Patterico's Pontifications

5/5/2008

Released GTMO Detainee Became a Homicide Bomber

Filed under: Terrorism,War — DRJ @ 9:08 pm



[Guest post by DRJ]

The downside of letting lawyers run the war:

“Three years ago, Abdullah Saleh al-Ajmi, a Kuwaiti soldier who deserted to fight in Afghanistan alongside the Taliban, sat in a detention cell at the U.S. naval base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, while lawyers argued whether he was an “enemy combatant.”

Last week, a Dubai-based television channel reported that al-Ajmi was killed carrying out a homicide bombing in Mosul, Iraq.”

Counter-terrorism analysts had argued he should not be released from GTMO because:

“— That he deserted from the Kuwaiti army to participate in a jihad in Afghanistan;

— The Taliban supplied him with arms, including grenades;

— He admitted fighting with the Taliban, including engaging in two or three firefights;

— He was captured by coalition forces in the Tora Bora region, an area once thought to be a hideout of Usama bin Laden;

— That upon his arrival at Guantanamo he demonstrated “aggressive” behavior; and,

— Based on a review of classified and unclassified documents, al-Ajmi was declared a threat to the United States and its allies.”

Nevertheless, al-Ajmi was released to Kuwait in 2005. At the time of his apparent death, he was free on bail pending trial on charges he helped raise money for Al Qaeda.

— DRJ

43 Responses to “Released GTMO Detainee Became a Homicide Bomber”

  1. But… he promised that he only wanted peace and would never fight against Americans!!!

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  2. I might not have; but, somebody surely did:
    I told you so!

    Another Drew (8018ee)

  3. it’s all our fault for causing the disruption of his world, which left him bitter and clinging to guns & religion…… if only we had embraced our opportunity bring change & hope to him, this tragedy could have been avoided.

    redc1c4 (292479)

  4. it’s all our fault for causing the disruption of his world, which left him bitter and clinging to guns bombs & religion

    Fixed it. 😉

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  5. Had we only submitted to his wacky moon-god religion – everything would be OK.

    Forrest Quinn (b6ec8c)

  6. “a Homicide Bomber”

    Political correctness does strain the ears, doesn’t it?

    stef (5e2e3a)

  7. I think the Lawyers who participated and facilitated this killers release ought to be shipped to Iraq and turned over to the families of the killed. Justice will really be served and swiftly.

    PCD (5c49b0)

  8. “I think the Lawyers who participated and facilitated this killers release ought to be shipped to Iraq and turned over to the families of the killed”

    Prosecutors? Judges? clerks? All of ’em?

    stef (11e54c)

  9. Your outrage at the lawyers is a bit misplaced. The person ultimately responsible for this is Bush himself, for he is the one lacking the guts to stand up to the lawyers and critics. Bush could have stood firm and refused to release terrorists such as this one, but for some inexplicable reason he didn’t… and this, along with the other attacks by those released from custody, is the result. I wonder how the American troops he claims to support like it when they’re attacked by a terrorist let out of Guantanamo because Bush couldn’t stand the pressure? Whatever the ‘lawyers’ might like, the guys with the keys to the cells (ultimately) report to Bush; if he ordered them to keep the keys in their pockets, these terrorists wouldn’t be getting out.

    And what has Bush gotten out of bowing to the pressure? Has the criticism stopped? Have the human rights groups turned their attention elsewhere? Does the world love us again? Have the released terrorists gone back to their countries and sung our praises, telling their comrades that we’re really a bunch of nice guys?

    steve sturm (a0236e)

  10. stef, If the terrorists released from Gitmo came to the US and bombed gatherings of anti-american liberals, I may be slightly less outraged, but the thing is people like you don’t get it. They will kill all the infidels, including those who release them from custody.

    PCD (5c49b0)

  11. Mr. Sturm,

    You analysis is very simplistic. This is a nation of laws. Congress, the Judiciary, and the ACLU were the lead actors in forcing Bush’s hand. This is not a monarchy or dictatorship like many on the left believe it to be. Mr. Bush does not have absolute powers. If he did, why would he allow Michael Moore to continue to waste oxygen and to corrupt the young and the stupid?

    PCD (5c49b0)

  12. PCD (#11): and which court ordered Bush to release terrorists to their (supposed) native country, as happened here? And what law requiring his release trumped the list of evidence that he was and remained a dangerous terrorist?

    steve sturm (a0236e)

  13. No, Bush was right to release him. The only way to prove that the insane left is wrong is to let them have their policies.

    We will get smart about islam after we lose a city, but it will too late then. And as for the lawyers defending these terrorists, they couldn’t care less about the victims of the murderer they helped to release. It is interesting to note that when the press reports how many terrorists US forces have killed, they don’t report the number captured…..hmmmmm maybe the Gitmo lawyers are having a positive effect. muslims (capitals left out on purpose) have much to answer for.

    Jack (d9cbc5)

  14. Mr. Strum,

    There were several actions in the DC Circuit court. I know most were unsuccessful, but there some that were forcing a review of the prisoners’ statuses.

