"Guantanamo is a recruiting tool for terrorism"

[Sweet Willy]

because, you fucking asshole, you CANT try then in civilian courts
how can anyone be so fucking stupid

You are ignorant of what is going on. We are proceeding to give a trial, in a civilian court to a detainee RIGHT NOW. We can do what we want. Dumbass.

Attorney General Eric Holder announced early Thursday that Ahmed Ghailani will be sent to New York City for trial, which would make him the first Guantanamo detainee brought to the U.S. and the first to face trial in a civilian criminal court.

Tell me again what we can't do?

Ghailani was originally arrested HERE, Mirandized and indicted in 1998 I believe, and skipped bail, later to be picked up on the battlefield. It took us 2 years to find out who he really was, and that's the other problem -- these detainees do not cooperate! The ones who have, are LET GO.

So, how you gonna try someone if you don't even know who they are?

Yes, you claim he was arrested here. Where do you get this from? I beleive this to be untrue.

 

[Annie]

You are ignorant of what is going on. We are proceeding to give a trial, in a civilian court to a detainee RIGHT NOW. We can do what we want. Dumbass.




Tell me again what we can't do?

Ghailani was originally arrested HERE, Mirandized and indicted in 1998 I believe, and skipped bail, later to be picked up on the battlefield. It took us 2 years to find out who he really was, and that's the other problem -- these detainees do not cooperate! The ones who have, are LET GO.

So, how you gonna try someone if you don't even know who they are?

Yes, you claim he was arrested here. Where do you get this from? I beleive this to be untrue.

You are correct, he was captured in Pakistan in 2004, brought to Gitmo.

 

[DiveCon]

You are ignorant of what is going on. We are proceeding to give a trial, in a civilian court to a detainee RIGHT NOW. We can do what we want. Dumbass.




Tell me again what we can't do?

Ghailani was originally arrested HERE, Mirandized and indicted in 1998 I believe, and skipped bail, later to be picked up on the battlefield. It took us 2 years to find out who he really was, and that's the other problem -- these detainees do not cooperate! The ones who have, are LET GO.

So, how you gonna try someone if you don't even know who they are?

Yes, you claim he was arrested here. Where do you get this from? I beleive this to be untrue.

stupid, you could have found this easily

SF Gate: Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani: Indicted in the 1998 embassy atta... (SFC) Multimedia (image)

 

[Midnight Marauder]

You are ignorant of what is going on. We are proceeding to give a trial, in a civilian court to a detainee RIGHT NOW. We can do what we want. Dumbass.




Tell me again what we can't do?

Ghailani was originally arrested HERE, Mirandized and indicted in 1998 I believe, and skipped bail, later to be picked up on the battlefield. It took us 2 years to find out who he really was, and that's the other problem -- these detainees do not cooperate! The ones who have, are LET GO.

So, how you gonna try someone if you don't even know who they are?

Yes, you claim he was arrested here. Where do you get this from? I beleive this to be untrue.

I believe it is too! (Note: Every now and then I intentionally slip in a GFE to see who's really reading and paying attention.)

He's under indictment in a US Federal court. That's the only way to be able to try someone in a court. You cannot get the indictment unless you first, know who he is.

 

[Sweet Willy]

Willie, are you aware that over 400 of these detainees have been released, starting in 2003? The ones who cooperated by at least, correctly identifying themselves?

There's 240 or so hard cases left, who refuse to cooperate or, as Obama says, should never be released. So, you would rather hold them in our federal prison without trial, rather than holding them in Cuba?

Doesn't that belie the "recruitment tool" crap completely?

I don't know about the recruitment argument. I doubt there is a significant effect.

Charge them, prosecute them. One way or another, it has to be resolved. Holding prisoners without charge and without trials is simply wrong. If they are guilty, let's get to business and do what has to be done. This has already caused enough problems. get it over with already.

 

[DiveCon]

Ghailani was originally arrested HERE, Mirandized and indicted in 1998 I believe, and skipped bail, later to be picked up on the battlefield. It took us 2 years to find out who he really was, and that's the other problem -- these detainees do not cooperate! The ones who have, are LET GO.

So, how you gonna try someone if you don't even know who they are?

Yes, you claim he was arrested here. Where do you get this from? I beleive this to be untrue.

You are correct, he was captured in Pakistan in 2004, brought to Gitmo.

but he was indicted here
in 1998

 

[Midnight Marauder]

Holding prisoners without charge and without trials is simply wrong.

But, that's what Obama said he is going to do, with some of them.

So, here on our soil? Or at Gitmo? Which would be less of a "recruiting tool?"

 

[Sweet Willy]

Ghailani was originally arrested HERE, Mirandized and indicted in 1998 I believe, and skipped bail, later to be picked up on the battlefield. It took us 2 years to find out who he really was, and that's the other problem -- these detainees do not cooperate! The ones who have, are LET GO.

So, how you gonna try someone if you don't even know who they are?

Yes, you claim he was arrested here. Where do you get this from? I beleive this to be untrue.

I believe it is too!

He's under indictment in a US Federal court. That's the only way to be able to try someone in a court. You cannot get the indictment unless you first, know who he is.

So now you back track.

We can indict these guys if we have the goods on them. Time to get busy. I think the problem is that some of these guys are simply soldiers, caught with the enemy but not guilty of any specific crime, just guilt by association.

 

[Annie]

Yes, you claim he was arrested here. Where do you get this from? I beleive this to be untrue.

I believe it is too!

He's under indictment in a US Federal court. That's the only way to be able to try someone in a court. You cannot get the indictment unless you first, know who he is.

