Mukasey: ‘I Can’t Simply Say We Have To Close Guantanamo’
Mukasey: ‘I Can’t Simply Say We Have To Close Guantanamo’
Under questioning from Sen. Herb Kohl (D-WI) in his confirmation hearings today, Attorney General nominee Mike Mukasey refused to say whether he would recommend to President Bush that Guantanamo Bay prison be closed:
KOHL: Are you prepared to recommend to the President that we close Guantanamo?
MUKASEY: I’m prepared to recommend to the President that we take the responsible course in dealing with the people at Guantanamo. I can’t simply say we have to close Guantanamo because obviously the question there arises of what we do with the people who are there.
Watch it:
Mukasey claimed Guantanamo was high on his list of priorities, “along with filling vacancies.” But he only went as far as to say his “goal” is to close Guantanamo, aligning himself with President Bush’s aspirational commitments:
I’m prepared to say that we need to get the best advice and the best ideas that we can and act responsibly, with the goal of closing it down because it’s hurting us … As regards to this President, I think I’d be preaching to the converter. I think he understands that.
In June, when the Bush administration was said to have “engaged in active discussions” about closing Guantanamo, there was reportedly “significant opposition from Vice President Cheney as well as from the Justice [Department],” then led by Alberto Gonzales.
If confirmed, it appears that Mukasey’s Justice Department will also hold that Guantanamo should not be “immediately closed.”
UPDATE: Mukasey said torture is “antithetical” to American values.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
98 Responses to “Mukasey: ‘I Can’t Simply Say We Have To Close Guantanamo’”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
I can’t simply say we have to close Guantanamo because obviously the question there arises of what we do with the people who are there.
How about trying them for their supposed crimes or letting them go.
October 17th, 2007 at 1:19 pm“… and as a Republican, I believe the responsible thing to do with the Guantanamo prisoners is to either woodchip them or keep them there as a lesson to liberals about what I can do to them with a stroke of my pen.”
October 17th, 2007 at 1:20 pmmukasey will be confirmed… congress is just going through the motions the same way they’ve been doing since the congressional session started and the dems took the majority… i no longer have any confidence whatsoever that congress is looking out for the best interests of the american people or of protecting and defending our constitution…
October 17th, 2007 at 1:22 pmAnd, yes, I DO take it personally
Can’t close an illegal detention facility? Fine, then don’t vote for the mofo’s confirmation. Send him back and hold out for an AG who will uphold the constitution.
October 17th, 2007 at 1:24 pmThe ONLY reason we’ve got a prison camp in Guantanamo is so the administration could claim (AS THEY HAVE) that US laws don’t apply because the camp is in Cuba and not the US. It was created to be outside the law and was pushed forward using obscenely spurious legal reasoning.
It is a complete and utter outrage that the prison exists and its continued existence betrays our fundamental values. If the man who wants to be our top law official can’t say that, he should not be confirmed.
October 17th, 2007 at 1:39 pmThe only thing more idiotic than him saying that we can’t close Gitmo because hwere would be put the people, is that no former prosecutor on that committee is standing up and calling bullshit on that answer.
Hellooo? Right to a speedy trial? Is this thing on?
Hellooo? Prosecutors do it all the time. It’s called charge or release them.
How many times has a prosecutor has someone in jail but had to let them go due to lack of evidence. It’s been over five years. If you don’t have the evidence by now, then you don’t have it.
This so completely undermines our fabric of democracy and our Constitution its sickening.
Or solve the problem the same way you created it–screw the law and just thrown them on a plane and release them in downtown Damascus.
October 17th, 2007 at 1:40 pmThis is really bad entertainment meant to deceive those of us gullible enough to watch. I remember Leahy promising that they would not even consider the nominee until they got all the documents from the whitehouse. But they didn’t get all the documents and the whole show goes forward toward it’s unseemly end.
October 17th, 2007 at 1:46 pmeveryone in our government is lying to us now. why?
I never thought we’d see a day where in the Congress of the United States of America, there is actually debate over the existence (much less the concept) of an ‘enemy’ detention facility on foreign soil where we keep prisoners without counsel.
How did we get to the point where to protect the very freedoms that ‘they’ hated us for… we gave those freedoms up?
October 17th, 2007 at 1:49 pmWhere in the Constitution does it cover Club Gitmo.
October 17th, 2007 at 1:50 pmNowhere,
That ’s why the neo-con Dod established this prison camp in Cuba. No rule of law, no criminal charges, no habeas corpus, no bill of rights and ‘Devil’s Island’ was unavailable.
Thanks to RemoveBush for pointing out that treaties entered into lawfully are the law of the land.
Let’s also add the constitution’s guarantee that Habeas Corpus will not be violated and point out to our little cultist that simply because the administration tries to re-label people doesn’t mean that they aren’t covered by the Geneva Convention.
I think it’s time for jdc to read “Judgement at Nuremburg.” jdc, you might be surprised at some of the things people were convicted for and imprisoned or even executed for.
