60 2 mins 13 yrs

Now then, we all know that the wicked Emperor Bush outraged “international opinion” by locking up all those innocent Muslims in the Guantanamo gulag. That’s a fact and who can deny it?

“A freed Guantanamo Bay terror detainee has re-emerged as an al-Qaida commander in Yemen, the US said today. The confirmation that Said Ali al-Shihri was now leading a Yemeni branch of Osama bin Laden’s terror network highlights the difficulty US president Barack Obama faces in his efforts to close the Cuba detention centre and decide the fates of its captives.  In a video posted on a militant-leaning website, al-Shihri, who was jailed at Guantanamo for six years after his capture in Pakistan, said his detention only hardened his resolve to pursue holy war.”

To summarise; Al-Shiri has moved from being just a fanatic Islamic terrorist commander to being an even more fanatic Islamic terrorist commander, but with one difference; he is now FREE to pursue his Jihad objectives.This psycho was released by the US into the custody of the Saudi Arabians for re-habilitation. And, as we all know, the Saudis are our allies in the war on terror, right? Just one more Gitmo angel.

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

60 thoughts on “A GUANTANAMO ANGEL…

  1. Don’t understand this, is this an argument FOR or AGAINST Gitmo? Surely this has only made him even worse…

  2. It demonstrates how messed up the Bush policy was in not prosecuting detainees through fair and just trials, and in lumping all random detainees in as one bunch. More harm was caused to actual American interets by detaining these people at Gitmo than these people caused themselves.

  3. Agreed Dan. Also, it would be be wise to remain skeptical of this news. There are many possibilities, including;

    1. Disgruntled Intelligence operators releasing damaging half/un/truths (to undermine policy of the new administration).
    2. Disgruntled Intelligence operators releasing damaging truths.
    3. The guy has been turned and is now working for US Intel.
    4. The guy always worked for US Intel.
    5. The timely news is designed to muddy the waters on the whole issue of Gitmo and detentions, and provide cover for the Obama admin to maintain most of the Bush policies wrt these detentions (which is already looking likely).
    6. It is simple truth.

    When it comes to information from the intelligence community, it is very wise to take it with a pinch of salt. Disinformation is half their job. And the motives for disinforming can be many.

  4. There is also the possibility that Gitmo has caused a similar situation that was caused here in Northern Ireland because of Internment. Hundreds of innocent people were locked up into a prison camp by the authorities and came out IRA men.

  5. Seamus

    That’s a devil’s argument, which the lefties have certainly all taken their talking points on immediately. The despicable Keith Olbermann said a similar thing last night.

    They had the right guy and they should never have let him go. The review process was far too liberal. Shame on the Guantanemo critics.

  6. This story of true isn’t an argument for not going down the trial route. It’s a stain on "The West".

  7. Phantom,

    In essence, there are some who do not accept that some Islamic fanatics seek to kill us because they can.These are 9/10 people and we will never change their minds. The images of 9/11 could not do it, what chance have you or I.

    The ONLY good Jihadist is a dead one.

  8. David

    Correct, It almost causes one to despair to think that otherwise intelligent people could say such things, and might possibly even believe them.

    Almost.

    Such arguments make it impossible to even debate the issue.

  9. I do believe there is a threat from Radical Islam. I don’t believe that threat should undermine Freedom. If this man, Al-Shiri, was guilty, why was he not tried? If he was so obviously a member of Al-Qaeda, why was he not tried and convicted?

  10. They had the right guy and they should never have let him go. The review process was far too liberal. Shame on the Guantanemo critics.

    Its just not that simple. Taken at brutal face value, why wasnt he tried? Also why was he (a Yemeni) released to Saudi Arabia? An epicentre of extreme Islamism.

    It stinks to high heaven.

  11. Seamus,

    Do I take it you therefore accept that there was at least ONE senior AQ killer at Guantanamo? If so, do you think there might be more? And if so, why is closing Gitmo and letting them out such a good idea?

