Freed GTMO Detainee Becomes Al Qaeda Chief? Blame Bush (and Clinton).

In a case of interesting timing, today’s New York Times reports in “Freed by U.S., Saudi Becomes a Qaeda Chief”  that a former Guantanamo detainee is now a deputy leader of Al Qaeda in Yemen and opines that this has “underscored the potential complications in carrying out the executive order President Obama signed Thursday that the detention center be shut down within a year.” A related Times online forum debates “The Risks of Releasing Detainees.” 

To me, however, this case–and the Pentagon’s reports of recidivism–underscores the failure of the Bush administration’s attempt to identify and prosecute those responsible for 9/11.

By resorting to illegal and untested practices and policies, the Bush administration turned its back on the best tools we have for identifying and prosecuting people responsible for grave acts of violence against civilians–including standard law-enforcement practices and a tried and true federal court system.

As a result, some of the wrong people may have been released and some of the wrong people have been (and continue to be) detained–while those ultimately responsible for 9/11 remain either at large or unprosecuted.

This is criminal. In addition to accountability for torture and other abuses against detainees, there should be accountability for the failure to identify, apprehend and prosecute those who have attacked the United States, whether under G.W. Bush’s administration–or Clinton’s.

If anything, accounts of the radicalization of former detainees underscore the need for a full, independent, investigation into the U.S. government’s detention and interrogation program to find out where things went wrong, make sure the same mistakes aren’t repeated and hold those responsible accountable.  

President Obama has the power to make it all happen. Let him know you want him to.

AIUSA welcomes a lively and courteous discussion that follow our Community Guidelines. Comments are not pre-screened before they post but AIUSA reserves the right to remove any comments violating our guidelines.

86 thoughts on “Freed GTMO Detainee Becomes Al Qaeda Chief? Blame Bush (and Clinton).

  1. Get ready to read more and more stories like this. As the pressure to close GITMO increases, more and more lying through the teeth terrorists are going to be cut loose.

    This will be VERY interesting to follow…and we'll see if the President is able to close GITMO in one year and without future recitivism.

    I do want to correct you and MSM on most headlines. The U.S. never "freed" this detainee. He was transferred from U.S. control to Saudi Arabia control/custody. Saudi Arabia (with a usually effective "rehabilitative" progam) released him from custody.

    I am nearly 100 percent certain…and worked close enough with CSRTs and ARBs…that no CSRT, ARB, or designated DoD official ever recommend this detainee for transfer or release. I'm sure it was some politically driven decision between state depts or some other deal.

    It amazes me how you try to twist this story (that points out the dangers in releasing these men)….to use it to justify releasing them and closing GITMO.

    As long as al-Qaeda remains a threat, keep those already determined to be an enemy combatant under DoD control and locked up SOMEWHERE…whether GITMO or a prison near your hometown. This former detainee is a perfect example WHY.

    Continued peace and blessings to you,
    U.S.A. terror free since 9-11-2001

  2. Spelling and grammar always forgiven…but ad hominem attacks? If an idea is worth defending, it's worth defending with reason. Let's keep this civil.

    Anyway, Amnesty International is not a political organization. Our mission is to ensure human rights.

    And there are people in the military and intelligence communities who believe the US government must abide by the US Constitution and international human rights law in how it deals with "terrorism"–because it is the right thing to do and the effective thing to do.

    Here are quotes from some of them: http://www.amnestyusa.org/war-on-terror/quotes-on

    Best,
    Zeke

    PS I put "terrorism" in quotes because of the US government's own use of terror against civilian populations over the years.

  3. Hi MSG, US ARMY

    Good to hear from you, it's been a while!

    Your counter argument depends on the claim that "no CSRT, ARB, or designated DoD official ever recommend this detainee for transfer or release. I’m sure it was some politically driven decision" yet you don't provide evidence for it.

    However, even if you did, it would simply bolster my argument by pointing out another flaw in the US detention program–the effect of political pressure on the process.

    In addition to needing a moral and legal process for deciding detainee cases, we also need an effective one. Recidivism cases show exactly that.

    Cheers,
    Zeke

  4. You are intelligent enough (I think) to realize I can't paste classified – Secret information on your blog to satisfy you and provide evidence.

    Amnesty International is part of "political pressure". You want to know who to blame for this guy leaving? Look in the mirror, a bunch of little knats like you raised enough ruckus and fooled John Q. Public into demonizing GITMO. Save the terrorists, Kill the unborn babies.

    Anyway, it is your organization that wants to close this place and cut those who wouldn't meet the burden of a U.S. Federal Court (NEVER A REQUIREMENT IN PREVIOUS U.S. ARMED CONFLICT) and this detainee who is know #2 al-Qaeda man in Yemen fits that category.

    Congratulations, in this case you won. Our allies and servicemembers will likely pay the price.

    Continued peace and blessings to you,
    U.S.A. terror free since 9-11-2001

  5. "now" not "know" forgive my spelling and grammar, you managed to get under my skin

  6. Spelling and grammar always forgiven…but ad hominem attacks? If an idea is worth defending, it's worth defending with reason. Let's keep this civil.

    Anyway, Amnesty International is not a political organization. Our mission is to ensure human rights.

    And there are people in the military and intelligence communities who believe the US government must abide by the US Constitution and international human rights law in how it deals with "terrorism"–because it is the right thing to do and the effective thing to do.

    Here are quotes from some of them: http://www.amnestyusa.org/war-on-terror/quotes-on

    Best,
    Zeke

    PS I put "terrorism" in quotes because of the US government's own use of terror against civilian populations over the years.

  7. Spelling and grammar always forgiven…but ad hominem attacks? If an idea is worth defending, it's worth defending with reason. Let's keep this civil.

