JCG on Released Jihadists
It’s now up to the Obama Administration to evaluate which of the 248 Guantanamo detainees to release—and a video made public today of a former detainee-turned al Qaeda leader makes clear just how difficult it is going to be.
The SITE Intelligence Group has posted online a 19-minute video, featuring speeches from four al Qaeda leaders in the Arabian Peninsula. One of the leaders is Guantanamo Prisoner No. 372, who was released to Saudi Arabia in 2007 and is now deputy commander of a regional group . . . Counterterrorism officials believe the former Guantanamo detainee was involved in a deadly bombing at the U.S. embassy in Yemen just last September.
In the criminal justice system, it’s sadly commonplace to see people acquitted of crimes and released, only to go on to commit horrible acts of violence. As long as we provide a legal process for dealing with Gitmo detainees, some will be released and then plot to kill Americans. Some will be successful.
Knowing it will happen doesn’t make it any easier to watch.
Obama had better be careful about how he goes about this process.
I would expect that released prisoners re-captured will not be in a position to be released again, or even incarcerated in the first place.
As the posts regarding the silence towards the airstrikes in Afghanistan prove, it’s not about the actions, but about the who.
Apogee (f4320c) — 1/24/2009 @ 8:34 pmIf 10% of those released are back in the fight then it has probably been a pretty good system used to release them.
Do parole boards have a 10% error rate? I bet most would be happy with 10%.
MU789 (c852bc) — 1/24/2009 @ 8:55 pmComment by JVW — 1/24/2009 @ 8:07 pm
Sorry, asking players to not put in their best effort on every play is a disservice to those players. If avoiding humiliation is such an important goal then institute a formal mercy rule whereby the game is called early.
Perhaps it’s just a consequence of the main sport I participated in, where near instant loss is always a possibility.
Soronel Haetir (cabedb) — 1/24/2009 @ 9:01 pmSorry, wrong thread.
Soronel Haetir (cabedb) — 1/24/2009 @ 9:04 pmSoronel:
I thought it was a good comment on this thread. If those deciding which Gitmo detainees to release aren’t giving it their best effort then blow the whistle and get someone in there to do a better job. Getting it wrong could mean an instant loss for our soldiers.
It was only when I remembered the basketball post that I figured out what you meant.
MU789 (c852bc) — 1/24/2009 @ 9:24 pmThere is a fundamental difference between our criminal justice system and terrorism. My resume is rather thin on intelligence gathering. My only experience is as a Military Intelligence Coordinator (really nothing more than a clerk typist with a top secret clearance) in the Army in 1971-74. But one thing I did learn and have never forgotten, there are many things you know with absolute certainty that can never be proven in a court of law.
Our criminal justice system is set up to punish wrong doing after a crime has been committed. It is one thing to let a petty thief off because the only testimony you have is that of a co-defendant that has not been coroborated. That petty thief may or may not, continue to commit similar crimes. Our intelligence system is (supposed to be) designed to stop attacks before they happen. Intelligence is gathered from a number of sources, most of which would never be admissable in a court of law, or even a military tribunal under the existing rules of evidence. Hearsay, best evidence rule, self incrimination, business records, etc. would never allow 99% of intelligence material to be admissable. I am not sure that an American court is capable of convicting Osama bin Laden of jaywalking. But one thing is certain, every time we let an Al Queda terrorist walk free, they will be plotting their next attack.
artwebster (e22e3b) — 1/25/2009 @ 7:21 amThere was a great story in last week’s WSJ regarding the Clinton years and their response to terrorism – Clinton was agonizing with his special counsel over the legality of sending in a commando team into Yemen and nabbing a suspect involved in the bombings of one of our embassies. Gore came into the room much later during the discussion, and after he heard their qualms, just snorted and said “of course it’s illegal, that’s why we have commandos – so go grab his ass and haul him back here!” At least back then, Gore knew what the hell the reality was in that situation.
Dmac (eb0dd0) — 1/25/2009 @ 8:06 amIs it just me (rarely reading print media) or is the MSM ignoring Obama’s missile strikes in Pakistan and Afghanistan?
Patricia (89cb84) — 1/25/2009 @ 9:05 amNo, it’s not just you. You’d have to squint really hard in order to find any mentions of it in today’s papers.
Dmac (eb0dd0) — 1/25/2009 @ 9:34 amIt’s not like they paid much attention to missile strikes in that theater before Tuesday. I don’t see any great reason that would change now. Unlike so many other areas, there isn’t a lot of public controversy about it, and thus it isn’t news.