    Personally, I think the SCOTUS ought to make it known that the Federal Courts do not have jurisdiction over wars fought by the US, but the majority of the high court are political animals as well as jurists.

    PCD (5c49b0)

  15. “And as for the lawyers defending these terrorists, they couldn’t care less about the victims of the murderer they helped to release.”

    Some of these guys have military lawyers.

    stef (315769)

  16. stef, no not all of them, just the defense attorneys.

    Not that I agree. I actually have a few friends who work on this stuff in a law school clinic. though I could never do that work myself, I know they are more interested in civil liberties than they are in helping terrorists. I think the real problem is that the left refuses to accept how severe the problem is, and refuses to accept a deviation from the “absolutes” of civil liberties. We’re not really being that extreme to lock up terrorists at Gitmo, compared to our reactions to these kinds of problems in the past, but for some, there is no reason, ever, to deny habeus corpus, to anyone, even an obvious enemy combatant who violates the geneva convention.

    We should have had a more open debate on the subject; instead both sides talk past eachother. That said, if I were a lawyer who helped free this guy, I’d feel pretty awful about this. I just can’t buy into that mentality of giving everyone a super-awesome defense.

    Jem (4cdfb7)

  17. Jack #13: with that logic, why not let them detonate a nuke in the US, that would really show the liberals how wrong they are, right?

    PCD #14: again, what court decision ordered Bush to release a single terrorist? sure, the courts ordered them to follow certain procedures, but I have yet to read of any court deciding that X or Y detainee was being improperly held and ordering them released.

    steve sturm (a0236e)

  18. Mr. Sturm, The court ordered that these release reviews be held. Yes, that is 1 degree removed from releasing individuals, but it also potentially opened the door for all of them to be released which is the goal of the ACLU.

    PCD (5c49b0)

  19. al-Ajmi may have thought of his action as a quick way to lose those pesky pounds he put on at Gitmo, but now we’ll never know.

    daleyrocks (906622)

  20. “stef, no not all of them, just the defense attorneys.”

    I’m not sure what you’re saying. Some of the detainees have military attorneys representing them. As defense attorneys.

    stef (23c2b4)

  21. I agree that the GTMO detainees should be afforded Habeus Corpus rights, with the emphasis on corpus.

    Another Drew (f9dd2c)

  22. Evidently Steve Sturm believes the propaganda of the ACLU that Bush is a dictator.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  23. I’m not sure what you’re saying. Some of the detainees have military attorneys representing them. As defense attorneys.

    Translation: “I’m screwing you around and you’re an idiot for ever having taken me seriously.”

    nk (1e7806)

  24. Since the “progressives” are so multicultural, maybe we should have charged him as a hirabi under Islamic law.

    LarryD (feb78b)

  25. Strum, leaving aside all the various legal arguments why you’re wrong, why would you want to place the blame for any of this on the President who has remained steadfast in pursuing our fight against terrorism in the face of unprecedented opposition from the Democrats, unparallelled low public support, and hostile reactions from other world leaders? Cut the guy some slack, man. He gets enough crap from the side who want to let ALL the terrorists go; there’s no need to frag him from the rear.

    PatHMV (653160)

  26. Steve Sturm #17

    I didn’t say that any logic was involved at all. Let me explain it this way: You and I both see a big round rock at the top of a hill. We both figure that some day it will roll down the hill. And we are right. There is a certain logic in our position , even if we’ve never seen a big rock roll down a hill.

    But the people who want to deal with terrorists as though they are criminals, they don’t see the rock that way. And there is no way to convince them that one day the rock will indeed fall if nothing is done. The only way those people learn is through hard, painfull experience, and sometimes not even then. It interferes with their world view, or something.

    The good news is that NY city and Washington are the most likely targets. Hopefully, if a bomb does go off in DC, Congress will be in session. And god knows, if it goes off in NY, there won’t ever be another democrat elected there again.

    As for Bush, he has to pick his battles, and if he didn’t release that jihadi, he would have taken a lot of grief for it. And maybe, Bush was thinking, perhaps all those lawyers clammoring for the terrorist release could be right.

    And to be honest, I am not pleased with Bush at all. Islam is not a religion of peace, not on this planet, and it is about time we started talking about it. Islam is one religion that is badly in need of criticism, of which it simply isn’t getting enough.