    Anyway, Amnesty International is not a political organization. Our mission is to ensure human rights.

    And there are people in the military and intelligence communities who believe the US government must abide by the US Constitution and international human rights law in how it deals with "terrorism"–because it is the right thing to do and the effective thing to do.

    Here are quotes from some of them: http://www.amnestyusa.org/war-on-terror/quotes-on

    Best,
    Zeke

    PS I put "terrorism" in quotes because of the US government's own use of terror against civilian populations over the years.

  8. You are getting what you are asking for. Expect more if/when the President releases these guys.

    Yeah right…U.S. Government "terrorists"…Enjoy your freedom Zeke! Was 9-11 an inside job Zeke? Was AIDS created by the evil U.S. Gov't? Have you been to Rosslyn, New Mexico lately? OMG, LOL…Now I know your motivation and where you are coming from!

    AI may not be a quote unquote political organization, but if you think there is no political pressure that comes from AI and other organizations you are in denial.

    Adious…I meant what I said, except the part about calling you a knat!

    Get ready for more stories that sparked our most recent debate. Mission Accomplished A.I.

  9. Get ready to read more and more stories like this. As the pressure to close GITMO increases, more and more lying through the teeth terrorists are going to be cut loose.

    This will be VERY interesting to follow…and we’ll see if the President is able to close GITMO in one year and without future recitivism.

    I do want to correct you and MSM on most headlines. The U.S. never “freed” this detainee. He was transferred from U.S. control to Saudi Arabia control/custody. Saudi Arabia (with a usually effective “rehabilitative” progam) released him from custody.

    I am nearly 100 percent certain…and worked close enough with CSRTs and ARBs…that no CSRT, ARB, or designated DoD official ever recommend this detainee for transfer or release. I’m sure it was some politically driven decision between state depts or some other deal.

    It amazes me how you try to twist this story (that points out the dangers in releasing these men)….to use it to justify releasing them and closing GITMO.

    As long as al-Qaeda remains a threat, keep those already determined to be an enemy combatant under DoD control and locked up SOMEWHERE…whether GITMO or a prison near your hometown. This former detainee is a perfect example WHY.

    Continued peace and blessings to you,
    U.S.A. terror free since 9-11-2001

  10. Hi MSG, US ARMY

    Good to hear from you, it’s been a while!

    Your counter argument depends on the claim that “no CSRT, ARB, or designated DoD official ever recommend this detainee for transfer or release. I’m sure it was some politically driven decision” yet you don’t provide evidence for it.

    However, even if you did, it would simply bolster my argument by pointing out another flaw in the US detention program–the effect of political pressure on the process.

    In addition to needing a moral and legal process for deciding detainee cases, we also need an effective one. Recidivism cases show exactly that.

    Cheers,
    Zeke

  11. You are intelligent enough (I think) to realize I can’t paste classified – Secret information on your blog to satisfy you and provide evidence.

    Amnesty International is part of “political pressure”. You want to know who to blame for this guy leaving? Look in the mirror, a bunch of little knats like you raised enough ruckus and fooled John Q. Public into demonizing GITMO. Save the terrorists, Kill the unborn babies.

    Anyway, it is your organization that wants to close this place and cut those who wouldn’t meet the burden of a U.S. Federal Court (NEVER A REQUIREMENT IN PREVIOUS U.S. ARMED CONFLICT) and this detainee who is know #2 al-Qaeda man in Yemen fits that category.

    Congratulations, in this case you won. Our allies and servicemembers will likely pay the price.

    Continued peace and blessings to you,
    U.S.A. terror free since 9-11-2001

  12. “now” not “know” forgive my spelling and grammar, you managed to get under my skin

  13. Spelling and grammar always forgiven…but ad hominem attacks? If an idea is worth defending, it’s worth defending with reason. Let’s keep this civil.

    Anyway, Amnesty International is not a political organization. Our mission is to ensure human rights.

    And there are people in the military and intelligence communities who believe the US government must abide by the US Constitution and international human rights law in how it deals with “terrorism”–because it is the right thing to do and the effective thing to do.

    Here are quotes from some of them: http://www.amnestyusa.org/war-on-terror/quotes-on-guantanamo-and-torture/page.do?id=1011621

    Best,
    Zeke

    PS I put “terrorism” in quotes because of the US government’s own use of terror against civilian populations over the years.

  14. You are getting what you are asking for. Expect more if/when the President releases these guys.

    Yeah right…U.S. Government “terrorists”…Enjoy your freedom Zeke! Was 9-11 an inside job Zeke? Was AIDS created by the evil U.S. Gov’t? Have you been to Rosslyn, New Mexico lately? OMG, LOL…Now I know your motivation and where you are coming from!

    AI may not be a quote unquote political organization, but if you think there is no political pressure that comes from AI and other organizations you are in denial.

    Adious…I meant what I said, except the part about calling you a knat!

    Get ready for more stories that sparked our most recent debate. Mission Accomplished A.I.

  15. Good luck Zeke,

    Slavery? Native American Genocide? What decade or century are you living in? We have evolved. You truelly feel the U.S. Gov't is targeting and terrorizing civilians in Iraq? Of course you do. Just like GITMO, you have never been to Iraq either. You have never met families in Kirkuk and talked with them about pre-Saddam vs. post-Saddam. Believe what you want.

    Are you speaking for yourself, or is A.I. on the record calling the U.S. Gov't terrorists and accusing the U.S. Gov't of terrosist activities?

    Say hi to Michael Moore for me.

