Stashiu Proved Correct on Gitmo Inmates Who Can’t Leave
In an interview with me last year, Gitmo psyche nurse Stashiu said:
There were a few detainees there who werent actually fighting against the Coalition, but they were fighting their own government and would have been executed if we returned them there. Since we are not allowed to ship someone where we have reason to believe they would face torture or death, they are stuck at GTMO until we can find a country to accept them without killing them. But they were combatants of some sort.
Looks like he was right:
An inmate of Guantanamo Bay who spends 22 hours each day in an isolation cell is fighting for the right to stay in the notorious internment camp.
Ahmed Belbacha fears that he will be tortured or killed if the United States goes ahead with plans to return him to his native Algeria.
Once again, Patterico & Stashiu3 told us the rest of the story … before it was the story.
DRJ (bea74b) — 7/31/2007 @ 5:15 pmReading Stashiu’s story, it’s not clear that he was right about *everything*. In particular, one detainee wanting to stay there doesn’t imply that he or other detainees were not “actually fighting against the Coalition”.
Frank Ch. Eigler (420aa0) — 7/31/2007 @ 6:34 pmPatterico has never (to my knowledge anyway) claimed I was right about *everything*… he certainly did not in this post. I’m pretty sure he believes I was right about most, if not all, of what I said or he would be posting corrections (actually, he wouldn’t have posted it in the first place if he thought I was making stuff up, he’s funny that way). That being said, I stand by the articles and have yet to see anyone present evidence I was untruthful. Not a single statement has been impeached (hint: none will be), today’s story was just one more confirmation.
I’m also not sure what your second sentence is trying to say because you are talking apples and oranges the way it’s written. A detainee wanting to stay is only evidence that a detainee (at least one, right?) wants to stay, not whether someone was a combatant against the Coalition or somebody else. Am I missing how those are connected?
Stashiu3 (f9262c) — 7/31/2007 @ 7:15 pmNo Staishu, you are not missing something. Frank’s second sentence just did not make sense, though I could probably venture a guess, but will refrain from doing so and let him clarify.
JD (26820f) — 7/31/2007 @ 7:26 pmHey, Sen’s Kennedy, et al, want these detainees released. So, release them. If the Algerians are going to slit this guys’ throat, who are we to interfere in the internal affairs of a sovereign country?
Another Drew (a28ef4) — 7/31/2007 @ 7:26 pmOr, perhaps the Senior Senator from Massachussets would prefer that he be released into his custody and care?
History shows that if we don’t execute these guys now, we just have to shoot them eventually when they’re re-engaged in a future battle-field.
As illegal combatants, they only deserve death!
Drew – We could just let Senator Kennedy give them a ride home.
JD (26820f) — 7/31/2007 @ 7:41 pmGreat. We must privide a home for people who want to kill us because their home will kill them if we send them back. Can you say, “suicide pact”?
nk (173e2a) — 7/31/2007 @ 7:42 pmMore old news and bullshit. I mentioned the Uighurs long ago, as have others.
AF (4a3fa6) — 7/31/2007 @ 8:51 pmRead both articles, and when you’re done here’s a nice one on Fox and Al Jazeera
AF – Not that it is any surprise, but the links you provided do not show that Patterico’s post, nor Staishu’s posts, were bullshit. You have obviously learned your linking skills from the multiple Gleens.
JD (26820f) — 7/31/2007 @ 9:06 pmAF,
I didn’t see anything in the first two articles that conflicts with what has been said here. What exactly was BS?
The third article was one veteran’s opinion and he’s entitled to it. What on Earth does it have to do with this thread?
Stashiu3 (f9262c) — 7/31/2007 @ 9:18 pmStaishu – I never mentioned it before, but this exercise that you did with Patterico was one of the most informative and educational postings I have run across on these here innertubes. You should be commended for same.
JD (26820f) — 7/31/2007 @ 9:28 pmThanks JD,
The credit goes to Patterico… he asked all the questions and did the post. Except for my opinions, it was all already in the public domain. Patterico was the one who organized it into what you read. I’m very glad you enjoyed it and I would venture Patterico is too.
Stashiu3 (f9262c) — 7/31/2007 @ 9:39 pmA man’s considered ready for release from Gitmo, then the government obviously doesn’t think he’s a threat any more. Since he faces the possibility of death if he goes back home, why not give him asylum here? Expedite his green card, find him a quiet community to live in, and encourage him to become part of that community. He’ll live a quiet life, get married, have kids, and die in his turn. Problem solved.
Alan Kellogg (d20a08) — 7/31/2007 @ 10:42 pmI vote no.
Stashiu3 (f9262c) — 7/31/2007 @ 10:51 pmThis has all been discussed before, elsewhere. The US did not allow the Uighurs asylum. It will not take responsibility. And you or Pat use Belbacha’s desperation as a defense of “Gitmo”
“I vote no”
So much for the great humanitarianism
The third link was just useful information not found here otherwise.