What was the quote from Citizen Kane? You supply the pretty girls, I’ll suplly the war. I don’t know for certain that media ever left that mould, but if they did they are sure returning to it now.
Soronel Haetir (cabedb) — 1/25/2009 @ 9:52 amThe real problem with all this is that it undermines the Geneva Convention. The practice of treating partisans as mere criminals with due process rights is an incredible disincentive to the notion of uniformed forces which all modern laws of warfare rely upon.
The practice used to be that captured guerrillas were summarily executed as violating this basic rule of warfare and thereby endangering civilians by not differentiating themselves from same.
In this new and misguided system, uniformed forces can be held indefinitely with no further ado, but guerrillas must be proven to be hostiles — away from the field and their captors — or released.
Confusing guerrillas with criminals is a gross and fatal error. At the very least all such persons found on the field of battle, armed or not, should be incarcerated for the duration without further process. This may be hard on some innocents, but this at least provides a small incentive to the guerrillas to wear identification to allow “their” people to avoid this fate. If not, f*** ’em.
Kevin Murphy (0b2493) — 1/25/2009 @ 10:21 amit’s sadly commonplace to see people acquitted of crimes and released, only to go on to commit horrible acts of violence
Can we afford, in a war, to apply the “It’s better that a 100 guilty men go free than one innocent man go to prison” standard?
Not only this war, but future wars?
I’m not sure.
SteveMG (215e0f) — 1/25/2009 @ 10:24 am…And at some point the subject of reciprocity needs to come up.
Kevin Murphy (0b2493) — 1/25/2009 @ 10:24 amAs has been postulated before, the end sum of this will be the total absence of POW’s in future conflicts. End of problem for the military.
Dmac (eb0dd0) — 1/25/2009 @ 10:33 amDmac, I saw that anecdote about Gore and had the same thought. What happened to that guy ?
Mike K (ee3203) — 1/25/2009 @ 11:03 amComment by Mike K — 1/25/2009 @ 11:03 am
Nov-’00 was not a good moment for AlGore, and seems to have upset his mental equilibrium.
AD (dd47a7) — 1/25/2009 @ 11:09 amComment by SteveMG — 1/25/2009 @ 10:24 am
We’d better start looking at that closely if we still want to call ourselves ‘home of the free’.
Ed from PA (f79927) — 1/25/2009 @ 11:11 amComment by Dmac — 1/25/2009 @ 10:33 am
I agree.
AD (dd47a7) — 1/25/2009 @ 11:11 amOnly recognized combatants must be “given quarter” under GC.
We take unlawful-combatants into custody at our own peril.
Ed, that’s just nonsense. Pretending that operations in a combat zone is the same as a police cruiser patrolling a suburban neighborhood is just irrational.
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/25/2009 @ 11:16 amKevin #11, it continually infuriates me that people can’t see that fact.
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/25/2009 @ 11:19 amI agree with Kevin’s sentiment, but the fact is that some of those that were detained had no business being detained (and I am not suggesting that they should have been executed instead).
I don’t think that being against detaining random foreigners is ‘nonsense’, SPQR, but I would love to hear why you think it is.
Ed from PA (f79927) — 1/25/2009 @ 11:26 amEd, wonderful how you build up strawmen that you can almost overmatch.
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/25/2009 @ 11:29 amTell me how that is a strawman and we’ll talk, otherwise you’re just garble-gooking words out like ‘strawmen’, ‘projection’, and all of the other escape-hatchwords that people seem to enjoy using here.
Ed from PA (f79927) — 1/25/2009 @ 11:31 amComment by Ed from PA — 1/25/2009 @ 11:31 am
If you object so much to the form and substance of the arguments, why do you insist upon returning to engage them.
AD (dd47a7) — 1/25/2009 @ 11:39 amEd, just looking at the definition of a strawman argument should give you a clue. Looking at the comments in the thread, you can see that I was not defending “detaining random foreigners”.
Steve in #12 raised the issue of the inapplicability of civilian law enforcement standards in the detention of combatants. You in #17 implied that not doing so contradicted our country’s principles.
Given that our country had not applied such excessively high legal standards to combatant detention for its entire history, until just a couple of years ago, should by itself rebut your comment.
But asserting that the issue is the “random” detention of people is a strawman, and a red herring argument – not to mention several other logical fallacies and rhetorical nonsense all rolled into one.