  16. Torture, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, indefinite detention, denial of fundamental legal rights, extraordinary rendition, homicides in custody,and impunity for these crimes–the US government has resorted to immoral, illegal and ineffective policies and practices in its "war on terror." You can't fight terror with terror. I speak for myself on this blog. And I agree with the military and intelligence people quoted in my comment above, like Admiral Mullen and General Petraeus, who want the US government to clean up its act and do the right thing.
    Cheers!
    Zeke

  17. Admiral Mullen and General Petraeus want GITMO closed. Are you suggesting they also agree with your radical belief that the U.S. Gov't is conducting terrorists activity?

    Admiral Mullen and General Petraeus want GITMO closed BECAUSE of it's image. OK, fine, close it and detain these guys at Bagram instead.

    No one is being denied fundamental legal rights. ONCE again I urge you to educate yourself on 1. The Detainee Treatment Act; 2. The Supreme Court's unwise 5-4 ruling granting Habeas; 3. A number of detainees have already been released because of a Federal Court Order, not because DoD or any other Government Agency wanted them released; 4. Attorney visits and representation; 5. Even Bin Laden's driver who was "only" convicted of aiding al-Qaeda was sentenced, served his time and is now free.

    You can't figure out that prior to GITMO….no enemy combatant in the history of U.S. Conflict have enjoyed the legal rights that these men have. I wonder if Abraham Lincoln's arms were tied and a federal judge had to weigh in concerning captured rebels; Damn that Roosevelt and Truman…I'll bet they allowed captured Japanese and Nazi's to go without a federal trial; and don't get me started with Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon and Ford…those poor captured non-U.S. Citizen viet congs "constitutional rights" were violated.

    Before long, U.S. ServiceMembers are going to need a Federal Judges' warrant before raiding an al-Qaeda safehouse in Afghanistan; they will have to serve warrants and read miranda rights before capturing al-Qaeda members…Will a Federal Judge have to give permission to return fire???

    Save the terrorists!!!

  18. If you are referring to Abu Ghraib and the two detainees who died in U.S. Custody at Bagram…the INDIVIDUALS responsible for that were COURT-MARTIALED several years ago.

  19. In a nutshell, I believe that the US government must do what is right, what is legal and what is effective. Otherwise, what is it fighting to protect?

  20. Right – going after al-Qaeda
    Legal – Existing CSRT, ARBs, Military Commission and Detention
    Effective – U.S.A. Terror Free Since 9-11-2001

    I never thought we would agree.

  21. I'm always open to being convinced by reason! And I'd love to see a convincing rational argument for the claim that it's effective to fight immorality with immorality, illegallity with illegality and "terror" with "terror"–in defending the US government's detention and interrogation policies and practices (which extend before 9/11), that's exactly what your claiming.

  22. Good luck Zeke,

    Slavery? Native American Genocide? What decade or century are you living in? We have evolved. You truelly feel the U.S. Gov’t is targeting and terrorizing civilians in Iraq? Of course you do. Just like GITMO, you have never been to Iraq either. You have never met families in Kirkuk and talked with them about pre-Saddam vs. post-Saddam. Believe what you want.

    Are you speaking for yourself, or is A.I. on the record calling the U.S. Gov’t terrorists and accusing the U.S. Gov’t of terrosist activities?

    Say hi to Michael Moore for me.

  23. Torture, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, indefinite detention, denial of fundamental legal rights, extraordinary rendition, homicides in custody,and impunity for these crimes–the US government has resorted to immoral, illegal and ineffective policies and practices in its “war on terror.” You can’t fight terror with terror. I speak for myself on this blog. And I agree with the military and intelligence people quoted in my comment above, like Admiral Mullen and General Petraeus, who want the US government to clean up its act and do the right thing.
    Cheers!
    Zeke

  24. Admiral Mullen and General Petraeus want GITMO closed. Are you suggesting they also agree with your radical belief that the U.S. Gov’t is conducting terrorists activity?

    Admiral Mullen and General Petraeus want GITMO closed BECAUSE of it’s image. OK, fine, close it and detain these guys at Bagram instead.

    No one is being denied fundamental legal rights. ONCE again I urge you to educate yourself on 1. The Detainee Treatment Act; 2. The Supreme Court’s unwise 5-4 ruling granting Habeas; 3. A number of detainees have already been released because of a Federal Court Order, not because DoD or any other Government Agency wanted them released; 4. Attorney visits and representation; 5. Even Bin Laden’s driver who was “only” convicted of aiding al-Qaeda was sentenced, served his time and is now free.

    You can’t figure out that prior to GITMO….no enemy combatant in the history of U.S. Conflict have enjoyed the legal rights that these men have. I wonder if Abraham Lincoln’s arms were tied and a federal judge had to weigh in concerning captured rebels; Damn that Roosevelt and Truman…I’ll bet they allowed captured Japanese and Nazi’s to go without a federal trial; and don’t get me started with Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon and Ford…those poor captured non-U.S. Citizen viet congs “constitutional rights” were violated.

    Before long, U.S. ServiceMembers are going to need a Federal Judges’ warrant before raiding an al-Qaeda safehouse in Afghanistan; they will have to serve warrants and read miranda rights before capturing al-Qaeda members…Will a Federal Judge have to give permission to return fire???

    Save the terrorists!!!

  25. If you are referring to Abu Ghraib and the two detainees who died in U.S. Custody at Bagram…the INDIVIDUALS responsible for that were COURT-MARTIALED several years ago.

  26. your definition of "immorality" "Illegallity" and "terror" are clearly different then mine.

    You'll never get it.

    Keep fighting for the terrorists.

  27. In a nutshell, I believe that the US government must do what is right, what is legal and what is effective. Otherwise, what is it fighting to protect?

  28. The"fighting for the terrorists" rhetoric can just as easily be applied to people who claim that the US is justified in using torture, illegal detention, unfair CSRTs and unfair trials–these immoral, illegal and ineffective practices have damaged the US. And isn't damaging the US exactly what al Qaeda wants?
    Whose side are YOU on???