  12. Because David, I would prefer 100 Guilty men to walk the streets than 1 Innocent to be imprisoned. If their is the evidence to convict those Al-Qaeda members then by all means convict them. If there isn’t the evidence to convict them, then they should be as welcome to walk the streets as you or I am.

  13. It is clear that there was pressure to reduce the population there, as a result of the international pressure.

    He should have been given a summary military trial – not an OJ Trial, and its concomitant Johnny Cochran clown show, with all its length and extreme expense.

    GW Bush had it right when he established Guantanemo Bay and the military trials. Every alternative will be much worse.

    The blood this guy spills will be on the hands of Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and on the entire Human Rights industry.

  14. No-one Left , Right or in-between seriously believes that there aren’t any Islamic jihadists out to kill westerners if they can, there are just differences of opinion on how the problem should be dealt with.

  15. "GW Bush had it right when he established Guantanemo Bay and the military trials. Every alternative will be much worse."

    By establishing a compound run by the military, and trials run by the military, mean that those housed there were Prisoners of War. Because of the abuses that occured in that Camp, those who set it broke the Geneva Convention on the treatment of POWs and are thus War Criminals.

  16. –I would prefer 100 Guilty men to walk the streets than 1 Innocent to be imprisoned–

    I reject that completely. All effort should be made to prevent the conviction of innocents, but that is a standard that guarantees injustice against more victims. It is completely immoral, though cloaked in the garb of a false high mindedness.

  17. Phantom,

    "The blood this guy spills will be on the hands of Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and on the entire Human Rights industry."

    And the blood spilled by the terrorists that Gitmo and torture made? On whose hands should that be?

  18. Because Gtimo wasn’t about trying them, it was about keeping them away from real trials. It harmed our international prestige and made recruiting easier for our enemies and resistance harder for our allies.

  19. — And the blood spilled by the terrorists that Gitmo and torture made? —

    To use your favorite word, strawman. They were terrorists when they were nabbed, and long before that too.

  20. Phantom – Not all, some had nothing to do with terrorism. And those that did should have been tried.

    However, we are safer today because of the release of one man, and that is the release of George Bush to the Texans where he will do no more harm.

  21. Phantom,

    "To use your favorite word, strawman."

    Yeah, I look forward to the day you use it correctly. Today was not that day, again.

    There are people who never went near Gitmo and who were never tortured themselves who are now terrorists because of it. Many have been killed by these people, who would otherwise be alive today.

  22. "They were terrorists when they were nabbed, and long before that too."

    If they were Terrorists why weren’t they convicted?

  23. All effort should be made to prevent the conviction of innocents,
    But that is the Problem Phantom the Bush administration denied them any sort of a trial so Gitmo housed the innocent as well as the possibly guilty with no prospect of a fair trial. Shame on the Bush administration.

  24. Seamus,

    And if that just 11 of your 100 guilty man hijack four aircraft and crash them into office blocks resulting in the loss of thousands of lives that’s a price worth paying, right?

  25. Please present proof for the argument that there were innocents tending their sheep,turned into genocidal maniacs by the evil Marines at Camp X Ray.

  26. "And if that just 11 of your 100 guilty man hijack four aircraft and crash them into office blocks resulting in the loss of thousands of lives that’s a price worth paying, right?"

    Well, that would be one extreme. The other extreme is the Nazi approach. Anyone who provides even the basic semblance of a threat to the State should be locked up and possibly even killed.

    Western Society, the thing that makes us different from the Middle East, is based on a number of things, Freedom being the main one. People died for it. One of those things is the Right to a Fair Trial. Unless those interned at Gitmo were given fair trials then their internment was illegal, immoral and wrong.