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/25/2009 @ 11:45 amSo you’re saying, with 100% certainty, that every person detained at Gitmo is there because they are guilty of something?
Ed from PA (f79927) — 1/25/2009 @ 11:47 amUm. When discussing Gitmo detainees, and a person writes:
I think that the “random foreigners” bit qualifies under the general category of straw men. Random?
Hmmm. Where were the Gitmo detainees captured, and under what circumstances? How many have been held? Released? What happened after release?
Here is a nice place to start, if folks actually want to debate and discuss:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detention_camp
But I’m with the comedian who said that, if the process is so unfair and evil, why not house the detainees in the homes of those who seem to object so quickly and vociferously?
I’m fine with closing it down. But to call the system one that picks up “random foreigners” is disingenuous to say the least. Especially given the total number detained (and ask around, most people carrying on about this don’t even know that number!) and their history.
Eric Blair (e92b94) — 1/25/2009 @ 11:48 amAnd, in the general category of “strawmen”:
I believe we have new prime example. By those standards, what can we say about any criminal justice program?
Eric Blair (e92b94) — 1/25/2009 @ 11:50 amEd–
The reason for uniforms goes back several hundred years — if you cannot tell civilians from military, a LOT more civilians will die than otherwise. Ergo, combatants without uniforms are de facto war criminals in that they cause countless civilian deaths.
Whether it is Viet-Nam or Afganistan, when military forces hide in civil populations, it is almost impossible for the other side to discriminate.
So, as long as we are demading other people answer questions: Why do you favor a system that MUST lead to massive civilian casualties? Why do you think that people who violate the Genevea Convention’s ban on irregulars whould get a better deal than those that follow it?
Kevin Murphy (0b2493) — 1/25/2009 @ 11:52 amObama really has his hands full in trying to deal with the detainees at Gitmo. Kind of shows the difference between running your mouth during a campaign and then suddenly having to solve the problem.
Seems he’ll have to go one of two ways: Either release them all, which would be criminally irresponsible; or re-invent Gitmo somewhere else and call it something else.
Tom Carter (b086c0) — 1/25/2009 @ 11:55 amand all of the other escape-hatchwords that people seem to enjoy using here.
Eddy gets his talking points from HuffPuff and Man/Bear/Pig these days, so don’t ask him about pesky details like facts to buttress his ravings. Here’s some big “escape – hatch” words for you – prove your points with actual objective sources. That means no sourcing of clips from Matt Damon, btw.
What happened to that guy ?
I think AD got it right – Gore listened to his raging nutbags on the far left after losing such a close election, and it eventually turned him into a venting – spleen zealot. But since he’s become even more of a multi – millionnaire several times over since then, the act apparently pays quite well for him.
Dmac (eb0dd0) — 1/25/2009 @ 12:00 pmWhat are ‘actual objective sources’? I see a lot of ‘hot air’ links posted on this site; are we calling that an objective source? If so, then I see no problem with a media matters or a huffington link. If ‘objective source’ is only interpreted to include those that agree with our point of view then the debate is dead.
Ed from PA (f79927) — 1/25/2009 @ 12:06 pmHere we go again, you use more strawmen that you’d find at a county fair. Please direct us to one cite of HotAir or other sources regarding this specific issue that you feel are biased. The link used here was ABC freakin’ news, Poindexter. Either put up something comparable to prove your point, or put a sock in it.
Dmac (eb0dd0) — 1/25/2009 @ 12:31 pmThat’s great, Ed from PA. Why don’t you post some links from HuffPo or Media that state that Guantánamo is full of “random foreigners.” Then we can view the merits of your argument rather than discuss various logical fallacies.
carlitos (05e522) — 1/25/2009 @ 12:31 pmAlso, you need to actually read this site for more than a few hours each month before you can make any assertions regarding the veracity of the sources posted. Either do your homework or go back to Man/Bear/Pig to continue your fevered rantings.
Dmac (eb0dd0) — 1/25/2009 @ 12:33 pmEd thinks Highlights for Children is an awesome news source these days – it speaks to his level of education as well.
Dmac (eb0dd0) — 1/25/2009 @ 12:35 pmDmac, carlitos….the poster is just trollin’ around this afternoon.
Fact is, the poster doesn’t like Gitmo. Fine. McCain didn’t like it, either.
But when BO builds a new Gitmo (and under quite similar rules), no doubt that will heralded as a “muscular response to international threats.”