    Seriously though, the point here is that reason–logical argument–is the best tool we have for sorting through these issues. Let's leave the baseless accusations, fear-mongering, fallacies and irrationality in the past.

    If an idea is true, one ought to be able to argue for it with reason and civility.

    Best,
    Zeke

  29. Right – going after al-Qaeda
    Legal – Existing CSRT, ARBs, Military Commission and Detention
    Effective – U.S.A. Terror Free Since 9-11-2001

    I never thought we would agree.

  30. I’m always open to being convinced by reason! And I’d love to see a convincing rational argument for the claim that it’s effective to fight immorality with immorality, illegallity with illegality and “terror” with “terror”–in defending the US government’s detention and interrogation policies and practices (which extend before 9/11), that’s exactly what your claiming.

  31. Don't get me started on "rhetoric"

    Bottom line up front – those 240 men at GITMO belong there. With perhaps the only exception being a dozen or so Uighurs. The 240 may or may not meet the burden of a federal trial, just like al-Qaeda #2 in Yemen.

    When you let Federal Judges fight the war from the bench you will see the results. No fear-mongering intended, facts are facts, examples are examples. I will let the headlines and future terrorist activities prove my point.

    Continued Peace and Blessings to You…even though you accuse the U.S. Gov't (the very same Gov't that was elected into office by the People of the U.S.) of terrorism.
    U.S.A. Terror Free Since 9-11-2001
    God Bless you, our New Commander-In-Chief and the U.S.A.
    Those radical terrorists who continue to pose a threat…may God have mercy on them…Cause I sure don't.

  32. your definition of “immorality” “Illegallity” and “terror” are clearly different then mine.

    You’ll never get it.

    Keep fighting for the terrorists.

  33. I posted this comment once, but it seems to have not gone through…I'll try to remember the exact words, but if both versions appear, you know why. Anyway…

    There are two intertwined claims:

    - lack of attacks since 9/11 shows that Bush administration "counterterrorism" policies and practices were effective

    - an attack after 1/20/09 would show that Bush administration "counterterrorism" policies and practices were ineffective

    but both claims fail to account for unintended future consequences of those policies and practices; fail to account for the possibility that other factors may be the cause of attacks or lack of attacks; fail to account for the effect those policies and practices may have on those required to carry them out; and fail to account for the fact that those polices and practices define in part what America is–to Americans and the rest of the world.

    There are policies and practices that are moral, legal and–according to military and intelligence experts linked to above–effective. And, in light of all the best available evidence, they are the best way to ensure a safe, just, honorable and free world, one we can be proud of.

    Like Charles says of his protection, "anything less would be uncivilized."
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sMm-nYsmx4

    Goodnight,
    Zeke

  34. I posted this comment once, but it seems to have not gone through…I'll try to remember the exact words, but if both versions appear, you know why.

    There are two intertwined claims:

    - lack of attacks since 9/11 shows that Bush administration "counterterrorism" policies and practices were effective

    - an attack after 1/20/09 would show that Bush administration "counterterrorism" policies and practices were ineffective

    but both claims fail to account for unintended future consequences of those policies and practices; fail to account for the possibility that other factors may be the cause of attacks or lack of attacks; fail to account for the effect those policies and practices may have on those required to carry them out; and fail to account for the fact that those polices and practices define in part what America is–to Americans and the rest of the world.

    There are policies and practices that are moral, legal and–according to military and intelligence experts linked to above–effective. They are the best way to ensure a safe, just, honorable and free world. Like Charles says of his protection, "anything less would be uncivilized."
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sMm-nYsmx4

    Goodnight,
    Zeke

  35. The”fighting for the terrorists” rhetoric can just as easily be applied to people who claim that the US is justified in using torture, illegal detention, unfair CSRTs and unfair trials–these immoral, illegal and ineffective practices have damaged the US. And isn’t damaging the US exactly what al Qaeda wants?
    Whose side are YOU on???

    Seriously though, the point here is that reason–logical argument–is the best tool we have for sorting through these issues. Let’s leave the baseless accusations, fear-mongering, fallacies and irrationality in the past.

    If an idea is true, one ought to be able to argue for it with reason and civility.

    Best,
    Zeke

  36. I posted this comment once, but it seems to have not gone through…I'll try to remember the exact words, but if both versions appear, you know why. Anyway…

    There are two intertwined claims:

    - lack of attacks since 9/11 shows that Bush administration "counterterrorism" policies and practices were effective

    - an attack after 1/20/09 would show that Bush administration "counterterrorism" policies and practices were ineffective

    but both claims fail to account for unintended future consequences of those policies and practices; fail to account for the possibility that other factors may be the cause of attacks or lack of attacks; fail to account for the effect those policies and practices may have on those required to carry them out; and fail to account for the fact that those polices and practices define in part what America is–to Americans and the rest of the world.

    There are policies and practices that are moral, legal and–according to military and intelligence experts linked to above–effective. And, in light of all the best available evidence, they are the best way to ensure a safe, just, honorable and free world, one we can be proud of.

    Like Charles says of his protection, "anything less would be uncivilized."
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sMm-nYsmx4

    Goodnight,
    Zeke

  37. I posted this comment once, but it seems to have not gone through…I'll try to remember the exact words, but if both versions appear, you know why. Anyway…

    There are two intertwined claims:

    - lack of attacks since 9/11 shows that Bush administration "counterterrorism" policies and practices were effective

    - an attack after 1/20/09 would show that Bush administration "counterterrorism" policies and practices were ineffective

    but both claims fail to account for unintended future consequences of those policies and practices; fail to account for the possibility that other factors may be the cause of attacks or lack of attacks; fail to account for the effect those policies and practices may have on those required to carry them out; and fail to account for the fact that those polices and practices define in part what America is–to Americans and the rest of the world.

