Ten years is up.....time to release everyone from Gitmo

[The T]

If the United States is detaining these men for being terrorists, then the burden of proof is on us. Even the most despicable criminal is entitled to his day in court. That's what freedom means. These are the rules we have cherished for hundreds of years

If we have sufficient proof to show they are terrorists then we should be willing to provide it in a court or tribunal
If we don't have proof, they should be released

That is the American way

They are not criminals jackass. They're terrorists.

Enemy combatants with one purpose. Destroy the United States.

 

[The T]

We are a nation of laws. One of our most cherished documents is the Bill of Rights which guarantees the right to a speedy trial, right to see the evidence against you and right to face your accuser

We, as a nation have done none of that and hold men who are "suspected" of being terrorists in indefinite detention. Isn't it time to put up or shut up and either try or release these men?

They're not citizens...assclown.

The bill of rights says nothing about only applying to citizens

OK...so why all the fuss over immigration? Why are there immigration laws?

Son? Sewergas has infiltrated your brain.

 

[Intense]

You might want to study this Link, RW. Mastermind that you are. Obviously, Release should be case by case.


History

American spokesmen have been asserting, as early as 2004, that newly released captives "returned to the battlefield". The story, as told by American spokesmen as senior as Vice President Dick Cheney, is that these captives tricked their interrogators about their real identity, and made them think they were harmless villagers, and thus were able to "return to the battlefield."[1] Initially these government spokesmen claimed relatively small numbers of former Guantanamo captives had returned to the battlefield. On April 2, 2007, JTF-GTMO commander Harry Harris asserted that thirty former captives "resumed terrorist activities".[3]

In a press briefing on March 6, 2007 a "Senior Defense official" commented[4]:

"I can tell you that we have confirmed 12 individuals have returned to the fight, and we have strong evidence that about another dozen have returned to the fight."

Commentators questioned the credibility of the spokesmen's assertions. H. Candace Gorman, looked into the only three names had been offered of captives who had been returned to the battlefield: Abdullah Mehsud"; "Mullah Shahzada"; and Maulvi Abdul Ghaffar.[5] She wrote, on March 18, 2007, that she found that the name Abdullah Mehsud wasn't listed on the official list of Guantanamo captives released on May 15, 2006.[6] She found that there were captives with names close to those of the two other men. but that the records showed these men were still in custody when according to the spokesmen's assertions they had not only been released, but had been killed in combat.

On Monday, May 14, 2007, Pentagon officials Joseph Benkert and Jeffrey Gordon repeated the assertion that thirty former captives had returned to the battlefield in testimony before the United States Congress.[7] They identified six of the thirty by name.[8] They offered the names of the three men previously identified: "Mullah Shahzada"; "Maulavi Abdul Ghaffar"; and Abdullah Mahsud. They tied "Mullah Shahzada" to Mohamed Yusif Yaqub, a Guantanamo captive who was listed on the official list.[6] The other three names they offered were: Mohammed Ismail; Abdul Rahman Noor; and Mohammed Nayim Farouq.[8]

On July 12, 2007 the Department of Defense placed an additional page on their site, entitled: "Former Guantanamo Detainees who have returned to the fight".[9] This list contained one additional name, not on the list released on May 14, 2007, for a total of seven names. The new name was Ruslan Odizhev, a Russian who Russian police reported died while resisting arrest on June 27, 2007.[10]

On 13 January 2009, the Pentagon said that 18 former detainees are confirmed to have participated in attacks, and 43 are suspected to have been involved in attacks.[11] A Spokesman said evidence of someone being "confirmed" could include fingerprints, a conclusive photograph or "well-corroborated intelligence reporting." He said the Pentagon would not discuss how the statistics were derived because of security concerns. National security expert and CNN analyst Peter Bergen, states that some of those "suspected" to have returned to terrorism are so categorized because they publicly made anti-American statements, "something that's not surprising if you've been locked up in a U.S. prison camp for several years." If all on the "confirmed" list have indeed returned to the battlefield, that would amount to 4 percent of the detainees who have been released.[12]

Lists of former Guantanamo Bay detainees alleged to have returned to terrorism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[The T]

You might want to study this Link. Mastermind that you are.