October 17th, 2007 at 1:50 pmI hate to break it to the little Bush cultist, but some former Japanese officers were executed after the war for waterboarding prisoners.
October 17th, 2007 at 1:52 pmWho does the Geneva Convention cover.
Comment by jdc
Geez. You mean this is another right side person who doesn’t do any research on their own? How disinterested do you have to be to simply not look it up yourself? Do your own work! Don’t let limbaugh, coulter, hannity tell you what to say! If we make a treaty (Geneva convention, hague, etc…) they become the law of the land. Even your idiot king has to abide by the agreements. Can’t you try to do your own work, please? Your giving home schooling a very bad name. Geez…Just try a little harder, we know you can do it.
October 17th, 2007 at 1:52 pmHere is a few ideas on how to close Gitmo:
86% of the detainees were arrested by either Pakistan or the Northern Alliance and turned over to United States custody. So ship them back to Pakistan, and let them handle their own prisoners.
Fifty-five percent (55%) of the detainees are not determined to have committed any hostile acts against the United States or its coalition allies. So let them go back to their country of origin.
Only 8% of the detainees were characterized as al Qaeda fighters. Of the remaining detainees, 40% have no definitive connection with al Qaeda at all and 18% are have no definitive affiliation with either al Qaeda or the Taliban. So take that small number of people to the World Court.
More than 300 have already been released, so we know it can be done.
October 17th, 2007 at 1:54 pmActually, raynman, facilities on foreign soil to detain combatants captured on the battlefield have been used pretty much every overseas war the U.S has fought. Captured Japanese, German, Italian, Korean, Vietnamese combatants were routinely held in overseas detention facilities during World Wars I and II, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War.
There seems to be a profound misunderstanding by many folks here about the purpose of a combatant detention facility. Its purpose is not punitive. It is detain enemy combatants from returning to the battlefield. Such actions are fully permissible under international law, including the Geneva Conventions.
October 17th, 2007 at 1:56 pmOnly 5% of the detainees were captured by United States forces.
These are the only ones we should be required to handle. The other 95% could be returned to their country of origin.
October 17th, 2007 at 1:57 pmIt is detain enemy combatants from returning to the battlefield.Comment by Exley — October 17, 2007 @ 1:56 pm
#
However, these detainees are not classified as enemy combatants, and most of them have never seen a “battlefield”.
October 17th, 2007 at 2:00 pmIt is detain enemy combatants from returning to the battlefield. Such actions are fully permissible under international law, including the Geneva Conventions.
Comment by Exley
Ex, I think you mean those persons who have been proven to be enemy combatants - not merely swept up in the dragnet. Many persons have simply been outed by rival tribes and gangs to earn a reward, not because there is any proof they actually were fighting the US or its allies. Shouldn’t we have at least a modicum of proof these “bad people” are actually bad people?
October 17th, 2007 at 2:01 pmThe Methodist Church in Britain has welcomed the UK Government’s decision to request the return of five former British residents being held in the Guantanamo Bay detention camp at the US military base on the island of Cuba.
he announcement overturns the previous refusal of the UK Government to intervene in their case - even though two of the men each have five children with British citizenship rights, and the others have strong ties to the country.
Britain’s major Christian denominations are among those who have been pressurising on the issue for some time.
The Methodist Church declares itself “gravely concerned about the continued use of Guantanamo Bay to hold people without due legal process.”
http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/node/5555
Most people would be surprised at how many Christians are detained at Guantanamo.
October 17th, 2007 at 2:03 pmStratRat,
“Shouldn’t we have at least a modicum of proof these “bad people†are actually bad people?”
I agree…And that is why the Military Commissions Act was passed and enacted.
October 17th, 2007 at 2:05 pmIn every war Exley cites in his ongoing pathetic attempts to protect his cult leader, the enemy wore uniforms and in most cases, a state government declared war on the U.S. Terrorism is a task which should be left to law enforcement agencies with the help of military assets when necessary, ie, special forces attacking a specific terrorist training camp or something like that. You can’t simply call something a never-ending “war” and then build new criteria based on your false assertion, that is unless you are intellectually dishonest.
October 17th, 2007 at 2:07 pmExley,
When did Britain become a “battleground” of enemy combatants?
From: http://www.guantanamo.org.uk/content/view/102/37/
“We, the undersigned, relatives of British residents detained in Guantanamo Bay detention facility, former Guantanamo prisoners, lawyers for the prisoners, and concerned individuals, call upon you to use all means at your disposal to obtain the return to this country of all British residents illegally detained at Guantanamo Bay.”
October 17th, 2007 at 2:08 pmThe population of persons deemed not to be enemy combatants is mostly
October 17th, 2007 at 2:11 pmUighers, and there is a thriving Uigher population in China where they could be released. China has been loaning us a tremendous amount of money for this war, and they have become one of the largest refugee cnters for displaced Iraqis.
Exley is too busy sucking off Bush little Dick to look up any facts. Exley hates American law and custom.