  27. Phantom,

    See here

    I learned in Iraq that the No. 1 reason foreign fighters flocked there to fight were the abuses carried out at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. Our policy of torture was directly and swiftly recruiting fighters for al-Qaeda in Iraq. The large majority of suicide bombings in Iraq are still carried out by these foreigners. They are also involved in most of the attacks on U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq. It’s no exaggeration to say that at least half of our losses and casualties in that country have come at the hands of foreigners who joined the fray because of our program of detainee abuse. The number of U.S. soldiers who have died because of our torture policy will never be definitively known, but it is fair to say that it is close to the number of lives lost on Sept. 11, 2001. How anyone can say that torture keeps Americans safe is beyond me — unless you don’t count American soldiers as Americans.

    and

    I know the counter-argument well — that we need the rough stuff for the truly hard cases, such as battle-hardened core leaders of al-Qaeda, not just run-of-the-mill Iraqi insurgents. But that’s not always true: We turned several hard cases, including some foreign fighters, by using our new techniques. A few of them never abandoned the jihadist cause but still gave up critical information. One actually told me, "I thought you would torture me, and when you didn’t, I decided that everything I was told about Americans was wrong. That’s why I decided to cooperate."

  28. Seamus

    Bullshitbullshitbullshit

    No one in the history of the world died so that terrorists could have OJ Trials.

    Imprisoned enemy troops were never afforded such trials in prior wars either.

    No one is saying arrest and convict everyone in sight

  29. Phantom – OJ trials are not the standard. These folks were not enenemy troops. And innocents were clearly swept up in the detentions. It has undermined our real efforts, and now is thankfully none being wound down.

  30. I’ve had strong opinions on this before I heard of Troll or ATW.

    This issue is to me a moral and security no brainer.

    Closing Guantanemo will prove to be a grave error. The review process should have been tweaked, not ended. Grave and fundamental error.

  31. Troll it was your spirited and repetitive invocation of a male bovine’s bowel movement, not your opinion which I referred to.

    Frankly, I find the closure to be based on sound moral and security reasons.

  32. David

    I’m not arguing for just letting them go. If they are terrorists then lets put them on trial and if found guilty then lock them up and throw away the key. Even talking practically I don’t see how they cam be held for ever without a trial.

  33. Aileen

    Should the Nazi and Japanese soldiers have been given individual trials too? May have been hard to win the Second World War if that happened.

    You mean well, but be aware – many of those who want individual trials very much want to bog down the system with a huge, expensive monstrosity.

    I do not speak of guys like mahons here but the leftist supporters of this do not advocate individual trials in the name of justice. They oppose justice – its the last thing that they want. They advocate it in order to tie the system in knots.

  34. Gitmo and military tribunals exist for very practical reasons.

    Enemy combatants taken off the field of battle cannot be tried in our regular court system because the trail of evidence necessitated by a such trial does not meet the required standards. The trail of evidence does not exist in many cases.

    A military tribunal has a different standard for evidence and discovery.

    (And I would expect lawyers to know and understand this!)

  35. Phantom: "They advocate it in the name of tying the system in knots."

    They advocate it, I believe, in the name of letting the terrorist go.

    Imagine how effective it will be to serve a subpaena in Afghanistan to a member of Al Queda…..Yeah..that’ll work.

    Or, let’s go request a paper trail from Osama bin Laden. 🙂

  36. Phantom

    Were these people captured as soldiers? I don’t really follow this all but I thought that the point was that they weren’t. With the Japenise and German soldiers they was no question that that is what they were. They were POW until the war ended and those who were guilty of war crimes were put on trial. Or at least that was supposed to be the idea. However it appears that crimes against humanity bit was a bit of a bolt on and starting the war was the major issue in the beginning.

    I just think that as a general principle, justice is one of those things that we want to presenve and what the terrorists want us to give up on. I don’t like the idea of the bastards winning this battle.

  37. The terrorists don’t give a rat’s anus about justice or freedom or any of that.

    They want to kill you or to make you submit. Period.