So now you back track.

We can indict these guys if we have the goods on them. Time to get busy. I think the problem is that some of these guys are simply soldiers, caught with the enemy but not guilty of any specific crime, just guilt by association.

So Obama is lying?

Lastly, describing the "toughest single issue that we will face," the president described those who face indefinite detention, "people who cannot be prosecuted for past crimes, in some cases, because evidence may be tainted, but who, nonetheless, pose a threat to the security of the United States."

 

[Midnight Marauder]

So now you back track.

Not at all. You passed the test, as I noted in the post.

We can indict these guys if we have the goods on them. Time to get busy. I think the problem is that some of these guys are simply soldiers, caught with the enemy but not guilty of any specific crime, just guilt by association.

Did you read what Obama said Willy? SOME of them will never be released, never be tried. Because of their SKILLS in bomb making, chemical weapons, etc.

And ones who do not identify themselves? We CANNOT try them anywhere except military court until we find out who they are! They don't carry driver's licenses and social security cards, or birth certificates!

OBAMA HIMSELF says all of the above. Why isn't that good enough for you?

 

[Sweet Willy]

Holding prisoners without charge and without trials is simply wrong.

But, that's what Obama said he is going to do, with some of them.

So, here on our soil? Or at Gitmo? Which would be less of a "recruiting tool?"

Did I miss the part where I said I was an Obama cheerleader? I don't give a crap what Obama said, it's still not the right thing to do. If they can't be indicted for a crime, we have no reason to hold them. We have released a whole bunch of them and I suspect the remaining detainees are some real pieces of work, none the less, if we don't have the goods on them, we don't have it. The ones that we do have the goods on, obviously, we can indict them, as we have already done. It's all about holding people on general suspicion.

 

[DiveCon]

Yes, you claim he was arrested here. Where do you get this from? I beleive this to be untrue.

I believe it is too!

He's under indictment in a US Federal court. That's the only way to be able to try someone in a court. You cannot get the indictment unless you first, know who he is.

So now you back track.

We can indict these guys if we have the goods on them. Time to get busy. I think the problem is that some of these guys are simply soldiers, caught with the enemy but not guilty of any specific crime, just guilt by association.

they dont qualify as soldiers

 

[manu1959]

so prior to sept 11 gitmo didn't exist.....the terrorists killed soliders in somalia...blew up the cole...blew up two embasies...declared war on the us....blew u[p a night club in bali...and blew up the basement of the wtc....

ya gitmo is the problem.....

 

[Midnight Marauder]

Did I miss the part where I said I was an Obama cheerleader? I don't give a crap what Obama said, it's still not the right thing to do. If they can't be indicted for a crime, we have no reason to hold them. We have released a whole bunch of them and I suspect the remaining detainees are some real pieces of work, none the less, if we don't have the goods on them, we don't have it. The ones that we do have the goods on, obviously, we can indict them, as we have already done. It's all about holding people on general suspicion.

Many of those released returned to terrorism.

But see, the thread is about the stupidity of claiming Gitmo is a "recruiting tool." Clearly it is not, and if it is, SO WHAT? It's not like IslamoNazis don't have a million of those as it is.

Please read post #1 again. Slow:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/1227642-post1.html

 

[Midnight Marauder]

so prior to sept 11 gitmo didn't exist.....the terrorists killed soliders in somalia...blew up the cole...blew up two embasies...declared war on the us....blew u[p a night club in bali...and blew up the basement of the wtc....

ya gitmo is the problem.....

This is what most of the humanoids miss, which by itself completely belies the "recruitment tool" argument.

 

[Sweet Willy]

Did I miss the part where I said I was an Obama cheerleader? I don't give a crap what Obama said, it's still not the right thing to do. If they can't be indicted for a crime, we have no reason to hold them. We have released a whole bunch of them and I suspect the remaining detainees are some real pieces of work, none the less, if we don't have the goods on them, we don't have it. The ones that we do have the goods on, obviously, we can indict them, as we have already done. It's all about holding people on general suspicion.

Many of those released returned to terrorism.

But see, the thread is about the stupidity of claiming Gitmo is a "recruiting tool." Clearly it is not, and if it is, SO WHAT? It's not like IslamoNazis don't have a million of those as it is.

Please read post #1 again. Slow:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/1227642-post1.html

I agree, the recruitment argument is lame. There will be a long line of people wanting to fight us regardless. I think they have tried to make it a recruiting tool and maybe it has worked a little but not enough for that to be the motivation to bring closure to that situation.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

I agree, the recruitment argument is lame. There will be a long line of people wanting to fight us regardless. I think they have tried to make it a recruiting tool and maybe it has worked a little but not enough for that to be the motivation to bring closure to that situation.

And my other point is, if we're going to be worrying about getting rid of stuff because it's "recruitment tools" we're giving the IslamoNazis a great deal of power over us.

How about a good argument from Obama on this, like, "It costs far too much to house, clothe and feed these people" instead? That one at least, isn't ridiculous and doesn't give the IslamoNazis any further ammo.

 

[Yurt]

i hear they are gathering recruits by telling people that our men wear tight, hot pink, spandex uniforms when they do battle

 

[DiveCon]

i hear they are gathering recruits by telling people that our men wear tight, hot pink, spandex uniforms when they do battle

you are repeating yourself

 

[KittenKoder]

i hear they are gathering recruits by telling people that our men wear tight, hot pink, spandex uniforms when they do battle

Really, if the joke was funny people would have noticed ... the first time, this is just getting lame.