    Jack (d9cbc5)

  27. #26 Well, fatboy Mikey Moore did question why the nice Islamofascists attacked NYC when, in so many words, blue state moonbats prefer to aid the terrorists over their own country. Picture an Islamic state rounding up the glitterati, nancy boys, the elite media types et al and making them slaves or cutting off their heads. “But why are they killing us when just want to get along with the enemies of imperialistic warmongering USA?” Getting tough now for real patriots for Alec Baldwin to flee the evil US. Picture Rosie O’Donnell and Moore both nekkid, turning slowing on a rotisserie over a nice hot fire, horrified that Islam loathes them too.

    madmax333 (03f303)

  28. Its quite enjoyable to see these issues displayed all in public. The residents of NY and DC have some ideas about who and how to fight terror, but some people with just get so hollered up at the fact that there’s insufficient bedwetting in those places. Is it target envy? Can’t be.

    stef (dfd808)

  29. Jack #26: and so what that Bush would have taken some grief over not releasing that (or the other) terrorist? It’s not as if his doing so made all the liberals happy, if anything, it showed that Bush could be pushed to the point of giving in. And even if he had taken some grief over it, let’s see how the families of those killed by this terrorist liked having their loved ones sacrificed so Bush could take a bit less flak (“Ma’am, I’m sorry for your loss, but Bush wanted to make the liberals happy. I’m sure you agree the death of your son was a good trade off, right?“). As for your suggestion that Bush could have thought the lawyers right, that was a joke, right? Bush thinking some attorney from the ACLU has more of a clue as to who is and who isn’t a terrorist than our military?

    #25: it’s ok that you think Bush has been such a good fighter, and maybe he will have done a better job than whoever replaces him, but a President who (1) refuses to punish Iran for helping kill Americans, (2) refused to punish Syria for their providing sanctuary for terrorist, (3) refuses to pressure the Saudis to pull back their support for terrorists, (4) rules out aggressive interrogation needed to detect and deter future attacks, (5) gives in to much of the Democrats eviscerating of the little counter-terrorism intelligence programs we have, (6) does nothing while Pakistan provides sanctuary to terrorists, (7) does next to nothing to secure our ports and borders against terrorist infiltration, (8) refuses to allow any type of profiling of terrorists if there is any chance that such would result in too many Muslims being singled out, (9) allows his (I believe) State Department to take words like ‘jihadist’ out of the lexicon, and (10) approves releasing terrorists so they can get right back to killing Americans is not a President who is truly committed to doing whatever it takes to keep America safe, so I’m not going to cut him any slack.

    steve sturm (a0236e)

  30. Yeeeeesh,
    Enough of this crap. Our own laws are going to get us killed if we keep affording Constitutional rights to people who are not covered under our Constitution.
    We claimed inalienable rights for ourselves-not the world.
    You want protection under our laws, enter the country legally and support your new home.Lawyers in War are as needed as tits on a Bull. You can mandate conduct amongst your troops, but to use Law in War?Shit, you might as well sue a f**kin’ hurricane.
    You f***ing shoot at me or Bomb me and mine?
    You are the Enemy-BOHICA.
    Crusades anyone?

    paul from fl (f9bb98)

  31. I’ve quoted you and linked to you here.

    Consul-At-Arms (6f0c30)

  32. Jack,

    Sure, but even if the rock rolls down the hill it will be our fault for exploiting it.

    Eric (884ea6)

  33. Mr. Sturm,

    Mr. Bush has left many obstructionist Clintonistas in government during his term. Clinton came in and fired everyone he could to put in his Clintonistas. That is one problem.

    Another problem is that the State Department has been Anti-US since before WW ONE!!! It has never been cleaned out, nor can it be without acts of Congress stripping the State Dept. bureaucrats of their employment rights.

    PCD (5c49b0)

  34. “Mr. Bush has left many obstructionist Clintonistas in government during his term. Clinton came in and fired everyone he could to put in his Clintonistas. That is one problem.”

    What are the transition numbers like?

    stef (1f638f)

  35. alphie is consistent.

    JD (75f5c3)

  36. stef,

    Are you just being a jerk or haven’t you been listening for the last 8 years?

    PCD (5c49b0)

  37. “Are you just being a jerk or haven’t you been listening for the last 8 years?”

    I’ve been reading random comments on the internet for many years. I’m curious to know who tracks presidential transition numbers so I can follow what the next president does as well as get an empirical handle on the what has happened over the last several transitions.

    stef (48e229)

  38. stef,

    It is quite simple to track. If people in political billets are looking for jobs as the administration changes, it is a good bet the President is putting his people in. Bush didn’t do that.

    You have to remember one of the first things Clinton did was fire all the Federal prosecutors to replace them with his ideologues, and Clinton fired the employees of the White House Travel Office to give those patronage jobs to a distant cousin and other Clinton supporters.

    PCD (5c49b0)

  39. “It is quite simple to track.”

    So how many?

    stef (b3c89c)

  40. stef, do your own nose counting.

    PCD (5c49b0)

  41. “stef, do your own nose counting.”

    I’m asking the people who seem to know. You’re not talking from ignorance, are you? You said bush left in many obstructionists but clinton did not. I assume this is based on some knowledge you have that I dont. Please share.

    Are you talking about political appointees? or beyond that ?

    stef (23c2b4)

  42. Stef, you are the expert in talking from ignorance.

    1) Bush left in the Federal AGs that Clinton hired, not as Clinton did, in firing them all.

    2) Bush left in the political appointments at NSA and CIA that Clinton hired, and did that bite him in the rear.

    3) Same for the State Dept., Bush did no house cleaning as Democrats do upon taking office from a Republican administration.

    stef, take off the Rose (law firm) coloured glasses.

    PCD (5c49b0)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0775 secs.