History

American spokesmen have been asserting, as early as 2004, that newly released captives "returned to the battlefield". The story, as told by American spokesmen as senior as Vice President Dick Cheney, is that these captives tricked their interrogators about their real identity, and made them think they were harmless villagers, and thus were able to "return to the battlefield."[1] Initially these government spokesmen claimed relatively small numbers of former Guantanamo captives had returned to the battlefield. On April 2, 2007, JTF-GTMO commander Harry Harris asserted that thirty former captives "resumed terrorist activities".[3]

In a press briefing on March 6, 2007 a "Senior Defense official" commented[4]:

"I can tell you that we have confirmed 12 individuals have returned to the fight, and we have strong evidence that about another dozen have returned to the fight."

Commentators questioned the credibility of the spokesmen's assertions. H. Candace Gorman, looked into the only three names had been offered of captives who had been returned to the battlefield: Abdullah Mehsud"; "Mullah Shahzada"; and Maulvi Abdul Ghaffar.[5] She wrote, on March 18, 2007, that she found that the name Abdullah Mehsud wasn't listed on the official list of Guantanamo captives released on May 15, 2006.[6] She found that there were captives with names close to those of the two other men. but that the records showed these men were still in custody when according to the spokesmen's assertions they had not only been released, but had been killed in combat.

On Monday, May 14, 2007, Pentagon officials Joseph Benkert and Jeffrey Gordon repeated the assertion that thirty former captives had returned to the battlefield in testimony before the United States Congress.[7] They identified six of the thirty by name.[8] They offered the names of the three men previously identified: "Mullah Shahzada"; "Maulavi Abdul Ghaffar"; and Abdullah Mahsud. They tied "Mullah Shahzada" to Mohamed Yusif Yaqub, a Guantanamo captive who was listed on the official list.[6] The other three names they offered were: Mohammed Ismail; Abdul Rahman Noor; and Mohammed Nayim Farouq.[8]

On July 12, 2007 the Department of Defense placed an additional page on their site, entitled: "Former Guantanamo Detainees who have returned to the fight".[9] This list contained one additional name, not on the list released on May 14, 2007, for a total of seven names. The new name was Ruslan Odizhev, a Russian who Russian police reported died while resisting arrest on June 27, 2007.[10]

On 13 January 2009, the Pentagon said that 18 former detainees are confirmed to have participated in attacks, and 43 are suspected to have been involved in attacks.[11] A Spokesman said evidence of someone being "confirmed" could include fingerprints, a conclusive photograph or "well-corroborated intelligence reporting." He said the Pentagon would not discuss how the statistics were derived because of security concerns. National security expert and CNN analyst Peter Bergen, states that some of those "suspected" to have returned to terrorism are so categorized because they publicly made anti-American statements, "something that's not surprising if you've been locked up in a U.S. prison camp for several years." If all on the "confirmed" list have indeed returned to the battlefield, that would amount to 4 percent of the detainees who have been released.[12]

Lists of former Guantanamo Bay detainees alleged to have returned to terrorism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pentagon Spokesman Geoff Morrell told reporters on Tuesday that 61 former detainees from the U.S. military facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba have returned to the fight against the United States and its allies.


Morrell said that a Defense Department report compiled in December found a substantial increase in the number of detainees returning to terrorism.

"Prior to this report, the rate had been about seven percent of those who had been held at Guantanamo and released and those that had been confirmed or suspected of returning to the fight. At that point, we suspected that 37 former detainees had returned to the fight," said Morrell. "We now believe that that number has increased and that the overall known terrorist re-engagement rate has increased to 11 percent."