    I’ve been very critical of Bush. But he understood the fundamental thing here – that this is a different type of war that requires different methods if we are to prevail. He tried to strike the right balance, and very substantially did just that.

  38. Phantom

    Terrorists very much care about freedom and justice, They want to undermine it. They are the enemies of these things and it is mutual. Killing people is their means to that end, even if some of them do it with relish.

    BTW I have no doubt that some "on the Left" don’t give a damn about justice either.

  39. Many on the hard left are in a kind of alliance with the jihadists – in that they both see the liberal democracies of the West as an enemy to be destroyed.

    But again I disagree on the freedom and justice jazz. If the West agreed to a vassal, submissive status, the jihad bunch would give us all the internal justice that we want.

    Islamic dominance is their goal, internally and worldwide. The rest is just details. Their own words prove the point.

  40. Islamic dominance which is based on a denial of freedom and justice. It is an integral part of the package that they want ,

    Terrorism is itself a denial of justice and freedom.

  41. They advocate it in order to tie the system in knots.

    i know its a hard concept for you to follow Phantom, but not everyone rejects Gitmo etc on the same grounds. And I can tell you from experience that not one person I know has ever considered bogging down the system to be a motive. Also, your transparent tactic of comparing a few hundred detainees to the hundreds of thousands on WW2 PoWs is sublimly ridiculous.

    Many on the hard left are in a kind of alliance with the jihadists – in that they both see the liberal democracies of the West as an enemy to be destroyed.

    Same could be said of the hard right. Afterall, both are generally ultra conservative religious zealots who detest decadant western liberalism and secularism.

  42. Phantom,

    Islamic dominance is their goal, internally and worldwide. The rest is just details. Their own words prove the point.

    Maybe you should stop listening to and believing in your enemies propaganda.

    Aileen,

    Terrorism is itself a denial of justice and freedom.

    A denial of justice and freedom can be considered terrorism or could be supported by acts of terrorism. Which can in turn coul lead to those denied resorting to terrorism.

    You make it sound like someone has a revalation that they are evil and therefore decide one day to become a terrorist. Motives (or lack thereof) abound in every individual case.

  43. I haven’t seen GW Bush ( who y’all would see as "ultaconservative" ) destroying any western democracies, silly media rhetoric by some regardless.

    The tying the system in knots objective is taken as a given. It’s absolutely obvious. Again, not by the centrist liberals, but for the left, this is jihad by other means – to make the US a pitiful, helpless giant. That is absolutely what is desired.

    There was a war then, and there is a war now. It is important to recognize the fundamental differences ( which Gitmo critics tend not to ) , and to react accordingly. Bush made an honest attempt to do this, and he did it fairly well.

    This is a matter on which he was head and shoulders above all of his critics. He understood the reality of terrorism and how to deal with it in a way that his [ Western ] critics never could.

    His critics wanted it treated as a traditional war or as a policing matter. They were entirely wrong and he was largely correct.

  44. Obama is taking his time closing Gitmo, which is fine with me. He will surely dissappoint moveon.org. Going to drag his feet a bit on Iraq as well!

    He seems to be going along with Bush’s strategery.

  45. Charles

    You may not be wrong

    He may terribly disappoint the lefties and drive the right wing talking point guys crazy, but may get important things done in a sober atmosphere.

    That would not be too bad.

  46. Daytripper

    "You make it sound like someone has a revalation that they are evil and therefore decide one day to become a terrorist. Motives (or lack thereof) abound in every individual case."

    …and an attack on justice and freedom is part of it. Terrorism is about terrorising people as part of acheiving your end, You can’t do that whilst upholding justice and freedom, That has to be the casualty if you are to be successful and it ia also part of the sucess,

  47. Phantom,

    I haven’t seen GW Bush ( who y’all would see as "ultaconservative" ) destroying any western democracies, silly media rhetoric by some regardless.

    Who said anything about Bush? Still havent got the whole Strawman thing down yet. Keep trying.

