Former Gitmo Resident Now Senior Taliban Commander

[armyvern]

Releasing our enemies so they can kill us another day hardly qualifies as fighting the fight right in my view.

So that justifies summary executions?  :

My reference was to the ethical and moral standards we maintain as a signatory to the Geneva Conventions in the way we professional soldiers conduct ourselves as opposed to them.

I hardly think that summarily executing someone - even an enemy - behind the garden shed qualifies as "fighting the good fight the right way"; in fact, some of us professionals would find such an act lunatical itself.    War is hell, but it's the battlefield where soldiers fight the Just War.

Ergo the (BIG) difference between us and them. It's really not a difficult concept to grasp. I've faith that one day ... Mr Taliban will get his due.

 

[ltmaverick25]

So that justifies summary executions?  :

My reference was to the ethical and moral standards we maintain as a signatory to the Geneva Conventions in the way we professional soldiers conduct ourselves as opposed to them.

I hardly think that summarily executing someone - even an enemy - behind the garden shed qualifies as "fighting the good fight the right way"; in fact, some of us professionals would find such an act lunatical itself.    War is hell, but it's the battlefield where soldiers fight the Just War.

Ergo the (BIG) difference between us and them. It's really not a difficult concept to grasp.

I know exactly what you were trying to say, its pretty self explanatory.  However, as righteous as we may try to be on the battlefield certainly does not mean we are fightin the war the right way, hence my comment.  Unless the guy was turned, letting him lose to kill our guys is a fundamental mistake, and in my view is morally just as bad as what you are arguing against.  Releasing this guy is akin to murdering our own.  Completely unaceptable.

 

[armyvern]

I know exactly what you were trying to say, its pretty self explanatory.  However, as righteous as we may try to be on the battlefield certainly does not mean we are fightin the war the right way, hence my comment.  Unless the guy was turned, letting him lose to kill our guys is a fundamental mistake, and in my view is morally just as bad as what you are arguing against.  Releasing this guy is akin to murdering our own.  Completely unaceptable.

And, let me be VERY clear ...

MY comment was in regards to his suggestion of summary execution. Period.

Your trying to convince me of what now?

It's the United States. Someone who shouldn't have been released from Gitmo was. At least they have a Gitmo. Do you presume to give the US credit for that?? Or just shit on them for a wrong move with this guy?

 

[1feral1]

Well, last time he was captured, this time make sure he is dust when the time is right, as in take him and others out with him at OUR leisure.

Just my humble train of thought.

OWDU

 

[ltmaverick25]

And, let me be VERY clear ...

MY comment was in regards to his suggestion of summary execution. Period.

Your trying to convince me of what now?

It's the United States. Someone who shouldn't have been released from Gitmo was. At least they have a Gitmo. Do you presume to give the US credit for that?? Or just crap on them for a wrong move with this guy?

You make alot of unfounded assumptions here...

I am not trying to convince you of anything.  I am well aware that your responce was to someone else, however, I chose to play on your use of words "we fight it right" to make a point of my own.  Which, is to say that I do not think we can be fighting right if we release these people back into the fight against us and killing our guys all over again.

There is more then one connotation to "we fight it right".  I chose to target a different connotation then you did.  Obviously you are talking about morality in warfare.  I am not.  I am talking about functional aspects, which is an altogether different thing.

Now lets talk about the American issue you just raised.  For the most part I am in support of the way the Americans have decided to deal with the larger issue of detainees and Gitmo ect...  I know I know, Im a Canadian, im not supposed to say that...  But regardless, thats how I feel.  They had it right, though others may argue that thats not "fighting it right".  Unfortunately, due to political pressure on the Bush administration, and now, the new stance of Obama, they will no longer have it right in my opinion.  Overal operational effectiveness in the war on terror is now being sacrificed, but, others will be happier because "were doing it right".  I think that is a mistake.  But am not an anti american, nor am I anti Bush. 

I used your play on words to make a different point.  I didnt use it to attack you, or to convince you of anything.  I am simply adding my own thoughts to this discussion.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Is being anti-bush against the guidelines here?

 

[R. Jorgensen]

I overheard this from a Commissionaire at the Passport Office, after reading/hearing about this case.

It is only a theory on how a GITMO detainee can become a high-ranked official amongst the Taliban/al-Qaeda.

"The Taliban probably think that their capture is just one step closer to invading the American homeland..."

That's all I heard.

