"Ex-Gitmo Prisoner commits suicide attack"

[eddie]

This from the AP:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24504862

This sucks. I'm curious to see if this gains any political traction. Also curious to if we'll find out who the guy was and why he was staying in our lovely Cuban beach-property in the first place.

 

[mmx1]

It's also plausible that his detention in Gitmo cemented his desire to instigate violence against Iraqi Forces. Kuwait cleared him of terrorism charges.

 

[BourneID]

It's also plausible that his detention in Gitmo cemented his desire to instigate violence against Iraqi Forces. Kuwait cleared him of terrorism charges.

"You are awarded No Point's and we are all dumber for having heard your respone":icon_rage

 

[Mumbles]

MMX1... explain yourself.......otherwise....I'm appalled.

 

[mmx1]

Yeah, because it's completely implausible that a gitmo detainee might have been mistakenly detained. Particularly if Kuwait (no coddler of terrorists) later found them innocent of the original charges.

 

[Cobra Commander]

I hope they at least gave him the cock meat sandwich during his time at Gitmo.

 

[mmx1]

MMX1... explain yourself.......otherwise....I'm appalled.

Am I wrong? You think that guy loved the US after being detained at Gitmo and then release because he was cleared of the charges? Is it implausible that giving somebody the "cock meat sandwich" might turn a guy that may have lent moral or material support to terrorists into a guy who'd be willing to give up his life?

The OP implies that perhaps this individual should have been retained at Gitmo....even though Kuwait cleared him of charges. Unless I've missed something, Kuwait is not exactly turning a blind eye to terrorism or fomenting instability in Iraq, so it stands to reason that his release was correct given what we knew then.

Unless we're now in the business of detaining people on what they might do in the future.

No, I don't think this guy was a saint before we detained him. But I'm wary of using this incident to justify continued detention of individuals on inadequate evidence.

 

[DSL1990]

Unless we're now in the business of detaining people on what they might do in the future.

like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minority_Report_(film))

 

[phrogdriver]

I think it's pretty clear that a significant number of detainees are not terrorists. Some are, indeed, but a good part were either just sympathizers, just in the vicinity of terrorists, and some were fraudulantly picked up by their tribal enemies to collect exorbitant US bounties. You spend a year or five getting extreme heat/cold, sensory overload/deprivation, etc, etc, and not be pissed off once you're let go.

Unless we can prove a guy's a terrorist, we've got to cut him loose at some point. The alternative is just to hold all of them until they die of old age. I'm not willing to do that. Being that they have to be let go sometime, it would behoove us to at least treat them humanely while they are in custody. That Jack Bauer stuff sounds cool and tough on TV, but not it's not so easy in the real world.

 

[BourneID]

Am I wrong? You think that guy loved the US after being detained at Gitmo and then release because he was cleared of the charges? Is it implausible that giving somebody the "cock meat sandwich" might turn a guy that may have lent moral or material support to terrorists into a guy who'd be willing to give up his life?

The OP implies that perhaps this individual should have been retained at Gitmo....even though Kuwait cleared him of charges. Unless I've missed something, Kuwait is not exactly turning a blind eye to terrorism or fomenting instability in Iraq, so it stands to reason that his release was correct given what we knew then.

Unless we're now in the business of detaining people on what they might do in the future.

No, I don't think this guy was a saint before we detained him. But I'm wary of using this incident to justify continued detention of individuals on inadequate evidence.

Are you now justifying his actions based upon his detainment? Thats like saying a guy in the US was falsely arrested on murder charges, went through an entire trail to be found not guilty, and then goes back and kills all the corrections officers who were in the jail where he was detained, or the police station where he was held. If someone is willing to take those actions after a detainment I am willing to bet they made those same actions prior to their detainment, however whatever evidence was available worked in their favor. I honestly can't believe someone on this site would qualify a terrorists behavior, YOU DISGUST ME.

 

[A4sForever]

I hope they at least gave him the cock meat sandwich ....