October 17th, 2007 at 2:12 pm“, the enemy wore uniforms and in most cases, a state government declared war on the U.S.”
Exactly, “Col.” That is why captured Al Qaeda fighters are not entitled to “prisoner of war” status under the Geneva conventions. They are unlawful enemy combatants and do not receive the full protections of the Third Geneva Convention.
October 17th, 2007 at 2:15 pmSuch actions are fully permissible under international law, including the Geneva Conventions.
Comment by Exley
Prove it. Put your money where your mouth is or STFU.
October 17th, 2007 at 2:15 pmChris L, if they were captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan fighting alongside Al Qaeda, their nationality makes little difference.
October 17th, 2007 at 2:17 pmThey are unlawful enemy combatants and do not receive the full protections of the Third Geneva Convention.
Comment by Exley
Unlawful enemy combatants is a made up term never used before Bush made it up as an excuse to deny these people any rights at all.
I know what the government of Iraq should do about Blackwater. They should immediately arrest every Blackwater employee in Iraq, throw them in a special prison, declare them as “unlawful enemy combatants” and leave them there to rot for eternity.
October 17th, 2007 at 2:19 pmI agree…And that is why the Military Commissions Act was passed and enacted.
Comment by Exley
I would prefer to know how many of these people are being tried and convicted, rather than simply being “put away” until hostilties cease. We both know the Bush administration has indicated the WOT will last a long time. Without proof of wrongdoing and subsequent convictions, we are still left with trusting an adminstration not worthy of that trust.
Would it bother you if it was found that 50% of the current inmates truly were not part of any effort to harm our troops and allies? I’m not snarking on you. I am interested if you believe in keeping innocent people in jail and away from their families based on what may be inconclusive (or no) evidence.
October 17th, 2007 at 2:20 pmBilbo,
I appreciate the fact that you need me to do your research for you since you seem particularly ignorant on the law of war and international conventions.
Therefore, I will gladly assist you. Go read the 1949 Third Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. Geneva.
October 17th, 2007 at 2:20 pmChris L, if they were captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan fighting alongside Al Qaeda, their nationality makes little difference.
Comment by Exley — October 17, 2007 @ 2:17 pm
#
Exactly, but most of them were not In fact only about 8% of those held at Guantanamo have had any link to Al Qaeda at all. The reason only 5% of the detainees at Guantanamo were captured by US forces, is because we don’t have troops in many of the countries they are from. We extended bounties and cash rewards to numerous nations, and they sent us bodies in exchange for money. Plain and simple.
October 17th, 2007 at 2:21 pmChris L, if they were captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan fighting alongside Al Qaeda, their nationality makes little difference.
Comment by Exley
If you bothered to do a little research (other than listening to Limpballs or O’Lieley) you would know that very few of the people being held in Guantanamo were captured on the battle field. Many of these “unlawful enemy combatants” were sold to the US government by warlords or neighbors for $5,000 each. Why don’t you try to do a little research on the subjects before you spout your mouth off. Either that or STFU.
October 17th, 2007 at 2:21 pmExley,
Fifty-five percent (55%) of the detainees are not determined to have committed any hostile acts against the United States or its coalition allies.
Could we at least release these?
October 17th, 2007 at 2:23 pmI appreciate the fact that you need me to do your research for you since you seem particularly ignorant on the law of war and international conventions.
Therefore, I will gladly assist you. Go read the 1949 Third Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. Geneva.
Comment by Exley
Sorry, but it is not up to me to do research to disprove your outrageous statements, it is up to you to provide proof rather than spouting your mouth off. Just because you say something DOES NOT make it true!
October 17th, 2007 at 2:23 pmBilbo, once again, you couldn’t be more wrong.
In the 1942 case Ex Part Quirin, the U.S. Supreme Court discussed the differences betweem lawful and unlawful combatants.
“By universal agreement and practice the law of war draws a distinction between the armed forces and the peaceful populations of belligerent nations and also between those who are lawful and unlawful combatants.
Lawful combatants are subject to capture and detention as prisoners of war by opposing military forces. Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful. The spy who secretly and without uniform passes the military lines of a belligerent in time of war, seeking to gather military information and communicate it to the enemy, or an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, are familiar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war, but to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals. See Winthrop, Military Law, 2d Ed., pp. 1196-1197, 1219-1221; Instructions for the Government of Armies of the United States in the Field, approved by the President, General Order No. 100, April 24, 1863, sections IV and V. “
October 17th, 2007 at 2:26 pmAlso remember, Pakistan (where the majority of Gitmo detainees are from) is not super-friendly towards Christians. This is one reason why the Methodist church is lobbying for British citizens who were arrested in Pakistan and sent to Guantanamo to be released. They (the Methodist church) believes that the only reason that Pakistan arrested them was because they are Christian. They have been held for 5 years now.