 

[tomahawk6]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090318/us_nm/us_guantanamo_holder

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Some of the Guantanamo Bay prisoners could be released into the United States while others could be put on trial in the American court system, Attorney General Eric Holder said on Wednesday.

Holder, who was chosen by President Barack Obama to lead the administration's efforts to close the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba within a year, said the review of what to do with each of the prisoners had begun.

About 240 terrorism suspects, including suspected planners of the September 11 attacks, are being held in the prison. Many have been detained for seven years without charges and some were subjected to interrogation techniques denounced by critics as torture.

The administration faces intense political resistance to the idea of bringing the prisoners to the United States as part of closing the detention camp. The administration seeks to transfer some detainees to Europe or other countries while freeing others.

Holder told reporters at the Justice Department that the administration's review, made on a case-by-case basis, would determine whether the prisoners need to be put on trial or whether they can be released.

"For those who are in that second category, who can be released, there are a variety of options that we have. Among them is the possibility that we could release them into this country," he said.

Holder said it was possible the 17 Chinese Muslims who have been held for years at Guantanamo, and two or three others prisoners, could be freed in the United States.

The 17 members of the Uighur ethic group have been cleared for release but have nonetheless remained at Guantanamo while the United States tries to find a country willing to take them. The U.S. government has said it cannot return them to China because they would face persecution there.

"We've been trying to come up with places for them," Holder said of the Uighurs. Their lawyers have asked Obama to bring them to the United States.

Holder met earlier this week with European Union leaders, and urged them to take some of the Guantanamo prisoners. They questioned why they should take some of the detainees if the United States does not make similar efforts to take some.

The European leaders asked for the information the United States has on the prisoners, including details about their backgrounds.

Holder called that a reasonable request and said making the information available to the European countries could help ease their concerns.

He said the administration was looking at the possibility of putting some of the Guantanamo prisoners on trial in U.S. courts. "My guess is that some of those people would be tried in" the U.S. court system, he said.

 

[Pointer]

You make alot of unfounded assumptions here...

I am not trying to convince you of anything.  I am well aware that your responce was to someone else, however, I chose to play on your use of words "we fight it right" to make a point of my own.  Which, is to say that I do not think we can be fighting right if we release these people back into the fight against us and killing our guys all over again.

There is more then one connotation to "we fight it right".  I chose to target a different connotation then you did.  Obviously you are talking about morality in warfare.  I am not.  I am talking about functional aspects, which is an altogether different thing.

Now lets talk about the American issue you just raised.  For the most part I am in support of the way the Americans have decided to deal with the larger issue of detainees and Gitmo ect...  I know I know, Im a Canadian, im not supposed to say that...  But regardless, thats how I feel.  They had it right, though others may argue that thats not "fighting it right".  Unfortunately, due to political pressure on the Bush administration, and now, the new stance of Obama, they will no longer have it right in my opinion.  Overal operational effectiveness in the war on terror is now being sacrificed, but, others will be happier because "were doing it right".  I think that is a mistake.  But am not an anti american, nor am I anti Bush. 

I used your play on words to make a different point.  I didnt use it to attack you, or to convince you of anything.  I am simply adding my own thoughts to this discussion.

Throwing people in gulags isn't exactly coherent with a capital-letter-lofty-ideals campaign of "Freedom, Liberty, and Truth" or whatever saccharine rhetoric people banter about these days.

If you're going to wax poetic about western liberal ideals, you can hardly go around playing 1984 at the same time if you expect anyone to take you seriously. 

 

[tomahawk6]

During WW2 both the bad guys and allies operated POW camps to house their captured prisoners. This war is no different in that regard.

 

[OldSolduer]

During WW2 both the bad guys and allies operated POW camps to house their captured prisoners. This war is no different in that regard.

That's true, and as far as I'm concerned that should still be the case.
Having said that, there is a segment of our society that likes to find fault and point fingers at us...but never at our enemies.

 

[ltmaverick25]

This goes back to the issue of treating them as POWs. We dont treat them as POWs because we want to lock them up and never give them back ect...  Ok, thats great and I support it fully, but if you arent going to do that, or you are going to cave on that position, then use the term POW.  Once you do that, you are allowed to keep them until hostilities cease.  In this case it could be a very long time.

The public can complain all it wants about detainees, but they cant say crap about POWs.

 

[OldSolduer]

The public can complain all it wants about detainees, but they cant say crap about POWs.

