claims to uncover torture at Guantánamo" (my emphasis), but of course this would not draw in the reader -- certainly not like the definitive "uncovers torture" does. And based on recent comparisons (say, Dick Durbin?) and recent polls, A.P. obviously felt it needed all the help it could get to grab those readers.

http://www.thatliberalmedia.com/archives/004660.html

In an April meeting, U.S. officials refused to guarantee the right to speak to detainees in private - an "absolute precondition" for such a visit, Nowak said.

"We deeply regret that the government of the United States has still not invited us to visit those persons arrested, detained or tried on grounds of alleged terrorism or other violations," the experts said.

"The time is up. We have to act now," said Leila Zerrougui, an Algerian magistrate who reports on arbitrary detention. "If not, we won't have any credibility left." He said with a straight face, as if the UN has any credibility.

"Reportedly medical staff have assisted in the design of interrogation strategies, including sleep deprivation and other coercive interrogation methods," Hunt said.

[AUloggerhead 2,253]

Sorry guys. I'm as conservative as the next guy. But the evidence of torture on our part at Gitmo and elsewhere is irrefutable. Torture is not the American way and has shredded our credibility abroad...credibility that is critical to our success in this mission.

So if you support American values, then you need to support the American way of fighting a way: According to the laws of civilized conduct, regardless of what our enemies do.

246908[/snapback]

Ignorance is bliss. otter, these guys will slit your throat if given a chance just because you are an American. They will use airliners as flying bombs, plant bombs in subways & try to cause mass casualties among innocent people all the while not giving a hoot about "American values" or care one bit about the Geneva Convention. You want to be rational with the incorrigably irrational. It doesn't work. These people simply don't care -- and for that they need to be tortured when captured so that we can gather whatever information about their kind that can be obtained. And then that information needs to be quickly used to wipe out the rest of them before they can harm any more innocents. We need to be completely rational about what we are doing.

[otterinbham 0]

Sorry guys. I'm as conservative as the next guy. But the evidence of torture on our part at Gitmo and elsewhere is irrefutable. Torture is not the American way and has shredded our credibility abroad...credibility that is critical to our success in this mission.

So if you support American values, then you need to support the American way of fighting a way: According to the laws of civilized conduct, regardless of what our enemies do.

246908[/snapback]

Ignorance is bliss. otter, these guys will slit your throat if given a chance just because you are an American. They will use airliners as flying bombs, plant bombs in subways & try to cause mass casualties among innocent people all the while not giving a hoot about "American values" or care one bit about the Geneva Convention. You want to be rational with the incorrigably irrational. It doesn't work. These people simply don't care -- and for that they need to be tortured when captured so that we can gather whatever information about their kind that can be obtained. And then that information needs to be quickly used to wipe out the rest of them before they can harm any more innocents. We need to be completely rational about what we are doing.

246941[/snapback]

I would be careful whom you term ignorant, Loggerhead. I am a military contractor and have been immersed in the development of Army asymmetrical warfare doctrine for the past 18 months. I have not been to Gitmo, but I have been to various other intermediate handling facilities. If you bother reading anything at all about insurgents and terrorists, you realize that moral superiority is actually a very powerful weapon to use against our opponents. And, I have read first hand intelligence reports on the subject of how we are extracting intelligence through what is anasceptically known as "irregular" procedures. As it turns out, intelligence extracted during torture tends to be of dubious value, while the strategic damage wrought to our cause in the field is incalculable in the Arab world. An excellent beginners text on the importance of this in battling an insurgency would be "Eating Soup With A Knife" by an Army colonel who served in the Sunni Triangle.

You may not realize this, but there is actually an Arab intelligentsia and an emerging Arab middle class, and they are watching our progress very carefully in hopes of overthrowing the centuries-long lethargy that has gripped their society. However, by torturing insurgents and generally ignoring the established rules of warfare, we are demonstrating that our political system is not much of an alternative to their own.

[CCTAU 3,342]

During your time with the intelligensia, did they explain the difference in the true "torture" used by the peace-loving muslims and the barely even describable torture that we have been accused of. PLEASE. If we tortured like they do, then you and they have room to cry. But nothing we have done truly amounts to torture. Only the libs and the media refer to it as torture. I, and many others, do not feel that humiliation is torture.

Bullshirt semantics.

And you may be right. Any info would be dubious. So just execute them all as spies and be done with it.

And this is crap:

we are demonstrating that our political system is not much of an alternative to their own.

Big damn difference. We don't do this to our own. They do and always will.

[otterinbham 0]

Nonsense. I quote from Army Field Manual 34-52.

"Humane treatment of insurgent captives should extend far beyond compliance with Article 3, if for no other reason than to render them more susceptible to interrogation. The insurgent is trained to expect brutal treatment upon capture. If, contrary to what he has been led to believe, this mistreatment is not forthcoming, he is apt to become psychologically softened for interrogation. Furthermore, brutality by either capturing troops or friendly interrogators will reduce defections and serve as grist for the insurgent's propaganda mill."

Essentially it was a policy that served us well through any number of very difficult conflicts, including World Wars I and II, the Phillippine Insurrection, and the Korean War. And, if you study carefully the operational history of special forces such as the Green Berets in Vietnam, you will note that they were very rigorous in their adherence to these policies, and had a great deal of success.

[Captain Liger 0]

Army FMs usually make good for field expedient toilet paper, starting small camp fires and for leveling out a table that would otherwise rock back and forth.

