'Freed terrorists behind U.N. bomb'

[Gunny]

ALGIERS, Algeria (AP) -- Two convicted terrorists who had been freed in an amnesty carried out the suicide bombings at U.N. and government buildings that killed 37 people, an Algerian security official has said.

more ... http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/africa/12/14/algeria.blast.ap/index.html

I know ... let's open the gates at GTMO and let all those poor, maligned souls go back to pick up where THEY left off.

 

[AllieBaba]

After all, the "threat" of terrorism is just a lie told to us by the Big Bad Government.

 

[Larkinn]

I know ... let's open the gates at GTMO and let all those poor, maligned souls go back to pick up where THEY left off.

Oh theres a big difference between the people at Gitmo and those folks.

Convicted.

 

[AllieBaba]

Can't convict them if you don't catch them first, genius.

 

[Gunny]

Oh theres a big difference between the people at Gitmo and those folks.

Convicted.

Is there? Most of the prisoners in GTMO were captured in Afghanistan as members of the Taliban. We turn them loose, they're going right back and pick up where they left off.

I really can't go for resupplying our enemy with troops; especially, ones that have been well fed and taken care of medically for a couple of years.

 

[Larkinn]

Can't convict them if you don't catch them first, genius.

My guess is that everyone who currently resides in Gitmo has been caught. Or is this another of your "zomg liberal conspiracy" posts?

 

[Larkinn]

Is there?

Yes. If we don't try them to see whether they are guilty or not, we have no idea if they are. If its so obvious that they are, why can't we convict them?

Most of the prisoners in GTMO were captured in Afghanistan as members of the Taliban. We turn them loose, they're going right back and pick up where they left off.

Then try them in court. I don't think I've ever heard anyone say that everyone in Gitmo should just be set free. The problem is with holding people with no habeus corpus.

I really can't go for resupplying our enemy with troops; especially, ones that have been well fed and taken care of medically for a couple of years.

And I can't go for infringing on peoples civil liberties. I guess we have different priorities, yes?

By the way...the war with the Islamic militants in Algiers started when the army cut off planned elections and took over the country. Put a bit of a different spin on things when they are fighting against a dictatorship?

 

[Diuretic]

As I understand it the islamists in Algeria are trying to get an Islamist government in their country, a reference to the Magreb is in the name of their organisation. They apparently don't want secular government but want another Islamic theocracy.

 

[Gunny]

Yes. If we don't try them to see whether they are guilty or not, we have no idea if they are. If its so obvious that they are, why can't we convict them?

Then try them in court. I don't think I've ever heard anyone say that everyone in Gitmo should just be set free. The problem is with holding people with no habeus corpus.

And I can't go for infringing on peoples civil liberties. I guess we have different priorities, yes?

The issue is not so simple, and the fact that this is not a conventional war but the rules/laws are based on conventional war just makes it all the more confusing.

POWs, combatants captured bearing arms against US/coalition forces, are not entitled to trials for anything but war crimes. POWs are held until the war is over.

The rights of POWs are covered by international laws, not the US Consitution; therefore, US law does not apply to them, nor do they have rights under the US Constitution.

Where the water gets murky is what to do with those people being detained who are also US citizens, or not captured combatants.

By the way...the war with the Islamic militants in Algiers started when the army cut off planned elections and took over the country. Put a bit of a different spin on things when they are fighting against a dictatorship?

Howso? They Islamic militants committed a terrorist act by targetting a non-military target and noncombatants. That's murder, and whether or not you agree with the military dictatorship, it does not justify the crime.

Had they attacked the military and/or a military installation, THEN would I be more willing to agree with you.

 

[manu1959]

Yes. If we don't try them to see whether they are guilty or not, we have no idea if they are. If its so obvious that they are, why can't we convict them?
Then try them in court. I don't think I've ever heard anyone say that everyone in Gitmo should just be set free. The problem is with holding people with no habeus corpus.
And I can't go for infringing on peoples civil liberties. I guess we have different priorities, yes?
By the way...the war with the Islamic militants in Algiers started when the army cut off planned elections and took over the country. Put a bit of a different spin on things when they are fighting against a dictatorship?

they will be held until the war is over......just like every other combatant captured during war time.....