October 17th, 2007 at 2:27 pmChris L,
“Fifty-five percent (55%) of the detainees are not determined to have committed any hostile acts against the United States or its coalition allies.:
What is the basis for this claim? Obviously, I have no interest in detaining anyone who has not committed any hostile acts agains the U.S. or its allies. If they have committed no hostile act and it can be determined they will not return to Afghanistan to fight US and NATO forces, then absolutely they should be released.
October 17th, 2007 at 2:30 pmif they were captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan fighting alongside Al Qaeda, their nationality makes little difference.
Comment by Exley — October 17, 2007 @ 2:17 pm
“if”, indeed.
October 17th, 2007 at 2:32 pmWhat is the basis for this claim? Obviously, I have no interest in detaining anyone who has not committed any hostile acts agains the U.S. or its allies. If they have committed no hostile act and it can be determined they will not return to Afghanistan to fight US and NATO forces, then absolutely they should be released.
Comment by Exley — October 17, 2007 @ 2:30 pm
#
Much of my research comes from DOD, and UK House of Commons written records and minutes of meetings. I have had several friends of mine in the military who have served at Camp Xray, and that is why it is a topic of interest to me. Once they returned home, a couple of them were telling me they were personally opposed to the Guantanamo Bay detention facility, and at the time I didn’t know anything about it. So, I have made a hobby out of researching it. When I was stationed at Fort Hood with the 6th MP Group, we sent a small contingent over for 6 months. Most of the guys I talked to when they got home said that we should close the facility. But, for a quick link -
October 17th, 2007 at 2:36 pmhttp://72.14.253.104/ search?q=cache:0bwWI4tu2UAJ:law.shu.edu/ aaafinal.pdf+86%25+of+guantanamo+detainees&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us
If they have committed no hostile act and it can be determined they will not return to Afghanistan to fight US and NATO forces, then absolutely they should be released.
Comment by Exley
Ex, Well said but. It is unfathomable to think that we are currently holding +/- 15,000 people and not ONE CONVICTION announced by the Bush administration. I don’t mean the dumb convictions for immigration laws and stuff like that, I mean war or battlefield related charges. In my mind, the administration would be parading around these “enemy combatants” every chance they get - but yet we hear nothing from them touting their “success” rate in convicting these people.
October 17th, 2007 at 2:36 pmComment by StratRat — October 17, 2007 @ 2:36 pm
#
Not to mention the fact that of the 137 +- that have been returned to countries of origin, NONE of them have been convicted by their home countries. Most of them were released at the REQUEST of their home countries.
October 17th, 2007 at 2:40 pmUnlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful.
So Exley, where are the military tribunals. There is nothing in what you quoted that gives our President the right to declare anyone an “unlawful enemy combatant” and there is nothing that says they can be held indefinitely without any rights.
Karma’s a bi*ch. It would be fitting justice if some day you made a wrong phone number and our government proceeded to listen in on all your phone numbers and obtained your financial records and then arrested you as an “unlawful enemy combatant” and threw your sorry a$$ in Guantanamo.
October 17th, 2007 at 2:41 pmIf they have committed no hostile act and it can be determined they will not return to Afghanistan to fight US and NATO forces, then absolutely they should be released.
Comment by Exley — October 17, 2007 @ 2:30 pm
#
91% of them were not captured in Afghanistan. Of those, 88% (of that 91%) have no record of ever having been to Afghanistan at all.
October 17th, 2007 at 2:41 pmStratRat,
It is my understanding that there are far, FAR less than 15,000 detainees being held at Guantanamo.
Moreover, it is not necessary under international law to criminally prosecute and convict enemy combatants, lawful or unlawful. Nations are entitled to detain combatants for the duration of the conflict, not to punish, but to make certain they do not return to the battlefield and fight again.
Now, I agree with you that people who were not caught on the battlefield and who are detained should have the opportunity to prove that they are not combatants and pose no threat. And, as I said, that is what the Military Commissions are for, in part.
October 17th, 2007 at 2:42 pmhttp://www.globalsecurity.org/ security/ library/ news/ 2006/ 07/ sec-060724-voa01.htm
“Spain Overturns Terrorism Conviction of Guantanamo Detainee
By VOA News
24 July 2006
In-Depth Coverage
The Spanish Supreme Court has overturned a terrorism conviction against a former Guantanamo Bay detainee accused of belonging to the al-Qaida terrorist group.
The court said Monday there was no evidence to support the conviction of Spaniard Hamed Abderrahman Ahmed. Ahmed was appealing a six-year prison sentence imposed by a lower court in Spain in 2005.
In its ruling, the high court said Ahmed’s presumption of innocence had been violated by prosecutors.
Ahmed was detained in Pakistan in 2001, and eventually transferred to the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. U.S. authorities later returned Ahmed to Spain for trial, after a more than two-year detention at the prison base.”
October 17th, 2007 at 2:44 pmExley: “Its purpose is not punitive. It is detain enemy combatants from returning to the battlefield.”
Exley, earlier: “Actually, raynman, facilities on foreign soil to detain combatants captured on the battlefield have been used pretty much every overseas war the U.S has fought.”
