jump to last post 1-5 of 5 discussions (13 posts)

How do you feel about the detainee released from Gitmo returning to Mideast to f

  1. Readmikenow profile image94
    Readmikenowposted 2 years ago

    How do you feel about the detainee released from Gitmo returning to Mideast to fight for Al Qaeda?

    Would we be safer with him still in Guantanamo Bay?  There have been a number of detainees who have returned to the battlefield to fight for enemies of U.S.

  2. Austinstar profile image87
    Austinstarposted 2 years ago

    First of all, question the source. Is this a real fact or is it war mongering propaganda?
    If it is real, I wonder if the US didn't radicalize them while in Gitmo. Just as some low level criminals go into a prison system and come out hardened enemies of the law, I would imagine that Gitmo would have the same effect on anyone incarcerated there.
    There were no measures put into place to educate these people or try to get them to adapt to peace instead of fighting. Instead they were all treated as radicalized extremists who only think of "killing the infidels".
    As Malala says, "You can kill a terrorist with a gun, or you can educate against terrorism and kill the movement." (paraphrased).
    Secondly, the detainees have nowhere else to go. Who will take them? What country wants them? Very few countries have said they would accept a Gitmo prisoner. And most of their families don't even know them anymore if they are even still alive (not blown to bits by war).
    The USA is continuing to create enemies wherever we go and whatever we do. I don't know why the USA has decided that killing and war is the answer, but until we actively promote peace again, then war is what we will get.

    1. Readmikenow profile image94
      Readmikenowposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      You have no comprehension of reality.  These were hard core terrorists. You must have never seen such people.  They would have no problem killing you and anyone you love.  They may even post it on YouTube.

    2. Austinstar profile image87
      Austinstarposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      You are insulting me for answering the question that you asked? Sorry, that I didn't answer the question that was in your head. I'm sorry that you are wetting your pants over imagined scenarios.

  3. ronbergeron profile image85
    ronbergeronposted 2 years ago

    If that's true, then we might be physically safer with him still in Gitmo. However, I think it's a huge moral issue to hold some in prison for a decade or more with no charges. That alone could turn a peaceful person into a bitter enemy.

    Guantanamo Bay has been a huge recruiting tool for extremists. They correctly point to it as a prime example of US hypocrisy.

    Being a former US Marine, I have no sympathy for enemies of our country. However, I find it frustrating that the panic over terrorists behind every door has turned Americans against our own ideals.

    1. Readmikenow profile image94
      Readmikenowposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      I don't think there were any peaceful people in Gitmo.  As a former Marine you must realize it held people there that had killed, planned to kill or desired to kill you and your fellow Marines.

    2. ronbergeron profile image85
      ronbergeronposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      We can assume that, but since there were no trials, we really don't know. It's not uncommon for the wrong people to get scooped up in a raid. It happens all the time in the civilian world. It can certainly happen in the fog of war as well.

    3. Readmikenow profile image94
      Readmikenowposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      The detainees at Gitmo were NOT part of a civil crime.  You said it yourself, "fog of war."  War is different.  There's no CSI team after a battle.  Are you going to interview the enemy? Military trials are the only way. This is war on foreign soil.

    4. ronbergeron profile image85
      ronbergeronposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Of course you're going to interview the enemy. It's called an interrogation. I have no problem with a military trial as long as it isn't delayed indefinitely. Many of the people nabbed in the raids had all charges dismissed after being held for years

    5. Readmikenow profile image94
      Readmikenowposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      So we go to enemy shooting and bombing our military and ask if the person we have captured actually engaged in killing our soldiers? Will they confirm this person is planning terrorist activities? I don't think that would work very well.

  4. tsmog profile image82
    tsmogposted 2 years ago

    The U.S. had an internment camp in Iraq from 2003 - 2009, which was Camp Bucca. During that time period 100K different men passed through it. At its peak were 26K. They were both Sunni (much more) and Shiite (much less). ISIS is Sunni.  Remember . . . that number while pondering the suggested estimate of ISIS combatants ranges from 35K to 200K.

    The current ISIS top leader was held there - Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. Released in 2004 he was a model prisoner for ten months. As he walked passed the gates when freed he said, "I'll see you guys in New York". At least two other of the Top six were held in Camp Bucca. Supposedly that is where the alliances of the less than major 20 key leaders were formed.

    Regarding Gitmo there were a total of 780 detainees. A by the numbers peek is available through a PDF by Human Rights First (humanrightsfirst.org). Confirmed by the Department of Defense is 107 returned to be a combatant / terrorist. 

    https://www.humanrightsfirst.org/sites/ … umbers.pdf

    1. Readmikenow profile image94
      Readmikenowposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Terrorists have no such prisons, because they kill rather than take prisoners.  Maybe we should adopt the same policy. It would be much cheaper and less politically damaging.

  5. profile image0
    Commonsensethinkposted 2 years ago

    The fact that I am not American may come out in this piece but anyway ....

    The answer actually is neither!

    That choice should not exist in the first place. Anyone being still held in Guantanamo (and my view is that they should never have been sent there in the first place! They should either have been detained in the place where the crimes were committed, or in the US) should be put on trial, or released.

    If there is a case for them to face, the evidence should be brought against them and they should be tried accordingly, and punished as seen fit.

    Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the September 11 attacks, was captured in 2003, and moved to Guantanamo in 2006. Very few people on the face of the planet would think that he is innocent, but he should be entitled to a fair trial. That should not have required 9 years worth of vacillation. This was one of the worst crimes committed in many years, and yet the main perpetrator is not being prosecuted? Even now? It is time to get the trial moving and over with.

    Obviously he cannot be released.

    For the others, if no case can be made against them, then the risk has to be taken that they may well be dangerous people to release but there is no judicial reason to hold them.

    Do Americans realize how their reputation has been damaged internationally by imprisoning people for some 10 years without them facing trial? If an American were held in Iran on the same principle and in the same way, can you imagine the outcry? Or if it had happened in the former Soviet Union?

    Americans should have faith in their own legal system or devise quickly a method to try prisoners under a military tribunal which will be acceptable according to international standards.

    But the current state of limbo needs to be ended - and quickly!