Morrell said that of the former detainees who returned to terrorism, 18 are confirmed and 43 are suspected of participating in terrorist activities. He says fingerprints, photographs and intelligence materials were used to tie some of the former detainees to terrorist activities.

"There clearly are people who are being held at Guantanamo who are still bent on doing harm to America, Americans and our allies," he said. "So there will have to be some solution for the likes of them."

Source

 

[rightwinger]

If the United States is detaining these men for being terrorists, then the burden of proof is on us. Even the most despicable criminal is entitled to his day in court. That's what freedom means. These are the rules we have cherished for hundreds of years

If we have sufficient proof to show they are terrorists then we should be willing to provide it in a court or tribunal
If we don't have proof, they should be released

That is the American way

They are not criminals jackass. They're terrorists.

Enemy combatants with one purpose. Destroy the United States.

Most were not involved in 9-11 and have not been accused of crimes against the US. Enemy combatants are treated as combatants and not criminals

If they are enemy combatants we need to define the terms of that combat and not detain them indefinitely

 

[rightwinger]

You might want to study this Link, RW. Mastermind that you are. Obviously, Release should be case by case.


History

American spokesmen have been asserting, as early as 2004, that newly released captives "returned to the battlefield". The story, as told by American spokesmen as senior as Vice President Dick Cheney, is that these captives tricked their interrogators about their real identity, and made them think they were harmless villagers, and thus were able to "return to the battlefield."[1] Initially these government spokesmen claimed relatively small numbers of former Guantanamo captives had returned to the battlefield. On April 2, 2007, JTF-GTMO commander Harry Harris asserted that thirty former captives "resumed terrorist activities".[3]

In a press briefing on March 6, 2007 a "Senior Defense official" commented[4]:

"I can tell you that we have confirmed 12 individuals have returned to the fight, and we have strong evidence that about another dozen have returned to the fight."

Commentators questioned the credibility of the spokesmen's assertions. H. Candace Gorman, looked into the only three names had been offered of captives who had been returned to the battlefield: Abdullah Mehsud"; "Mullah Shahzada"; and Maulvi Abdul Ghaffar.[5] She wrote, on March 18, 2007, that she found that the name Abdullah Mehsud wasn't listed on the official list of Guantanamo captives released on May 15, 2006.[6] She found that there were captives with names close to those of the two other men. but that the records showed these men were still in custody when according to the spokesmen's assertions they had not only been released, but had been killed in combat.

On Monday, May 14, 2007, Pentagon officials Joseph Benkert and Jeffrey Gordon repeated the assertion that thirty former captives had returned to the battlefield in testimony before the United States Congress.[7] They identified six of the thirty by name.[8] They offered the names of the three men previously identified: "Mullah Shahzada"; "Maulavi Abdul Ghaffar"; and Abdullah Mahsud. They tied "Mullah Shahzada" to Mohamed Yusif Yaqub, a Guantanamo captive who was listed on the official list.[6] The other three names they offered were: Mohammed Ismail; Abdul Rahman Noor; and Mohammed Nayim Farouq.[8]

On July 12, 2007 the Department of Defense placed an additional page on their site, entitled: "Former Guantanamo Detainees who have returned to the fight".[9] This list contained one additional name, not on the list released on May 14, 2007, for a total of seven names. The new name was Ruslan Odizhev, a Russian who Russian police reported died while resisting arrest on June 27, 2007.[10]

On 13 January 2009, the Pentagon said that 18 former detainees are confirmed to have participated in attacks, and 43 are suspected to have been involved in attacks.[11] A Spokesman said evidence of someone being "confirmed" could include fingerprints, a conclusive photograph or "well-corroborated intelligence reporting." He said the Pentagon would not discuss how the statistics were derived because of security concerns. National security expert and CNN analyst Peter Bergen, states that some of those "suspected" to have returned to terrorism are so categorized because they publicly made anti-American statements, "something that's not surprising if you've been locked up in a U.S. prison camp for several years." If all on the "confirmed" list have indeed returned to the battlefield, that would amount to 4 percent of the detainees who have been released.[12]

Lists of former Guantanamo Bay detainees alleged to have returned to terrorism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Absolutely make it case by case

Define the crime they are alleged to have committed and the evidence against them. If you have a case...use it

 

[The T]

You might want to study this Link, RW. Mastermind that you are. Obviously, Release should be case by case.