    There are policies and practices that are moral, legal and–according to military and intelligence experts linked to above–effective. And, in light of all the best available evidence, they are the best way to ensure a safe, just, honorable and free world, one we can be proud of.

    Like Charles says of his protection, "anything less would be uncivilized."
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sMm-nYsmx4

    Goodnight,
    Zeke

  38. I posted this comment once, but it seems to have not gone through…I'll try to remember the exact words, but if both versions appear, you know why.

    There are two intertwined claims:

    - lack of attacks since 9/11 shows that Bush administration "counterterrorism" policies and practices were effective

    - an attack after 1/20/09 would show that Bush administration "counterterrorism" policies and practices were ineffective

    but both claims fail to account for unintended future consequences of those policies and practices; fail to account for the possibility that other factors may be the cause of attacks or lack of attacks; fail to account for the effect those policies and practices may have on those required to carry them out; and fail to account for the fact that those polices and practices define in part what America is–to Americans and the rest of the world.

    There are policies and practices that are moral, legal and–according to military and intelligence experts linked to above–effective. They are the best way to ensure a safe, just, honorable and free world. Like Charles says of his protection, "anything less would be uncivilized."
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sMm-nYsmx4

    Goodnight,
    Zeke

  39. I posted this comment once, but it seems to have not gone through…I'll try to remember the exact words, but if both versions appear, you know why.

    There are two intertwined claims:

    - lack of attacks since 9/11 shows that Bush administration "counterterrorism" policies and practices were effective

    - an attack after 1/20/09 would show that Bush administration "counterterrorism" policies and practices were ineffective

    but both claims fail to account for unintended future consequences of those policies and practices; fail to account for the possibility that other factors may be the cause of attacks or lack of attacks; fail to account for the effect those policies and practices may have on those required to carry them out; and fail to account for the fact that those polices and practices define in part what America is–to Americans and the rest of the world.

    There are policies and practices that are moral, legal and–according to military and intelligence experts linked to above–effective. They are the best way to ensure a safe, just, honorable and free world. Like Charles says of his protection, "anything less would be uncivilized."
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sMm-nYsmx4

    Goodnight,
    Zeke

  40. You are absolutely right. I'm sure after we close GITMO radical jihadists will like us "again".

    Sure there are a lot of variables that can't necessarily be measured, the one constant you will not be able to discredit are the reports similar to the one that sparked this debate.

  41. Don’t get me started on “rhetoric”

    Bottom line up front – those 240 men at GITMO belong there. With perhaps the only exception being a dozen or so Uighurs. The 240 may or may not meet the burden of a federal trial, just like al-Qaeda #2 in Yemen.

    When you let Federal Judges fight the war from the bench you will see the results. No fear-mongering intended, facts are facts, examples are examples. I will let the headlines and future terrorist activities prove my point.

    Continued Peace and Blessings to You…even though you accuse the U.S. Gov’t (the very same Gov’t that was elected into office by the People of the U.S.) of terrorism.
    U.S.A. Terror Free Since 9-11-2001
    God Bless you, our New Commander-In-Chief and the U.S.A.
    Those radical terrorists who continue to pose a threat…may God have mercy on them…Cause I sure don’t.

  42. I posted this comment once, but it seems to have not gone through…I’ll try to remember the exact words, but if both versions appear, you know why. Anyway…

    There are two intertwined claims:

    - lack of attacks since 9/11 shows that Bush administration “counterterrorism” policies and practices were effective

    - an attack after 1/20/09 would show that Bush administration “counterterrorism” policies and practices were ineffective

    but both claims fail to account for unintended future consequences of those policies and practices; fail to account for the possibility that other factors may be the cause of attacks or lack of attacks; fail to account for the effect those policies and practices may have on those required to carry them out; and fail to account for the fact that those polices and practices define in part what America is–to Americans and the rest of the world.

    There are policies and practices that are moral, legal and–according to military and intelligence experts linked to above–effective. And, in light of all the best available evidence, they are the best way to ensure a safe, just, honorable and free world, one we can be proud of.

    Like Charles says of his protection, “anything less would be uncivilized.”

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sMm-nYsmx4

    Goodnight,
    Zeke

  43. I posted this comment once, but it seems to have not gone through…I’ll try to remember the exact words, but if both versions appear, you know why.

    There are two intertwined claims:

    - lack of attacks since 9/11 shows that Bush administration “counterterrorism” policies and practices were effective

    - an attack after 1/20/09 would show that Bush administration “counterterrorism” policies and practices were ineffective

    but both claims fail to account for unintended future consequences of those policies and practices; fail to account for the possibility that other factors may be the cause of attacks or lack of attacks; fail to account for the effect those policies and practices may have on those required to carry them out; and fail to account for the fact that those polices and practices define in part what America is–to Americans and the rest of the world.

    There are policies and practices that are moral, legal and–according to military and intelligence experts linked to above–effective. They are the best way to ensure a safe, just, honorable and free world. Like Charles says of his protection, “anything less would be uncivilized.”

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sMm-nYsmx4

    Goodnight,
    Zeke

  44. You are absolutely right. I’m sure after we close GITMO radical jihadists will like us “again”.

    Sure there are a lot of variables that can’t necessarily be measured, the one constant you will not be able to discredit are the reports similar to the one that sparked this debate.

  45. Which brings us back to the point of this post–that the case mentioned in the NY Times report shows the ineffectiveness of US detention policy.

  46. Which brings us back to the point of this post–that the case mentioned in the NY Times report shows the ineffectiveness of US detention policy.

  47. Which brings us back to the point of this post–that the case mentioned in the NY Times report shows the ineffectiveness of US detention policy.

  48. Which brings us back to the point of this post–that the case mentioned in the NY Times report shows the ineffectiveness of US detention policy.