Exley, later: “Exactly, “Col.†That is why captured Al Qaeda fighters are not entitled to “prisoner of war†status under the Geneva conventions.”
Let’s review: Exley uses the example of “every overseas war” to back up his point, but when I point out that there are no uniformed soldiers or state-backed declaration of war, he says that this is why the fighters are “not entitled to ‘prisoner of war’ status.
Exley, in english: We always do this in war, so it’s ok to keep combatants in GITMO, but this is not a real declared war, so it’s ok to keep them in GITMO.
Exley, are you getting dizzy?
October 17th, 2007 at 2:47 pmNow, I agree with you that people who were not caught on the battlefield and who are detained should have the opportunity to prove that they are not combatants and pose no threat.
Comment by Exley — October 17, 2007 @ 2:42 pm
#
That is the greater majority of the detainees in Guantanamo. And, at last count, there are less than 350 being held there. The study I referenced for you in my previous link was done at a time when there were 517. The total number of those that have been released so far is around 260.
October 17th, 2007 at 2:50 pmMoreover, it is not necessary under international law to criminally prosecute and convict enemy combatants, lawful or unlawful. Nations are entitled to detain combatants for the duration of the conflict, not to punish, but to make certain they do not return to the battlefield and fight again.
Comment by Exley
I appreciate your explanation, but still I have a problem with the lack of “proof” these folks are indeed bad people. That was my initial comment to you. Is it ok to hold these people when we truly do not know if they are in fact bad or just sold to us by rival gangs and tribes within the lawlessness that is Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc…Also I was referring to the many documented “black sites” we have set up all over the world - not just Gitmo.
October 17th, 2007 at 2:50 pmThis guy is pathetic!!…An absolute Facist!!
October 17th, 2007 at 2:51 pmFrom a 2005 Washingtonpost article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ wp-dyn/ articles/ A2432-2005Apr19.html
“The release brings the total number of detainees to leave Guantanamo Bay to 232; 167 have been sent home and released, while 65 others have been transferred to the custody of foreign governments including Pakistan, Britain, Morocco, France, Russia and Saudi Arabia.”
October 17th, 2007 at 2:52 pmStrat Rat,
According to this Oct 1. Reuters article “U.S. top court won’t hear Guantanamo prisoner’s case,” there are about 340 detainees at Guantanamo.
http://www.reuters.com/ article/ topNews/ idUSN0130232120071001?pageNumber=2
Where is this 15,000 figure coming from?
Chris L, you say 91% of these 340 detainees were not captured in Afghanistan? With all due respect, I just don’t think that is accurate. There are no detainees from Iraq at Guantanamo, so from where are these supposed 91%?
October 17th, 2007 at 2:52 pmChris L, you say 91% of these 340 detainees were not captured in Afghanistan? With all due respect, I just don’t think that is accurate. There are no detainees from Iraq at Guantanamo, so from where are these supposed 91%?
Comment by Exley — October 17, 2007 @ 2:52 pm
Pakistan (mostly, Pakistanis make up the majority BY FAR), Britain, Morocco, France, Russia, Canada and Saudi Arabia. There were some from Poland, but they were released in 2006 at the request of the Polish government. Canada has requested the release of some of their citizens being held there who were transferred from Ethiopia. And, as i mentioned earlier, Gordon Brown is appealing to have five British citizens who were captured in Pakistan released, at the behest of the Methodist Church.
October 17th, 2007 at 2:57 pmStrat Rat,
“Also I was referring to the many documented “black sites†we have set up all over the world - not just Gitmo.”
Okay….I gotcha.
October 17th, 2007 at 2:58 pmChris L, you say 91% of these 340 detainees were not captured in Afghanistan? With all due respect, I just don’t think that is accurate. There are no detainees from Iraq at Guantanamo, so from where are these supposed 91%?
Comment by Exley — October 17, 2007 @ 2:52 pm
What difference does it make? No convictions, no proof, no reason for this treatment for 5 long years. I truly hope you are imprisoned for 5 years for something you didn’t do, just to teach you some humanity.
October 17th, 2007 at 2:59 pm“Pakistan (mostly, Pakistanis make up the majority BY FAR), Britain, Morocco, France, Russia, Canada and Saudi Arabia.”
But Chris, are you saying that these people are citizens of those countries who were captured in the Afghanistan theater? I mean, I know of no instances where we have gone into France, Morocco, Russia, or Canada to grab people….Sounds like they are citizens of those countries who were caught in Afghanistan.
October 17th, 2007 at 3:01 pmSounds like they are citizens of those countries who were caught in Afghanistan.
Comment by Exley — October 17, 2007 @ 3:01 pm
You are right, we do not send troops into foreign countries to grab people. That is why only 5% were captured by American forces.
Most were transferred by their host countries, although some were captured in Saudi, Yemen, Somalia, and Sudan. Also, some were transferred from a detention facility in Australia. By and large the greater majority of them (I would say 90% of those still being held) have never seen Afghanistan.