History

American spokesmen have been asserting, as early as 2004, that newly released captives "returned to the battlefield". The story, as told by American spokesmen as senior as Vice President Dick Cheney, is that these captives tricked their interrogators about their real identity, and made them think they were harmless villagers, and thus were able to "return to the battlefield."[1] Initially these government spokesmen claimed relatively small numbers of former Guantanamo captives had returned to the battlefield. On April 2, 2007, JTF-GTMO commander Harry Harris asserted that thirty former captives "resumed terrorist activities".[3]

In a press briefing on March 6, 2007 a "Senior Defense official" commented[4]:

"I can tell you that we have confirmed 12 individuals have returned to the fight, and we have strong evidence that about another dozen have returned to the fight."

Commentators questioned the credibility of the spokesmen's assertions. H. Candace Gorman, looked into the only three names had been offered of captives who had been returned to the battlefield: Abdullah Mehsud"; "Mullah Shahzada"; and Maulvi Abdul Ghaffar.[5] She wrote, on March 18, 2007, that she found that the name Abdullah Mehsud wasn't listed on the official list of Guantanamo captives released on May 15, 2006.[6] She found that there were captives with names close to those of the two other men. but that the records showed these men were still in custody when according to the spokesmen's assertions they had not only been released, but had been killed in combat.

On Monday, May 14, 2007, Pentagon officials Joseph Benkert and Jeffrey Gordon repeated the assertion that thirty former captives had returned to the battlefield in testimony before the United States Congress.[7] They identified six of the thirty by name.[8] They offered the names of the three men previously identified: "Mullah Shahzada"; "Maulavi Abdul Ghaffar"; and Abdullah Mahsud. They tied "Mullah Shahzada" to Mohamed Yusif Yaqub, a Guantanamo captive who was listed on the official list.[6] The other three names they offered were: Mohammed Ismail; Abdul Rahman Noor; and Mohammed Nayim Farouq.[8]

On July 12, 2007 the Department of Defense placed an additional page on their site, entitled: "Former Guantanamo Detainees who have returned to the fight".[9] This list contained one additional name, not on the list released on May 14, 2007, for a total of seven names. The new name was Ruslan Odizhev, a Russian who Russian police reported died while resisting arrest on June 27, 2007.[10]

On 13 January 2009, the Pentagon said that 18 former detainees are confirmed to have participated in attacks, and 43 are suspected to have been involved in attacks.[11] A Spokesman said evidence of someone being "confirmed" could include fingerprints, a conclusive photograph or "well-corroborated intelligence reporting." He said the Pentagon would not discuss how the statistics were derived because of security concerns. National security expert and CNN analyst Peter Bergen, states that some of those "suspected" to have returned to terrorism are so categorized because they publicly made anti-American statements, "something that's not surprising if you've been locked up in a U.S. prison camp for several years." If all on the "confirmed" list have indeed returned to the battlefield, that would amount to 4 percent of the detainees who have been released.[12]

Lists of former Guantanamo Bay detainees alleged to have returned to terrorism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Absolutely make it case by case

Define the crime they are alleged to have committed and the evidence against them. If you have a case...use it

They waged WAR on us dumbass...and that means you too. Gawd you're thick.

 

[Crackerjack]

So would someone please explain why a trial would be a bad thing? The government has had ten years to collect evidence on every one of these detainees. It should just be an open and shut case.

 

[The T]

So would someone please explain why a trial would be a bad thing? The government has had ten years to collect evidence on every one of these detainees. It should just be an open and shut case.