AF (4a3fa6) — 8/1/2007 @ 6:10 amWhy not Saudi Arabia? Or Afghanistan? Or Pakistan? Etc, etc…
Pablo (99243e) — 8/1/2007 @ 10:33 amNo they sent them to Albania, as a matter of fact. Sending them to KSA or Pakistan would probably be death sentence. Gitmo or le Sportif et Musique, the Algerian security services’s detention facility, no argument there.Now Algeria suffered from a hemorrhagic insurgency in the 1990s; headed by the Salafist GIA/FIS. They tamped down the terrorists, at a rather gruesome cost. This did not prevent the likes of Algerian war vets Ahmed Ressam to spread their actions, with an attempt on LAX, stopped by one alert Customs agent,Deanna Dean. (not Sandy Burger’s extensive whitewash on the matter) I do believe that at least one Algerian was at the Hamburg flat where Atta 7 Co. trained. These forceshave reconsolidated under the GSFC, (Groupe Salafiste Fronte Combatients, which nows calls itself Al Queda in the Maghreb, as I recall.
narciso (e79bbb) — 8/1/2007 @ 10:50 amAF,
You continue to argue dishonestly.
First, the Uigers were fighters, even according to your articles. They underwent training in Pakistan and elsewhere with the intent to fight. Whether you agree with their cause or not, they’re fighters who are not aligned with an established government. Call them insurgents, militants, or terrorists… they’re fighters.
Second, you act as if you have all the information about them even though your own sources reference information that is classified and not in the public domain. Nobody has said they are innocent, have they? Just that they’re not a danger to the United States government at this time. Maybe there are reasons we wouldn’t want them given asylum in the United States? Just maybe?
Third, I don’t want any of the Gitmo detainees brought to the United States, for several reasons that I have talked about in these articles and the one Patterico did over at Hot Air. If this makes me less than a humanitarian in your eyes, so be it. I’m pretty comfortable that my humanity is intact since I’ve; been a nurse for 15 years or so; worked with trauma, cancer, and mentally ill patients; donated bone marrow to cure a leukemia patient; have a wonderful family; and more that is frankly none of your business. That’s just the stuff that you could already see here, Blackfive, and Teh Squeaky Wheel.
Fourth, your third link was all about the opinion of one person who was there. I appreciate his perspective and have no doubt he believes what he says. One question though. If he has credibility because he was there, why don’t I since I was at Gitmo? Just because his views are more in line with yours? Seems to be a pattern with you.
Stashiu3 (f9262c) — 8/1/2007 @ 11:33 amStahiu3 – AF is usually not worth expending the keystrokes responding to. He/she/it rarely ventures an opinion and on those rare occasions exposes ignorance, intellectual dishonesty, and an inability to reason. The usual mode of operation is to cut and paste an extract from someone else’s work into the comments without explanation or elaboration. That method saves AF the embarrassment of having to actually explain a position.
daleyrocks (906622) — 8/1/2007 @ 3:09 pmThat reminds me… where’s Actus? 😉
Stashiu3 (f9262c) — 8/1/2007 @ 4:17 pmactus has been temporarily replaced by alphie, AF, and Andrew J Lazarus. They all tend to be variations on the same theme.
JD (26820f) — 8/1/2007 @ 4:25 pmStashiu3: it strikes me that many of those on my side are making the following mistake: conflating “the fact that someone is in Guantanamo is not per se proof that they are bad” with “the fact that someone in Guantanamo is per se proof that they aren’t bad.”
The former does not in any way imply the latter, but all too often I see them treated interchangeably.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 8/1/2007 @ 4:37 pmExactly right aphrael. Or that “if they’ve been released it’s proof that they aren’t bad.” Witness how many have been proven to have returned to the fight. The left makes many good points on many topics. I’m afraid that most of the time there is such hatred of President Bush that BDS interferes during discussions of Gitmo.
Stashiu3 (f9262c) — 8/1/2007 @ 4:54 pmStashiu–it’s not BDS that interferes, but the reflexive habits of defending one’s side. This applies to both right and left, and not only on the issue of Gitmo.
kishnevi (03a14b) — 8/1/2007 @ 7:43 pmThere’s also the fact that those who defend Gitmo seem unable to comprehend the fact that whatever benefits Gitmo has are far outweighed by the faults. You can’t say you are fighting for human rights yet maintain a place like Gitmo, even if every inmate is a high ranking member of alQaeda, without being marked as hypocritical by the rest of the world. There is no way to get around that fact. Minor short term gains achieved by keeping these men in Gitmo are overwhelmed by the long term losses Gitmo has. We are providing alQaeda with free propaganda–same as in Iraq.
(Stashiu, you and I had an interchange before on this topic. My arguments didn’t impress you and yours didn’t impress me.)
As for this particular man, I wouldn’t be surprised if he’s trying to get asylum in the US, either now or when Gitmo is eventually wrapped up.
People have tried crazier things to get green cards.