More seriously, I think the problem is this: some folks on the Left are in pursuit of perfection. The system cannot make mistakes or it is a bad system. What is lost is the “good,” rather than the perfect, by this approach.
In other words, okay, attack the system. But please give an alternative that is not worse.
This is what I think the Left didn’t “get” about the post-9/11 world. It’s not about what is good.
It’s about what is “less bad.”
GW Bush “got” that. I hope that President Obama does, too.
Eric Blair (e92b94) — 1/25/2009 @ 12:36 pmThat is a lot of posts at once, Dmac, did I hit a nerve?
I am not going to go back through threads to find hot air links. That you pretend the site is not used as proof is gaspingly hilarious.
Please provide a link where I wrote anything that inferred that. Otherwise you’re using ad hominem. It doesn’t work for Rush and it won’t work on me.
Ed from PA (f79927) — 1/25/2009 @ 12:38 pmAnd there we have it, it’s raison d’etre. Why don’t you go annoy random foreigners.
carlitos (05e522) — 1/25/2009 @ 12:43 pmMy point is that those citizens of other countries who believe that we are into shady stuff have fuel for their arguments when we detain people without any sort of trial for years and years. Whether these people are innocent or not (I would have to guess that almost all of them are no good)is not really the point. We need to figure out what we are going to do with them.
Ed from PA (f79927) — 1/25/2009 @ 12:52 pmHmmm. What countries are those, and how do they treat people from other countries who try to kill their soldiers?
Unless you think we are better than those other countries (grin)?
Eric Blair (e92b94) — 1/25/2009 @ 12:57 pmI am not going to go back through threads to find hot air links.
Translation – I’m a disingenuous Troll who has nothing better to do then come on to sites I rarely read and make broad assertions with no factual substance. I have no idea what the “search” function is composed of, but my half – baked opinions are all that matter to me while I bask and bray at my reflection in my mirror each morning.
Ever kiss a girl, sweetheart?
Dmac (eb0dd0) — 1/25/2009 @ 12:57 pmDmac:
You know you’re wrong about the hot air thing, so I would leave that one go. That I have no desire to spend 45 minutes searching through threads to find a hot air link as a reference is not conclusive proof that it has not been used.
I find your interest in my intimate life disturbing.
Ed from PA (f79927) — 1/25/2009 @ 1:02 pmAnd in like manner, I find your interest in this site beyond creepy. I also have the answer to the question – no.
Dmac (eb0dd0) — 1/25/2009 @ 1:58 pmEd does have a point in a way: once we took these guys prisoner, we had a problem in how to handle them. Our mistake was not in how we handled them.
Or are we still hoping for some reciprocity?
Kevin Murphy (0b2493) — 1/25/2009 @ 6:55 pmAnd, you asked me to find someone posting a reference to hot air earlier. Well, I didn’t have to look much further than the front page of this site.
https://patterico.com/2009/01/23/what-exactly-are-we-stimulating-with-our-hundreds-of-billions-of-dollars/
Ed from PA (836625) — 1/25/2009 @ 7:15 pmThe Obama admiistration announced today that in the upcoming Gitmo trials jurors will be allowed to wear balaclavas and be idetified as John Doe, Richard Roe, Jane Smoe and Petunia Low etc for fear that disclosure of their actual identities will put themselves and their familiies at risk.
Measures to protect Judges, prosecutors and witnessess are still being developed.
The governement is also working on plans to identify the religion and motivations of the accused without giving offense.
Terry Gain (0a6eaf) — 1/25/2009 @ 7:22 pmHe did not ask you to find any old hot air reference. You introduced that straw man yourself.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 1/25/2009 @ 7:23 pmOhhhhh, right… hot air is an okay reference for other threads, but not this one? How does that make sense? Is that a concession that hot air may be biased? Is hot air apart of the media? If so, is hot air biased more towards the left or the right? Take these answers in light of the constant claim that the media is heavily biased towards the left.
You are reaching, hitch.
Ed from PA (836625) — 1/25/2009 @ 7:26 pmI will admit it is a bit of a stretch for me to believe it is alright to cast my particular pearls before swine but somehow I keep trying to get more appropriate responses.
I should know better than to carry an intellectual battle with an unarmed man.
Your correction has been duly noted.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 1/25/2009 @ 7:29 pmWell, I didn’t have to look much further than the front page of this site.
Ed apparently still has trouble locating his own backside – and his head keeps blocking the opening.
Dmac (eb0dd0) — 1/26/2009 @ 6:12 am