  49. I'm rubber your glue.

    The NY Times report shows the ineffective policy of cutting him loose. If he were still in GITMO he wouldnt' be operating as al-Qaeda number 2 man in Yemen would he? YES or NO?…Be honest with your answer now.

  50. Haha, now we're getting somewhere!
    That's exactly what I'm saying–we need moral, legal and effective policies so that the right people are properly held accountable and the wrong people (like the Uighurs you mention) are released. I'm glad we resolved this! Now to the crucial question: Steelers or Cardinals???

  51. So…because "U.S. Detention Policy is Ineffective"…as you suggest is illustrated by the release of al-Qaeda number 2 in Yemen…we should close down GITMO? What happens when the other 240 are released? OHHH…wait a minute, I am just "fear-mongering" by proposing that question.

    Regardless of what these guys do after they get released (proven time and time again) you advocate releasing them anyway? 240 down at GITMO now are the left overs after sifting through about 880 I think that have revolved through.

    So you want to argue both sides…they get cut loose and nothing happens (see they weren't a threat…U.S. Detention Policy is flawed)…or they get cut loose and return to al-Qaeda / Jihad (see…this "illustrates" the ineffective U.S. Detention Policy).

  52. "I consider the insistence on pressing ahead with cases that would be marginal even if properly prepared to be a severe threat to the reputation of the military justice system and even a fraud on the American people…Surely they don't expect that this fairly half-arsed effort is all that we have been able to put together after all this time…I lie awake worrying about this every night…After all, writing a motion saying that the process will be full and fair when you don't really believe it is kind of hard, particularly when you want to call yourself an officer and lawyer."

    -Major Robert Preston, former prosecutor, on the military commissions, in an email to a supervisor in the Office of Military Commissions.

    Source: http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200508/s1426

  53. the al-Qaeda number 2 in Yemen dude wouldn't have met the burden of a Military Commission Case (like you and like minded people have critisized), let alone a U.S. Federal Trial. So…if what you and like minded people advocate…he (though deemed an enemy combatant by a CSRT) would have been released anyway.

    If you insist everyone of these enemy combatants gets his day in Federal Court…rights under the U.S. Constitution AND even though the DoD has determined they are a threat and an enemy combatant…you'll see more walk back to the JIHAD.

    Go Cardinals.

  54. Cards!? This is intractable.

    But I think we do have common ground on GTMO. We're not saying everyone should just be released. We are saying there needs to be a moral, legal and effective process for determing who is a threat (and therefore needs to be prosecuted) and who is not a threat (and should be released). I think you would agree with that idea. I think we disagree on whether the current process is moral, legal and effective. Accurate?

  55. Accurate, Yes! Never before in the history of U.S. Conflicts have detainees had the legal rights and avenues they have at GITMO. And there is nothing immoral, illegal or ineffective with the current CSRT, ARB and Military Commission Cases. Let the DoD fight the wars and detain rightfully determined ENEMY COMBATANTS that are determined to be a threat and whose cases are reviewed every year at ARBs. Whether "prosecuted" in federal court or a military commission HAS NO BEARING on the fact they are determined to be an Enemy Combatant and remain a threat as determined by an initial CSRT and Annual Review Boards.

    Keep GITMO open for business. I'm glad we agree. Tell your friends. Start a "keep GITMO open" celltour. This time talk about the 3 square meals a day, the recreation, the open bay barracks, the attorney visits, the movies and library, the ICRC access, the comfort items, the mail sent and received, the health care, the dental care, soccer, and tell people the truth about the replica cell you all traveled with that is reserved for detainees who bite, headbut, throw urine and feces on guards, assault male and female servicemembers or threaten famale service members with rape. Thank you, we are finally getting somewhere.

    Continued peace and blessings to you,
    U.S.A. Terror Free Since 9-11-2001

    GO CARDINALS

  56. "I consider the insistence on pressing ahead with cases that would be marginal even if properly prepared to be a severe threat to the reputation of the military justice system and even a fraud on the American people…Surely they don't expect that this fairly half-arsed effort is all that we have been able to put together after all this time…I lie awake worrying about this every night…After all, writing a motion saying that the process will be full and fair when you don't really believe it is kind of hard, particularly when you want to call yourself an officer and lawyer."

    -Major Robert Preston, former prosecutor, on the military commissions, in an email to a supervisor in the Office of Military Commissions.

    Source: http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200508/s1426

  57. I’m rubber your glue.

    The NY Times report shows the ineffective policy of cutting him loose. If he were still in GITMO he wouldnt’ be operating as al-Qaeda number 2 man in Yemen would he? YES or NO?…Be honest with your answer now.

  58. Haha, now we’re getting somewhere!
    That’s exactly what I’m saying–we need moral, legal and effective policies so that the right people are properly held accountable and the wrong people (like the Uighurs you mention) are released. I’m glad we resolved this! Now to the crucial question: Steelers or Cardinals???

  59. So…because “U.S. Detention Policy is Ineffective”…as you suggest is illustrated by the release of al-Qaeda number 2 in Yemen…we should close down GITMO? What happens when the other 240 are released? OHHH…wait a minute, I am just “fear-mongering” by proposing that question.

    Regardless of what these guys do after they get released (proven time and time again) you advocate releasing them anyway? 240 down at GITMO now are the left overs after sifting through about 880 I think that have revolved through.

    So you want to argue both sides…they get cut loose and nothing happens (see they weren’t a threat…U.S. Detention Policy is flawed)…or they get cut loose and return to al-Qaeda / Jihad (see…this “illustrates” the ineffective U.S. Detention Policy).