Why pull them off the battlefield to start with when a bullet to the head would have sufficed?

 

[Zander]

Why hasn't Obama done anything?

 

[Crackerjack]

So would someone please explain why a trial would be a bad thing? The government has had ten years to collect evidence on every one of these detainees. It should just be an open and shut case.

Why pull them off the battlefield to start with when a bullet to the head would have sufficed?

Apparently for the intelligence that they had that would more than likely convict them of all sorts of crimes if a trial were held.

Also, shooting the enemy when he's surrendering is a "no-no," I believe.

 

[Zander]

Personally, I like the idea of military tribunals.

 

[Zander]

So would someone please explain why a trial would be a bad thing? The government has had ten years to collect evidence on every one of these detainees. It should just be an open and shut case.

Military tribunal- if found guilty - execute them that day. If found not guilty - ship them out to a foreign country that will execute them for us. Win/Win

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

So would someone please explain why a trial would be a bad thing? The government has had ten years to collect evidence on every one of these detainees. It should just be an open and shut case.

Why pull them off the battlefield to start with when a bullet to the head would have sufficed?

Apparently for the intelligence that they had that would more than likely convict them of all sorts of crimes if a trial were held.

Also, shooting the enemy when he's surrendering is a "no-no," I believe.

What makes you think they surrendered. And we didn't gather evidence to convict them, we did it to save lives and capture other terrorists. To release them now would have made it all for nothing.

 

[Crackerjack]

Personally, I like the idea of military tribunals.

Hell, I'd even take a press conference. Run through the list and say, "As to detainee X, he was engaged in Y activities and we know because of this evidence ..., as to detainee A, he was planning B activities, and we know because of this evidence ..."

 

[Crackerjack]

Why pull them off the battlefield to start with when a bullet to the head would have sufficed?

Apparently for the intelligence that they had that would more than likely convict them of all sorts of crimes if a trial were held.

Also, shooting the enemy when he's surrendering is a "no-no," I believe.

What makes you think they surrendered.

By the circumstantial evidence that they were alive to be captured.

And we didn't gather evidence to convict them, we did it to save lives and capture other terrorists.

Why we gathered evidence is immaterial. The evidence is the evidence and can be used for multiple purposes.

To release them now would have made it all for nothing.

If the evidence is not strong enough to convince a neutral finder of fact of their guilt, than we should release them. Why would you want to hold an innocent person?

 

[The T]

So would someone please explain why a trial would be a bad thing? The government has had ten years to collect evidence on every one of these detainees. It should just be an open and shut case.

Why pull them off the battlefield to start with when a bullet to the head would have sufficed?

Apparently for the intelligence that they had that would more than likely convict them of all sorts of crimes if a trial were held.

Also, shooting the enemy when he's surrendering is a "no-no," I believe.

I see. Fair point...but did they really surrender?

 

[The T]

Don't you guys just love it when conducting WAR has become like scenes from CSI?

 

[Crackerjack]

Don't you guys just love it when conducting WAR has become like scenes from CSI?

I don't think the government would need to show anything more than the circumstances of their capture and ten years' worth of confessions to damn 99% of these guys. But the point is that the government should show it. I think it is a dangerous precedent to just take the state's word on this.

If you're upset about the 2012 NDAA, you should definitely be pulling for this sort of transparency.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Apparently for the intelligence that they had that would more than likely convict them of all sorts of crimes if a trial were held.

Also, shooting the enemy when he's surrendering is a "no-no," I believe.

What makes you think they surrendered.

By the circumstantial evidence that they were alive to be captured.

And we didn't gather evidence to convict them, we did it to save lives and capture other terrorists.

Why we gathered evidence is immaterial. The evidence is the evidence and can be used for multiple purposes.

To release them now would have made it all for nothing.

If the evidence is not strong enough to convince a neutral finder of fact of their guilt, than we should release them. Why would you want to hold an innocent person?

They don't need a day in court but rather a date with the executioner.