Uhhhhh ... please ... it's called a "horse cock" sandwich.

 

[mmx1]

Are you now justifying his actions based upon his detainment? Thats like saying a guy in the US was falsely arrested on murder charges, went through an entire trail to be found not guilty, and then goes back and kills all the corrections officers who were in the jail where he was detained, or the police station where he was held. If someone is willing to take those actions after a detainment I am willing to bet they made those same actions prior to their detainment, however whatever evidence was available worked in their favor. I honestly can't believe someone on this site would qualify a terrorists behavior, YOU DISGUST ME.

Don't confuse explanation with justification. I can explain and attempt to correct the contributing factors that convince a young person, whether a gangster in the U.S. or a terrorist overseas to decide that a life of crime and terrorism is an appropriate course of action, without condoning or justifying the end result.

You seem to have this notion that everyone's morality is black and white, that if they were a suicide bomber now they must have always been a suicide bomber. Phrogdriver is right (and said it better than I intended). Detainees at Gitmo have ranged from the wholly innocent to the moderately complicit to the wholly involved (KSM). Treating them as if they were guilty only cements their hatred. Which is fine if we're sure of their guilt and don't plan to release them.....ever.

Otherwise, we might have to rethink this.

What happened to the time that enemy combatants we captured were surprised we didn't turn out to be the bloodthirsty demons their pedagogues told them we were? When our compassion and willingness to tend to a wounded enemy demonstrated our true nature? These days it seems like some people seem intent on living up to our enemy's depiction of us.

 

[brownshoe]

Uhhhhh ... please ... it's called a "horse cock" sandwich.

Sigh... The more things change...

Steve

 

[squeeze]

Are you now justifying his actions based upon his detainment? Thats like saying a guy in the US was falsely arrested on murder charges, went through an entire trail to be found not guilty, and then goes back and kills all the corrections officers who were in the jail where he was detained, or the police station where he was held. If someone is willing to take those actions after a detainment I am willing to bet they made those same actions prior to their detainment, however whatever evidence was available worked in their favor. I honestly can't believe someone on this site would qualify a terrorists behavior, YOU DISGUST ME.

You're an idiot. You're comparing a court proceeding and pre-trial confinement, followed by a decision by a jury to a military detention center where individuals are held for indeterminate amounts of time, sometimes on the flimsiest of evidence and judged by tribunals where they are not afforded the rights of due process.

And then you go on to somehow make the leap that by criticizing that situation, he feels the individual in question was justified in his actions and 'qualify a terrorists behavior'.

Wow.

Is it such a leap for you to believe that people who may not have always held the US in the highest regard (regardless of their combatant affiliations or not), may have been pushed to unreasonable actions due to their treatment by us? No one is justifying/qualifying/supporting the suicide bombers actions, idiot - they are merely pointing out how or why someone may or may not have been pushed to that point.

 

[BourneID]

You're an idiot. You're comparing a court proceeding and pre-trial confinement, followed by a decision by a jury to a military detention center where individuals are held for indeterminate amounts of time, sometimes on the flimsiest of evidence and judged by tribunals where they are not afforded the rights of due process.

And then you go on to somehow make the leap that by criticizing that situation, he feels the individual in question was justified in his actions and 'qualify a terrorists behavior'.

Wow.

Is it such a leap for you to believe that people who may not have always held the US in the highest regard (regardless of their combatant affiliations or not), may have been pushed to unreasonable actions due to their treatment by us? No one is justifying/qualifying/supporting the suicide bombers actions, idiot - they are merely pointing out how or why someone may or may not have been pushed to that point.

You said it, Flimsiest of Evidence, not enough to convict as well as not enough to hold, He could have been as guilty as we thought, just we were unable to prove it. Therefore we set him free, and he proved us right. You also said they might not have heldus in the highest regard to begin with. People are detained for a reason, not just because they have brown skin and where a turban on their head.