  60. the al-Qaeda number 2 in Yemen dude wouldn’t have met the burden of a Military Commission Case (like you and like minded people have critisized), let alone a U.S. Federal Trial. So…if what you and like minded people advocate…he (though deemed an enemy combatant by a CSRT) would have been released anyway.

    If you insist everyone of these enemy combatants gets his day in Federal Court…rights under the U.S. Constitution AND even though the DoD has determined they are a threat and an enemy combatant…you’ll see more walk back to the JIHAD.

    Go Cardinals.

  61. Cards!? This is intractable.

    But I think we do have common ground on GTMO. We’re not saying everyone should just be released. We are saying there needs to be a moral, legal and effective process for determing who is a threat (and therefore needs to be prosecuted) and who is not a threat (and should be released). I think you would agree with that idea. I think we disagree on whether the current process is moral, legal and effective. Accurate?

  62. Accurate, Yes! Never before in the history of U.S. Conflicts have detainees had the legal rights and avenues they have at GITMO. And there is nothing immoral, illegal or ineffective with the current CSRT, ARB and Military Commission Cases. Let the DoD fight the wars and detain rightfully determined ENEMY COMBATANTS that are determined to be a threat and whose cases are reviewed every year at ARBs. Whether “prosecuted” in federal court or a military commission HAS NO BEARING on the fact they are determined to be an Enemy Combatant and remain a threat as determined by an initial CSRT and Annual Review Boards.

    Keep GITMO open for business. I’m glad we agree. Tell your friends. Start a “keep GITMO open” celltour. This time talk about the 3 square meals a day, the recreation, the open bay barracks, the attorney visits, the movies and library, the ICRC access, the comfort items, the mail sent and received, the health care, the dental care, soccer, and tell people the truth about the replica cell you all traveled with that is reserved for detainees who bite, headbut, throw urine and feces on guards, assault male and female servicemembers or threaten famale service members with rape. Thank you, we are finally getting somewhere.

    Continued peace and blessings to you,
    U.S.A. Terror Free Since 9-11-2001

    GO CARDINALS

  63. “I consider the insistence on pressing ahead with cases that would be marginal even if properly prepared to be a severe threat to the reputation of the military justice system and even a fraud on the American people…Surely they don’t expect that this fairly half-arsed effort is all that we have been able to put together after all this time…I lie awake worrying about this every night…After all, writing a motion saying that the process will be full and fair when you don’t really believe it is kind of hard, particularly when you want to call yourself an officer and lawyer.”

    -Major Robert Preston, former prosecutor, on the military commissions, in an email to a supervisor in the Office of Military Commissions.

    Source: http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200508/s1426797.htm

  64. I think Maj Preston is writing a book. Chaching…$$$ I'd love the opportunity to "respectfully" debate him and get to the bottom of his thoughts and/or motives.

    The quote from MAJ Preston was 2005, prior I believet to the 2005 DTA Act, and prior to the supreme courts 5-4 habeas ruling.

    That goes for any government/military/ any person of any significance you and your organization has chosen to take quotes, many obscure, timely or not, or out of context. This is GITMO 2009, not ABU GHRAIB 2003…not even the same GITMO (Camp x-ray, etc…) exists from 2003.

  65. DTA and MCA were attempts to enshrine some of the Bush administration's policies Major Preston wrote about into US law. As you note, the US Supreme Court struck down a portion of the MCA as unconstitutional. By attempting to enshrine bad policies and practices in law, the US government ignored reservations from military prosecutors, violated international treaty obligations, delayed justice for those responsible for 9/11, and even tried to enshrine impuntiy for its own abuses. What a horrible betrayal of the government's responsibility to its citizens. I don't see how any American who loves his country can support this nonsense, but hey–you also like the Cards, haha. And I think you defending Darth Vader's side in a debate against Major Preston is an excellent idea. PS Let's move this here: http://blog.amnestyusa.org/waronterror/whats-ais-

  66. DTA and MCA were attempts to enshrine some of the Bush administration's policies Major Preston wrote about into US law. As you note, the US Supreme Court struck down a portion of the MCA as unconstitutional. By attempting to enshrine bad policies and practices in law, the US government ignored reservations from military prosecutors, violated international treaty obligations, delayed justice for those responsible for 9/11, and even tried to enshrine impuntiy for its own abuses. What a horrible betrayal of the government's responsibility to its citizens. I don't see how any American who loves his country can support this nonsense, but hey–you also like the Cards, haha. And I think you defending Darth Vader's side in a debate against Major Preston is an excellent idea. PS Let's move this here: http://blog.amnestyusa.org/waronterror/whats-ais-

  67. DTA and MCA were attempts to enshrine some of the Bush administration's policies Major Preston wrote about into US law. As you note, the US Supreme Court struck down a portion of the MCA as unconstitutional. By attempting to enshrine bad policies and practices in law, the US government ignored reservations from military prosecutors, violated international treaty obligations, delayed justice for those responsible for 9/11, and even tried to enshrine impuntiy for its own abuses. What a horrible betrayal of the government's responsibility to its citizens. I don't see how any American who loves his country can support this nonsense, but hey–you also like the Cards, haha. And I think you defending Darth Vader's side in a debate against Major Preston is an excellent idea. PS Let's move this here: http://blog.amnestyusa.org/waronterror/whats-ais-

  68. Darth Vader?

    I have no comment (at least not yet) on your other blog. President Obama has to live up (or atleast give the appearance) to all his campaign rhetoric and campaign promises. Now that he is in the hotseat and actually responsible for things greater then winning votes (ie… national security)…watch him shift as he becomes more and more educated about these detainees. I can tell you it will be very interesting to see how he performs this balancing act.

    I am curious to know why A.I. doesn't get all up in arms about Holder? Anyway, side note/issue.

