|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
dmbfan
Joined: 09 Mar 2006
|
 Posted: Sat Jan 24, 2009 5:02 pm Post subject: Who would've thought? |
 |
|
| Quote: |
Two ex-Guantanamo inmates appear in Al-Qaeda video
6 hours ago
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.
A Pentagon spokesman, Commander Jeffrey Gordon, on Saturday declined to confirm the SITE information.
"We remain concerned about ex-Guantanamo detainees who have re-affiliated with terrorist organizations after their departure," said Gordon.
"We will continue to work with the international community to mitigate the threat they pose," he said.
On the video, al-Shihri is seen sitting with three other men before a flag of the Islamic State of Iraq, the front for Al-Qaeda in Iraq.
"By Allah, imprisonment only increased our persistence in our principles for which we went out, did jihad for, and were imprisoned for," al-Shihri was quoted as saying.
Al-Shiri was transferred from Guantanamo to Saudi Arabia in 2007, the US counter-terrorism official said.
The other men in the video are identified as Commander Abu Baseer al-Wahayshi and Abu Hureira Qasm al-Rimi (also known as Abu Hureira al-Sana'ani).
The Defense Department has said as many as 61 former Guantanamo detainees -- about 11 percent of 520 detainees transferred from the detention center and released -- are believed to have returned to the fight.
The latest case highlights the risk the new US administration faces as it moves to empty Guantanamo of its remaining 245 prisoners and close the controversial detention camp within a year. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 24, 2009 5:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Clearly the "enhanced interrogation techniques" were a success. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dmbfan
Joined: 09 Mar 2006
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 24, 2009 5:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Clearly the "enhanced interrogation techniques" were a success |
.
So.....what would YOU do? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
agoodmouse
Joined: 20 Dec 2007
Location: Anyang
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 24, 2009 6:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| dmbfan, are you in Korea? I thought you left. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
caniff
Joined: 03 Feb 2004
Location: All over the map
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 24, 2009 6:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| dmbfan wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Clearly the "enhanced interrogation techniques" were a success |
.
So.....what would YOU do? |
Not torture people for information. People much smarter than you have unequivocally determined that it DOESN'T WORK.
That fact, along with the other fact that Guantanamo Bay's prison makes the US gov't look like an international criminal organization, is why closing that place is A GOOD IDEA.
Capiche? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JMO
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Location: Daegu
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 24, 2009 6:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| dmbfan wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Clearly the "enhanced interrogation techniques" were a success |
.
So.....what would YOU do? |
Compile a case and charge them. If there is no case, let them go.
Don't torture them, because torture is
1 a violation of human rights
2 has not been proven to work
| Quote: |
| The Defense Department has said as many as 61 former Guantanamo detainees -- about 11 percent of 520 detainees transferred from the detention center and released -- are believed to have returned to the fight |
.
I found this iteresting. This could mean as many as 89% of the people in the prison(and who were denied basic rights) were innocent. Obviously that number is probably lower but still interesting. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 24, 2009 6:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| So.....what would YOU do? |
I think that's a good question for YOU to answer. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 24, 2009 7:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
In 1996 it was the opinion of the US administration that there was no enough evidence to convict Usama Bin Laden in a US court.
That worked out real well. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dmbfan
Joined: 09 Mar 2006
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 24, 2009 7:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| I think that's a good question for YOU to answer. |
OK, I agree.
First, human rights are important. Prisoners should not have the same freedoms, privledges or comforts as those who follow the law. However, when it clear that those who have sworn to do a country and its people harm, swaring a "jihad" against innocent people, I think the line has to be extended.
Second, the justice system can easily be manipulated. If there is no fear of consequences, then that changes the status quo.
Third, I think that some "residents" at the prision have used this manipulation in the favor. I feel that the average John and Mary really don't know what it takes to protect a country or what goes on inside those walls.
With that being said, it is possible that those residents (or some) have been tortured. I have never believed the US was the angel in the sky when it comes to that matter. But then again, who is? However, I'm not going to point the finger in order to justify other wrongful behavior.
Fourth, there really has to be a clear cut, defenition of the world "torture". I think interogation and torture are not the same and certain methods should not be counted in with the other. Perhaps the liberal media have made this view somewhat foggy?
Fifth..........who/what is more important? You, your family and your country versus someone who has sworn to cause you, your family and your country harm?
I for one, chose my family and country over the issue of making sure that someone who has plotted and sworn to do harm to my country having a pleasent stay, any day of the week.
I really feel that those inside the prison are there for a reason. They were not hand picked out of a lottery. I don't fall the game of creating sympathy for those people. If they were to remain there without being charged, then I do feel that their should be credible proof that they are there for good reason.