    The tying the system in knots objective is taken as a given. It’s absolutely obvious. Again, not by the centrist liberals, but for the left, this is jihad by other means – to make the US a pitiful, helpless giant. That is absolutely what is desired.

    ‘A given’, ‘absolutely obvious’. Like god? Or with supporting evidence? Maybe the economic crisis was a left wing conspiracy too.

    This is a matter on which he was head and shoulders above all of his critics. He understood the reality of terrorism and how to deal with it in a way that his [ Western ] critics never could.

    This will be the expert that ignored all warnings from the other (actual) experts around him before and after 9/11.

    His critics wanted it treated as a traditional war or as a policing matter. They were entirely wrong and he was largely correct.

    It is a civilian matter. Not treating it as such runs the risk of militarising the civilian domain. He has also been shown to be utterly wrong, considering he has managed to spread islamic terrorism to nations where it never existed and assited in the training of a new generation of jihadists. As i said before, such strategies should be renamed "Promotion on" as opposed to "War on"

    Aileen

    …and an attack on justice and freedom is part of it.

    And one sides peace and justice may be anothers slavery.

    Terrorism is about terrorising people as part of acheiving your end, You can’t do that whilst upholding justice and freedom, That has to be the casualty if you are to be successful and it ia also part of the sucess,

    Im not disputing that.

    David

    I just want to see terrorists killed. Simple, really.

    Wouldnt want to complicate the issue and run the risk of developing a conscience.

  48. David – But many of those in the Gitmo system where not terrorists. Denying someone a fair trial is what we want to fight against, not for.

  49. Mahons these are illegal combatants they are not even POW, the liberal supreme court granted rights to non-american citizens held purposfully outside their jurisdiction 5 of the judges on the bench should be impeached.

    lets look at just these two because this is not the first time gitmo detainees have been re-caught on the battle field:

    "WASHINGTON (AFP) — Two men released from the US "war on terror" prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba have appeared in a video posted on a jihadist website, the SITE monitoring service reported.

    One of the two former inmates, a Saudi man identified as Abu Sufyan al-Azdi al-Shahri, or prisoner number 372, has been elevated to the senior ranks of Al-Qaeda in Yemen, a US counter-terrorism official told AFP.

    Three other men appear in the video, including Abu al-Hareth Muhammad al-Oufi, identified as an Al-Qaeda field commander. SITE later said he was prisoner No. 333."

    There is a simple solution to Gitmo Line the last 250 ILLEGAL COMBATENTS against the wall and shoot them in the head, no ,more prisoners, no more gitmo

    Either that or release them in England so they can get paid by the state and nice house to live in while their requests for asylum are adjudicated

  50. Some of them are quite dangerous, some apparently are not. We in the US don’t believe in mass execution of untried prisoners. And we don’t impeach judges because some people are unhappy with their ruling.

  51. we don’t impeach judges because the congress is over populated with the same stupid mindset as the 5.

    You read the decisions as have I they have NO basis in constitutional law and they have therefore violated their constitutional authority.

    like I said we can always hold in the Tombs since the majority of NY want gitmo closed

    and we do shoot illegal combatents every nation does

  52. Troll – Just because the decisions went against what you beleive, it doesn’t mean they are unconstitutional. No serious legal expert has ever said the Judges exceeded their authority. Even Bush, who disagreed with the decisions, never made that claim.

    The Tombs are for New York State Felons, The Federal Prison is different. We’ve tried terrorists here and could do so again.

    And you’ll have to remind me of the last time we rounded up hundreds of people, held them without trial for years, and then shot them all.

    And last, but not least, many of these people have tunred out not to be enenmy combatants.

  53. Troll

    That is the sort of simple solution dictators and psycopathic monsters have enjoyed throughout history.

  54. "said his detention only hardened his resolve to pursue holy war."

    To be fair to Bush, he couldn’t be expected to have anticipated that reaction.

Comments are closed.