    I truelly am sorry you and other like minded individuals feel so betrayed by your own government. I hope you'll find peace one day, but not at the expense of emboldening our enemy or making the U.S. and our allies less safe from those you are determined to advocate for.

    God Bless,

    U.S.A. Terror-Free Since 9-11-2001

  69. I think Maj Preston is writing a book. Chaching…$$$ I’d love the opportunity to “respectfully” debate him and get to the bottom of his thoughts and/or motives.

    The quote from MAJ Preston was 2005, prior I believet to the 2005 DTA Act, and prior to the supreme courts 5-4 habeas ruling.

    That goes for any government/military/ any person of any significance you and your organization has chosen to take quotes, many obscure, timely or not, or out of context. This is GITMO 2009, not ABU GHRAIB 2003…not even the same GITMO (Camp x-ray, etc…) exists from 2003.

  70. DTA and MCA were attempts to enshrine some of the Bush administration’s policies Major Preston wrote about into US law. As you note, the US Supreme Court struck down a portion of the MCA as unconstitutional. By attempting to enshrine bad policies and practices in law, the US government ignored reservations from military prosecutors, violated international treaty obligations, delayed justice for those responsible for 9/11, and even tried to enshrine impuntiy for its own abuses. What a horrible betrayal of the government’s responsibility to its citizens. I don’t see how any American who loves his country can support this nonsense, but hey–you also like the Cards, haha. And I think you defending Darth Vader’s side in a debate against Major Preston is an excellent idea. PS Let’s move this here: http://blog.amnestyusa.org/waronterror/whats-ais-take-on-obamas-exec-orders/

  71. Military and intelligence experts have said that it is Guantanmao and torture that have emboldened al Qaeda, put US soldiers at greater risk in this and future conflicts and made the US less safe by undermining human rights and the rule of law at home and abroad. If you're for security, then join us; Amnesty International advocates for human rights to be respected, promoted and protected–by everyone. Enjoy the game!

  72. Darth Vader?

    I have no comment (at least not yet) on your other blog. President Obama has to live up (or atleast give the appearance) to all his campaign rhetoric and campaign promises. Now that he is in the hotseat and actually responsible for things greater then winning votes (ie… national security)…watch him shift as he becomes more and more educated about these detainees. I can tell you it will be very interesting to see how he performs this balancing act.

    I am curious to know why A.I. doesn’t get all up in arms about Holder? Anyway, side note/issue.

    I truelly am sorry you and other like minded individuals feel so betrayed by your own government. I hope you’ll find peace one day, but not at the expense of emboldening our enemy or making the U.S. and our allies less safe from those you are determined to advocate for.

    God Bless,

    U.S.A. Terror-Free Since 9-11-2001

  73. Military and intelligence experts have said that it is Guantanmao and torture that have emboldened al Qaeda, put US soldiers at greater risk in this and future conflicts and made the US less safe by undermining human rights and the rule of law at home and abroad. If you’re for security, then join us; Amnesty International advocates for human rights to be respected, promoted and protected–by everyone. Enjoy the game!

  74. What a game! I'm disappointed the Cards didn't win, but no lack of excitement. If the MVP didn't have to come from the winning team Kurt Warner would win it hands down. He picked the Steelers defense apart (minus the poor pass at the goalline and fluke 100 yard interception return to end the half).

    Is Amnesty International Hiring? J/K

    I would have to respectfully disagree with the "experts". We are safer now then we were pre- 9/11 BECAUSE we have detained al-Qaeda members. Training camps in Afghanistan have been obliterated and UBL is rotting away hiding in some cave somewhere. Whether Guantanamo closes or not….radical jihadist al-qaeda terrorists are still going to want to kill us infidels. We can no more blame ourselves for future terrorist activities, then we can blame ourselves for the attacks on 9/11.

    Where I might agree with the experts…the "perception" of Guantanamo…the Guantanamo that exists in the media and popular culture…the PR battle that is Guantanamo…the "perception" or belief that detainees are living in your model cell 24/7 incommunicato, that inflammatory staged photo that accompanied your cell tour blog that was NOT taken at GITMO or any other U.S. Detention facility…that is the stuff that has been damaging. In that case, fine close it down and open a twin sister in Afghanistan or somewhere and name it something else.

    IF Guantanamo closes and the majority of it's detainees are released it is going to be an emboldening victory for al-Qaeda. Recruitment will skyrocket and it will have the exact opposite effect you think it will.

  75. What a game! I’m disappointed the Cards didn’t win, but no lack of excitement. If the MVP didn’t have to come from the winning team Kurt Warner would win it hands down. He picked the Steelers defense apart (minus the poor pass at the goalline and fluke 100 yard interception return to end the half).

    Is Amnesty International Hiring? J/K

    I would have to respectfully disagree with the “experts”. We are safer now then we were pre- 9/11 BECAUSE we have detained al-Qaeda members. Training camps in Afghanistan have been obliterated and UBL is rotting away hiding in some cave somewhere. Whether Guantanamo closes or not….radical jihadist al-qaeda terrorists are still going to want to kill us infidels. We can no more blame ourselves for future terrorist activities, then we can blame ourselves for the attacks on 9/11.

    Where I might agree with the experts…the “perception” of Guantanamo…the Guantanamo that exists in the media and popular culture…the PR battle that is Guantanamo…the “perception” or belief that detainees are living in your model cell 24/7 incommunicato, that inflammatory staged photo that accompanied your cell tour blog that was NOT taken at GITMO or any other U.S. Detention facility…that is the stuff that has been damaging. In that case, fine close it down and open a twin sister in Afghanistan or somewhere and name it something else.

    IF Guantanamo closes and the majority of it’s detainees are released it is going to be an emboldening victory for al-Qaeda. Recruitment will skyrocket and it will have the exact opposite effect you think it will.

  76. Pingback: weigh watchers