Its not the public that complains. Its people like our beloved Jack and Olivia....they don't seem to understand a whole lot about anything.

 

[Pointer]

During WW2 both the bad guys and allies operated POW camps to house their captured prisoners. This war is no different in that regard.

Except that the US doesn't recognize the people in GITMO as POWs, nor do they treat them as such.  Picking someone up, shipping them off to a secluded camp, torturing them, and trying them in kangaroo courts so you can imprison them indefinitely under the auspices of a poorly defined "war" isn't POW treatment.

It's interesting how willing people are to suspend rights and behave like brownshirted goosesteppers when it lends them an advantage (and they can do so under the banner of truth, freedom, liberty, justice, honesty, friendliness, good-neighbourliness, optimism, amicability, puppies, flowers, the laughter of children frolicking through fields of daisies, etc.). 

 

[ltmaverick25]

I dont think its quite so cut and dry as that...

How do you impose the same rights as we have in our society on people from a society that does not play by the same rules, and in essence wants to destroy our society?  Our rights and our values system is a wonderful thing, and it works very well (usually anyway) for our society and culture.  You simply cannot play by the same rules when faced with an opponent that does not care about our values system.

This war isnt about proving we are better.  It never was, nor should it ever be.  This war is about preventing "scumbags" as Gen Hillier so ably put it, from being able to cause harm to elements within our society.

This war was never about morals, it was about national interests.  There is no warm and fuzzy in that term.

 

[armyvern]

I dont think its quite so cut and dry as that...

How do you impose the same rights as we have in our society on people from a society that does not play by the same rules, and in essence wants to destroy our society?  Our rights and our values system is a wonderful thing, and it works very well (usually anyway) for our society and culture.  You simply cannot play by the same rules when faced with an opponent that does not care about our values system.

This war isnt about proving we are better.  It never was, nor should it ever be.  This war is about preventing "scumbags" as Gen Hillier so ably put it, from being able to cause harm to elements within our society.

This war was never about morals, it was about national interests.  There is no warm and fuzzy in that term.

Well, being that Canada is a signatory to the Geneva Conventions ...

you'd better play by our rules, not the enemies.

Doesn't matter who or what your enemy does.

 

[gun runner]

ARMY VERN, my comment was just a sort of release, I guess. I never expected to have you get bent out of shape for my comment. My justification for writing that is that these DETAINEES are just itching to get back out there and FIGHT THE GOOD FIGHT, against us, the Aussies, Brits, Yanks, etc... . I was just surmising that if these people had been dealt with(prosecuted,tried,etc,) in good time, at Gitmo, then none opf this would have to happen. But it didn't, and now this jacka$$ is back there, staring down the sight of his rifle,AT OUR TROOPS. I want you to take a deep breath and visualize that picture for a second.... then try to explain how this all came to pass, to his/her parents as they recieve their childs body at Trenton. Ubique

 

[armyvern]

ARMY VERN, my comment was just a sort of release, I guess. I never expected to have you get bent out of shape for my comment. My justification for writing that is that these DETAINEES are just itching to get back out there and FIGHT THE GOOD FIGHT, against us, the Aussies, Brits, Yanks, etc... . I was just surmising that if these people had been dealt with(prosecuted,tried,etc,) in good time, at Gitmo, then none opf this would have to happen. But it didn't, and now this jacka$$ is back there, staring down the sight of his rifle,AT OUR TROOPS. I want you to take a deep breath and visualize that picture for a second.... then try to explain how this all came to pass, to his/her parents as they recieve their childs body at Trenton. Ubique

One of my friends was on that tarmac today ... doing that very thing.

UBIQUE

 

[Journeyman]

ARMY VERN, .....I want you to take a deep breath and visualize that picture for a second.... then try to explain how this all came to pass....

Gutsy target selection for your lecture, gun runner.

op:

For what it's worth, there was a damn cold wind across the tarmac this afternoon...and with four troops coming home, it wasn't a short service...which was pre-emptively somewhat teary-eyed when several members of Cpl Crooks' family came to the Trenton Timmies where we RV to thank us for coming out, and have their pictures taken with our motly crew.  :'(

 

[ltmaverick25]

Well, being that Canada is a signatory to the Geneva Conventions ...

you'd better play by our rules, not the enemies.

Doesn't matter who or what your enemy does.

Declaring them POWs and holding them captive until the war comes to an official conclusion does follow the rules of the Geneva Convention...