Passages from the articles I linked to. The title of the post is “Stashiu Proved Correct on Gitmo Inmates Who Can’t Leave.”
AF (4a3fa6) — 8/1/2007 @ 7:54 pmI’m sure you think of yourself as a great guy. And I’m sure you think of indefinate detention is a great way to solve the problem. I’m sure Pat thinks you were the first person to bring this up in public and I’m sure you and Pat and your family thinks everybody else knows less about this than you do, including doctors, lawyers, policy wonks and people who actually speak arabic. Also I’m sure you think America is the greatest country that ever was and ever will be on the face of the planet, and that selling arms to Saudi Arabia is the best thing to do against the threat of Iran, that the Iraqi Invasion of Iran was necessary and that Mossadegh was the devil. I’m sure you think that Viceroy Bremer and Donald Rumsfeld are both brilliant, that George W. Bush does talk to God and that they’ve all succeeded in making the world a safer place.
The post was glib repackaged bullshit.
Meanwhile Pakistan is going to hell and you’re too busy patting yourselves on the back to face the next disaster that could have been avoided.
AF – All of that bluster, but that still does not address the substance of the post, which at this point in time, we have to assume that you simply did not read it.
Obama will attack Pakistan, never fear.
JD (26820f) — 8/1/2007 @ 8:10 pmkishnevi,
I think I’ve shown that I understand the reasons we might want to close Gitmo, but wouldn’t stipulate your points to be facts. Benefits/faults (or cost/benefit) equations are different for a lot of reasons… political philosophy, character, cost to run everything, intel value, etc… I would contend that there may even be reasons that (if you knew them) would cause you to agree that Gitmo must remain open. Maybe not. But it’s certainly not an established fact. And it might be a more difficult decision than either of us are aware of.
As I’ve said before, just taking the political costs/benefits into account (as I understand them) I would say Gitmo should be closed. As a military/intel/security question, you can’t beat Gitmo and it should remain open. Not my call, but I can see reasons to, and reasons not to, close it down. If/when it does close, I wouldn’t want any of the detainees brought to the U.S., but that’s just me.
Stashiu3 (f9262c) — 8/1/2007 @ 8:28 pmAF,
All I’m sure of is right now I no longer care what you’re sure of, mostly because you’ve just proven to me what you’re full of. As I’ve told other trolls, why don’t you print out this thread, fold the pages until it’s all sharp corners, and put them where you talk from. Troll.
Stashiu3 (f9262c) — 8/1/2007 @ 8:35 pmStashiu–Apparently I misunderstood you earlier, since I’m in basic agreeement with your second paragraph. If we disagree it’s over the evaluation of political factors vs. military/intel factors.
kishnevi (d50358) — 8/1/2007 @ 8:35 pmAnd, since I wouldn’t want any of the detainees brought to the US, it’s not just you.
So, Staishu and kishnevi, the Dems voted to not move the prisoners at Gitmo to US soil, and voted to not release them to our allies. What would you suggest their reasonable position is? Given their votes, and my lack of imagination, all I can figure is they want the prisoners either released, or executed.
JD (26820f) — 8/1/2007 @ 8:40 pmI love it when AF confirms what I’ve said about him/her/it!
Was there a point to that last free form dump?
daleyrocks (906622) — 8/1/2007 @ 8:46 pmI can’t speak for Stashiu, or even the Democratic party, but my solution is–intern them on US soil as Geneva Convention POWs, and deport those who are deemed improperly held or no longer a threat to their home countries, regardless of any threat to their lives.
This is based on my opinion of what is most beneficial to the US in the conflict with the jihadis. The detailed reasoning is probably too long for a comment, but the general principle is this–the conflict with the jihadis is really a propganda struggle over the Muslim world between us and the jihadis. Not a military or criminal or even, primarily, political. If enough Muslims abandon the jihadis, the jihadis will be unable to harm us.
kishnevi (6273ad) — 8/1/2007 @ 8:59 pmkishnevi – The Dems specifically voted against moving them to US soil, or releasing them to the custody of our coalition partners.
JD (26820f) — 8/1/2007 @ 9:17 pmI would say that we should never class them as Geneva Convention POWs. What soldier in any Army (except us and the Brits) would feel the need to follow the rules of war if there were no consequences?
If I needed to move them from Gitmo, I’d send them to a facility in Afghanistan, all together at first. Then moving them individually to wherever they’re going to end up is much simpler logistically. I agree with kishnevi that sending them to their home country is reasonable, unless there is someplace else willing to take them. If they thought they might be in danger at home, they might decide that working with us would be better. Let them know that their chances for a green card would depend on how useful their help is. I think we give special consideration for useful occupations as part of the immigration process now (or we used to). This wouldn’t be much different, as long as they weren’t a danger to our country or our interests. I believe the quality of their work for us would be a pretty good predictor of how they would do here.
Stashiu3 (f9262c) — 8/1/2007 @ 10:15 pm