October 17th, 2007 at 3:06 pmHere’s the most comprehensive study I’ve seen on gitmo. I’m sure most of you are familiar with it already. Just thought I’d throw it out there:
http://law.shu.edu/ news/ guantanamo_report_final_2_08_06.pdf
October 17th, 2007 at 3:07 pmA little old, but straight from the DOD:
http://72.14.253.104/ search?q=cache:3UTiByedNj4J:www.defenselink.mil/ news/ Aug2005/ d20050831sheet.pdf+number+of+detainees+at+guantanamo&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&gl=us
“245 = the number of detainees transferred from Guantanamo since the detention and
October 17th, 2007 at 3:08 pminterrogation mission began in January 2002
o 177 = detainees transferred for release
o 68 = detainees transferred to the control of other countries (Pakistan, Morocco,
France, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom, Kuwait,
Australia, Belgium and Jordan)”
Okay….I gotcha.
Comment by Exley
That’s why I like sparring with you. You read the posts and stay on topic. Now if you were only to think like me, you would be perfect :).
October 17th, 2007 at 3:11 pmStratRat,
“Is it ok to hold these people when we truly do not know if they are in fact bad or just sold to us by rival gangs and tribes within the lawlessness that is Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc”
No, I would be uncomfortable with that. I guess I simply do not believe that we would detain such folks without some type of proof or evidence that they are al Qaeda/Taliban-linked.
I mean, I know this story that some of the Gitmo detainees were simply turned over by tribal leaders has been making the rounds, but is there is any confirmation or evidence that this is indeed the case.
If it is, these folks are entitled to the opportunity to prove they had commited no hostile acts. Conversely, if some of these guys were captured after a firefight in Afghanistan, carrying an RPG or AK-47, we are entitled to hold them as enemy combatants for the duration of the conflict.
October 17th, 2007 at 3:12 pmNo, I would be uncomfortable with that. I guess I simply do not believe that we would detain such folks without some type of proof or evidence that they are al Qaeda/Taliban-linked.
-Exley
You’re going to be pretty sad when you get around to reading the study I linked to then.
October 17th, 2007 at 3:13 pmExley, honestly, do you really believe that people came from 14 different countries all over the world, all the way to Afghanistan just to fight the Americans there? Or is it more plausible that when the US started handing out cash rewards many poorer countries saw it as an opportunity to get rid of some of the people they didn’t want, and a good chance to make some money too?
And if you think we don’t do things like this to Americans, just ask Donald Vance.
October 17th, 2007 at 3:15 pmI mean, I know this story that some of the Gitmo detainees were simply turned over by tribal leaders has been making the rounds, but is there is any confirmation or evidence that this is indeed the case?
Comment by Exley — October 17, 2007 @ 3:12 pm
#
Yes. From our own government. One of the links I provided to you earlier was from http://www.defenselink.mil. The problem is that now that we are housing them, their host countries don’t want them back. Some, as in the case of the Sudan, were members of rival political factions in their host country. So we can’t release them back to Sudan, we don’t want to release them on US soil, and they haven’t done anything wrong, so we can’t just shoot them. Hence the conundrum.
October 17th, 2007 at 3:19 pmChris L,
Haven’t had a chance to read the links, but I will. Should be interesting. I appreciate the information.
October 17th, 2007 at 3:23 pmChris L,
Haven’t had a chance to read the links, but I will. Should be interesting. I appreciate the information.
Comment by Exley — October 17, 2007 @ 3:23 pm
#
No problem, like I said, this is a topic of interest for me. BTW, I did a little more digging to get the numbers as close as possible. By the best estimates I can find, of the 347 still held in Guantanamo, 145 were captured in Pakistan, 6 were captured in Sudan, 19 were captured in Ethiopia (some of these may have been released at the request of an Ethiopian Christian foundation, but I cannot find exact numbers on how many. As far as I can tell, there have only been 6 Ethiopian Christians ever held at Guantanamo at all, so I don’t think this is the whole 19).
October 17th, 2007 at 3:28 pmhttp://www.defenselink.mil/ releases/ release.aspx?releaseid=11368
September 29, 2007
“Approximately 70 detainees at Guantanamo are eligible for transfer or release. Departure of these detainees is subject to ongoing discussions between the United States and other nations.
Since 2002, approximately 445 detainees have departed Guantanamo for other countries including Albania, Afghanistan, Australia, Bangladesh, Bahrain, Belgium, Denmark, Egypt, France, Great Britain, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Libya, Maldives, Mauritania, Morocco, Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Sweden, Sudan, Tajikistan, Turkey, Uganda, United Kingdom and Yemen.
There are approximately 330 detainees currently at Guantanamo.”
Once those 70 are released, that brings it down to 260.
October 17th, 2007 at 3:37 pmPoor Exlax, looks as ill informed, uneducated and ignorant as usual!
No wonder the GOP dupes their village idiots constantly! They’re too lazy, too self absorbed and too incompetent to go educate themselves!