I do feel that this is not a black and white issue. If we allow these people, who have already sworn to do harm to others, to go free......what good will that do? Then again, if they are to be kept with out being charged, it makes the US (granted, other countries have their little "camps" to. This is not isolated) look like an unforgiving country without morals or integrity.
But, looking at the bigger picture............I would rather choose the security of my own country over someone who has already chosen to kill and destroy. They took an oath, that they will try to finish with or without being interrogated/tortured.....even if they are set free out of compassion or lack of "evidence".
But I will say this. Torture should only be used as a last resort, with the explicit permission of the president during a time at which gaining information is the #1 priority for national security.
dmbfan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JMO
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Location: Daegu
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 24, 2009 7:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You completely ignore again that torture has never been proven to work.
Why would you use something that probably doesn't work and may give you false information?
| Quote: |
| I really feel that those inside the prison are there for a reason |
.
Even though only 11% have returned to the 'fight'? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dmbfan
Joined: 09 Mar 2006
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 24, 2009 7:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
You completely ignore again that torture has never been proven to work.
Why would you use something that probably doesn't work and may give you false information?
Quote:
I really feel that those inside the prison are there for a reason
.
Even though only 11% have returned to the 'fight'? |
No, I did not completely ignore it. I just did not get to it due to a dodgy internet conection.
Honestly, I'm not to sure about that. I need to see some stats and figures about it.
If that is the case, then what is the point of letting them go? If they are truly prepared to die (the most committed wins), and WANT to that so they can be myrted, then they should stay. The aim isn't to appease and if "torture" is not proven to work (by the way, we should probably make a list of what we civilians think is torture), then their stay should not be comfortable.
In regards to the 11% who have been let go re-joining the fight....well, how many have been let go? Considering of what is at stake, I think that 11% is number for concern.
dmbfan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 24, 2009 7:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It was the opinion of the Clinton administration that there was not enough evidence to convict Usama Bin Laden of any crime in 1996 Bin Laden was allowed to go to the Afghanistan from the Sudan.
That turned out real well didn't it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 24, 2009 7:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| dmbfan wrote: |
| Quote: |
| I think that's a good question for YOU to answer. |
OK, I agree.
First, human rights are important. Prisoners should not have the same freedoms, privledges or comforts as those who follow the law. However, when it clear that those who have sworn to do a country and its people harm, swaring a "jihad" against innocent people, I think the line has to be extended. |
Wait, but how do you know they swore to a "jihad" unless you have evidence?
Some of the people who were in Gitmo were innocent. But thanks to "enhanced interrogation techniques" we are not sure who is who.
JMO is right. The onus is on those who advocate torture to show it works. National Security is too important to just scuttle the way we've always done things (i.e. rule of law). Once it is shown to work, then we can have the conversation about whether its ethical. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 24, 2009 8:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This is not about torture or any of the euphemisms some are citing here. This is about hastily releasing people who would, in a worst-case scenario, perpetrate the next 9/11. Taking advantage of an easy opening and articulating the very predictable "so much for 'enhanced interrogation'" fails to address the problem constructively.
| Quote: |
[B.] Obama got to work from day one by ordering a halt to prosecutions of Guantanamo Bay prisoners, followed by an order to close the detention facility within a year and ban torture. But McCain told King he thinks the new president may have been hasty in the decision and should have taken the time to consider everything associated with closing the camp before forcing himself into a timetable.
"I think that it's a wise move," McCain said about closing Guantanamo Bay. "But I also think that we should have addressed this whole issue completely, because it did not address the issue of those who we have in custody and can't -- and no country will take them back. We should have addressed the issue of those who we know would pose a threat to the United States, but we don't have sufficient evidence to move forward."
McCain said instead of closing Guantanamo Bay outright, he would have first continued the military commissions, which "after years of delay and obfuscation" were finally moving toward trials.
"So, the easy part, in all due respect, is to say we're going to close Guantanamo," McCain said. "Then I think I would have said where they were going to be taken. Because you're going to run into a NIMBY [not in my backyard] problem here in the United States of America." |
CNN Reports
CNN Reports |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dmbfan
Joined: 09 Mar 2006
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 24, 2009 9:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| JMO is right. The onus is on those who advocate torture to show it works. National Security is too important to just scuttle the way we've always done things (i.e. rule of law). Once it is shown to work, then we can have the conversation about whether its ethical. |
Who said it has NOT worked?
Also, I don't believe for one second that ALL those inmates (if very few) were actually tortured, Jack Bauer style.
dmbfan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