Know how many tactical field manuals I've read in my time? Two. Know why I haven't bothered to read any more? Because they suck and never apply to a real world situation. Sure, they're great for a garrison training environment where everything is hunky dory and for teaching recruits at TRADOC (Training & Doctrine) installations. I hate schoolhouse answers because they're always blinded by the relative safety of their physical location. I'm at a TRADOC installation right now and I hate it. I can't wait to get back to a real unit with a real mission. FM 7-7, FM 7-8, FM 34-whatever....yeah, it's good reading and you can get some helpful information but it really doesn't apply all that much in the real Army.

A 9mm issue Berretta rammed into the mouth of an insurgent with the hammer back will get you the answers you want 99.9% of the time. Make sure to pistol whip him first, though. But you won't find that in a FM. Terrorists, aka insurgents, don't represent a country, don't wear a uniform, and don't swear an oath of allegiance to anything except for pure, unadulterated killing of innocent people. I don't think the Geneva Convention rules should apply to insurgents, so therefore I say we string 'em up, pull down their pants and hit 'em on the balls with a piece of bamboo cane until they talk. Then dispose of them.

What we really need is a modern day version of General "Blackjack" Pershing.

[quietfan 233]

I don't think the Geneva Convention rules should apply to insurgents...

247419[/snapback]

However, your Commander-in-Chief does, Captain. As per CCTAU's article:

The Bush administration, called to account by Congress in the wake of a Supreme Court ruling blocking military tribunals, said Tuesday all detainees at Guantanamo Bay and in U.S. military custody everywhere are entitled to protections under the Geneva Conventions.

So are you saying that, although you're a commissioned officer, you believe neither official Army documents (field manuals), nor your Commander-in-Chief?

But if I, as a civilian, question the same, I'm giving aid & comfort to the enemy? :huh:

[Captain Liger 0]

I don't think the Geneva Convention rules should apply to insurgents...

247419[/snapback]

However, your Commander-in-Chief does, Captain. As per CCTAU's article:

The Bush administration, called to account by Congress in the wake of a Supreme Court ruling blocking military tribunals, said Tuesday all detainees at Guantanamo Bay and in U.S. military custody everywhere are entitled to protections under the Geneva Conventions.

So are you saying that, although you're a commissioned officer, you believe neither official Army documents (field manuals), nor your Commander-in-Chief?

But if I, as a civilian, question the same, I'm giving aid & comfort to the enemy? :huh:

247459[/snapback]

Two separate issues here:

1. My skepticism of Army field manuals are based solely on operational experience and I have every right to question them because field manuals are written by soldiers for soldiers. True, field manuals are considered doctrine but doctrine changes like the wind. Just when some team of "specialists" think they've got it all figured out and pump out an updated field manual it almost instantly becomes outdated. That's why I don't like field manuals. They're good to read but it's stupid to follow them word for word. The majority of the time you just fly by the seat of your pants over there, learning as you go and implementing what works for you. What worked for the 1st Armored Divsion in OIF I didn't work for us (1st Cav Div) in OIF II. What worked for us didn't work for the 3rd Infantry Division after they replaced us. See where I'm going? Being all nice and cuddly with captured terrorists (according to AR 34-52) might work for a minute but eventually that tactic will have to change. If it's pistol whipping or whipped cream in the face, who cares? Just so long as it works and nets positive results. Personally, I think everyone should get off the backs of our interrogators and let them do their job however they see fit. Screwing with them only hinders our overall mission. I think all this fuss about "torture" is much ado about nothing.

2. If the current administration insists that insurgents are protected under the Geneva Conventions then allow me to tell you privately that I disagree with them. Publicly, I don't have an opinion. I don't get paid to make those decisions and whatever the President decides, I will abide by and carry out his orders to the best of my ability.

That's the difference between you and me. I know how to carry out a war without regards to politics and political correctness. Your way attempts to keep the rest of the world happy with us and appease both sides of the political aisle. I guess we just have to find a happy medium. But I think the war would be over a little faster if we, the military, could fight it how we see fit without all this political wrangling BS.

[Bottomfeeder 244]

Dick Durbin (D - IL) says he hasn't seen any evidence of torture. Another thing is what the heck would we do will all of them?

[GoAU 1,600]

What true evidence of torture has anyone seen coming out of Gitmo - or anywhere else for that matter?

Abu Garib someone is sure to say. And while that should probably be considered misconduct and humilitaing a prisoner I wouldn't call it torture. Torture is what happened to the two soldiers that were captured by these fanatics. Torture happened to Daniel Pearl. It is not being told to stand naked, it is not sleep deprivation, it isn't being in a jail cell.

These idiots, as already posted, were trained to lie about being tortured to create issues and political division - and it sure seems to be working.

These "peace loving Muslims" only understand force, anything else is a sign of weakness. That psycho-babble bull crap about "suprise them with nice treatment and they will talk" is some of the worst information I have ever written. I will agree that in cases of extreme torture (i.e. ripping off fingernails, joint dislocations, and a good ole Rodney King beating) the information gleaned is not of the highest quality as the prisoner will say whatever he thinks you want to hear to get you to stop. But things like sleep and sensory deprivation, psychological games (good cop/bad cop, etc) and other forms of mild "torture" are in fact HIGHLY effective - especially when time is of the essence.

Keep in mind you are dealing with a very fluid enemy - you don't have weeks to explout intelligence gains - it's more like hours or days. If making some "peace loving Muslim" suffer a bit will save even a single American life I am 100% for it.

[CCTAU 3,342]

If making some "peace loving Muslim" suffer a  bit will save even a single American life I am 100% for it.

That, my friend, is where we differ from the libbies. They would rather save a convict than a victim. Spies should die. And that is what these folks amount to in today's battlefield terms.

Libbies are more concerned with how we treat terrorists than they are with defeating them.