October 17th, 2007 at 3:46 pmMore good reading:
http://dodsearch.afis.osd.mil/ search?btnG=Search&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&client=defenselink&proxystylesheet=defenselink&site=defense_link&numgm=5&filter=0&proxyreload=1&sort=date%3AD%3AR%3Ad1&q=guantanamo
October 17th, 2007 at 3:49 pmI have to say I have enjoyed the discussion between Exley, Chris L, and Strat Rat, and appreciated it’s unusual lack of name-calling.
October 17th, 2007 at 3:51 pmOh, and ExLax, check the thinkfast thread. You LIED about O’Hanlon. Oh, and you’re welcome for my effort to educate you, no matter how difficult and impossible of a prospect that is, son!
October 17th, 2007 at 4:01 pmI have to say I have enjoyed the discussion between Exley, Chris L, and Strat Rat, and appreciated it’s unusual lack of name-calling.
Comment by binx — October 17, 2007 @ 3:51 pm
Well, Exlax is unusually willing to discuss this issue, and not nearly as dishonest and closed minded as he usually is.
He’s wrong as usual, but for some reason he’s not acting like a spoiled brat, as he normally does!
October 17th, 2007 at 4:02 pmSo ExLax, you claimed once that the US never gave any aid to Al Qaeda.
Then how do you explain Ali Mohammad (a KNOWN CIA AGENT), being behind the first WTC bombings, the African Embassy bombings, and the training camps that trained the 911 terrorists? And the US knew he was behind this after the first WTC bombings, yet they allowed him to remain free without charges?
Yeah, sure, the government did nothing - it’s not like one OUR AGENTS trained the bombers - wait HE DID!
Ah, how your past comes back to haunt you - little man!
October 17th, 2007 at 4:05 pmI have to say I have enjoyed the discussion between Exley, Chris L, and Strat Rat, and appreciated it’s unusual lack of name-calling.
Comment by binx — October 17, 2007 @ 3:51 pm
#
Me too. What saddens me is that most of this information is available straight from the DOD, people just don’t look it up. Everything is documented, from religious preference, to height and weight, to citizenship, host country, and country of origin (where captured). You just have to dig through boring .mil sites to find it all. So many right-wingers want to believe that Gitmo is full of terrorists captured in Afghanistan by US forces. Literally, there are only 16 people in Gitmo right now that fit that.
October 17th, 2007 at 4:07 pmMe too. What saddens me is that most of this information is available straight from the DOD, people just don’t look it up. Everything is documented, from religious preference, to height and weight, to citizenship, host country, and country of origin (where captured). You just have to dig through boring .mil sites to find it all. So many right-wingers want to believe that Gitmo is full of terrorists captured in Afghanistan by US forces. Literally, there are only 16 people in Gitmo right now that fit that. Comment by Chris L — October 17, 2007 @ 4:07 pm
What’s amazing is how many people were captured, tortured, abused and then let go because they were deemed innocent! That’s a disgusting mark on our history and our values! This party, and this government is a disgusting group of folks, unworthy to live under our flag - let alone drape it around themselves so dishonestly!
October 17th, 2007 at 4:20 pm#75 Chris L,
Just got the chance to read that press release….It confirms that people are released or transferred from Gitmo following a review process. So, this idea that we are holding people there in perpetuity without any type of review is incorrect.
This press release, however, does not address the issue of how these people were captured. Were they captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan or were they turned in by local tribesmen or others?
October 17th, 2007 at 4:54 pmJust another YES man
October 17th, 2007 at 5:03 pmJust got the chance to read that press release….It confirms that people are released or transferred from Gitmo following a review process. So, this idea that we are holding people there in perpetuity without any type of review is incorrect.
This press release, however, does not address the issue of how these people were captured. Were they captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan or were they turned in by local tribesmen or others?
Comment by Exley — October 17, 2007 @ 4:54 pm
#
As pointed out by defenselink.mil, most were not captured in Afghanistan. That is literally only about 16 people there. You are right, though in that there is a review process, and they are not detained indefinitely. One of the main problems I have with Gitmo, though, is that many are held for four or five years before being released. That is a long time to hold someone that our own government claims is innocent. We also have many that we want to release, but cannot, because there is nowhere to release them to. You continually refer to Afghanistan. Please understand that only 5% of the 330 detainees in Gitmo were captured in Afghanistan. That is straight from DOD.
October 17th, 2007 at 5:04 pm“You continually refer to Afghanistan. Please understand that only 5% of the 330 detainees in Gitmo were captured in Afghanistan. That is straight from DOD.”
Chris,
I will get to the rest of the links you provided and read ‘em when I get the chance. I was under the impression that the Guantanamo detainees were people who were captured in the Afghanistan/Pakistan theater…If I am wrong about that, I would like to know. Thanks for the info.
October 17th, 2007 at 5:16 pmIf I am wrong about that, I would like to know. Thanks for the info.
Comment by Exley — October 17, 2007 @ 5:16 pm
#
Very few come from Afghanistan, that is an extreme minority. Most come from Pakistan, Yemen, Saudi, Sudan, etc. There is a reason we have released over 400 of them. The sad thing is that many are held for four or five years, before being released. Can you imagine yourself, or your family being held at a detention camp in Cuba for five years before they determine you are innocent and release you?
October 17th, 2007 at 5:21 pmStratRat,
“That’s why I like sparring with you. You read the posts and stay on topic. Now if you were only to think like me, you would be perfect :).”
A good sparring/debate never hurt anybody…Actually, it can be quite helpful and educational…I am enjoying our discussion.
Like Binx said, when it degenerates into name-calling, it serves no purpose.
October 17th, 2007 at 5:24 pm“Very few come from Afghanistan, that is an extreme minority. Most come from Pakistan, Yemen, Saudi, Sudan, etc.”
Chris, I undertstand that. Al Qaeda was a foreign force based in Al Qaeda, hosted by the Taliban. So, I understand that most of the Al Qaeda forces in Afghanistan/Pakistan are not native Afghanis.
What I am asking is: Were these Pakisatni, Saudis, Yemenis, etc. captured INSIDE Afghanistan/Pakistan on the battlefield or during a commando raid, etc.?
In other words, were the detainees currently in Guantanamo (regardless of their nationality) captured (or turned in to U.S. forces) within the Afghanistan/Pakistan theater of operations???? It is my understanding that is the case….I will continue to read through the info you provided, but so far I have not seen anything that addresses that question
(Granted, I have not read through the 30-page Seton Hall report yet)
October 17th, 2007 at 5:33 pmWhat I am asking is: Were these Pakisatni, Saudis, Yemenis, etc. captured INSIDE Afghanistan/Pakistan on the battlefield or during a commando raid, etc.?
Comment by Exley — October 17, 2007 @ 5:33 pm
#
No. Only 5% were even captured by US troops. Let me clarify, 95% of them were captured by foreign governments, foreign troops. Only 5% have ever been INSIDE Afghanistan, and only 40% have ever been INSIDE Pakistan.
October 17th, 2007 at 5:36 pmExley,
Also, many of them were transferred from other countries’ detention facilities. For example, Australia and Poland have sent Sudanese nationals (who have never been to Afghanistan/Pakistan, and probably couldn’t find it on a map) from their detention facilities to Gitmo.
October 17th, 2007 at 5:39 pmOkay, Chris, thanks…Interesting. And all that information is contained in the links you sent?
October 17th, 2007 at 5:41 pmOkay, Chris, thanks…Interesting. And all that information is contained in the links you sent?
Comment by Exley — October 17, 2007 @ 5:41 pm
#
Most of it, yes. defenselink.mil is the best. Like I said earlier, I have spent a good amount of time digging around in boring .mil sites. :)
Again, this is why I am completely opposed to Gitmo. Once you pour through all of the info (time consuming) almost everyone, dem/repub/whatever are willing to close it all down and admit our mistakes.
I have to run to a conference right quick, but I hope I see you on TP another time. I enjoy a good debate with someone who actually has a different point of view and doesn’t just yell “hey moonbats”, “Hillary is fat”, etc.
October 17th, 2007 at 5:46 pm“I enjoy a good debate with someone who actually has a different point of view and doesn’t just yell “hey moonbatsâ€, “Hillary is fatâ€, etc.”
Agreed, Chris. Have a good evening. Thanks for the interesting discussion.
October 17th, 2007 at 5:49 pmSo he says:
Mukasey said torture is “antithetical†to American values.
Yeah, you’re damn right it is. So stop it today.
October 17th, 2007 at 7:15 pmHey Chris L,
You’re getting a whole lot o love here.
What actions have you taken to “stop torture today.?”
Everyone on this website should question, why the hell are you so mad at Congress” when you can be smooth talked by Chris?
October 17th, 2007 at 7:20 pmExley, you didn’t have a ‘discussion’, you received a ‘whoopin’! While you still can’t admit it, this is the most civil whoopin you’ve received! how’s the zoloft working for you? any side effects?
October 17th, 2007 at 7:20 pmYeah, his stats must be right . .
he posted them on a website.
Ugh.
October 17th, 2007 at 7:22 pmWhen is someone going to ask him why he let off Ali Muhommad from his role in masterminding the first WTC bombings, Embassy Bombings and 9/11? Mukasey was DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE for letting this terrorist CIA agent go free - WHERE ARE THE QUESTIONS?
October 17th, 2007 at 7:23 pmThe Exley commentor reminds me of the good old days when you could argue facts with a Republican. You could disagree, even heatedly and forcefully, but you had to argue armed with facts and information. The arguments were about whose ideas were best for solving the problems at hand.
I miss good debate with Republicans, where each person usually comes out of the exchange finding out something they didn’t know before.
This is how I know I am getting old. Well, that, and the fact that I referred to beets as being so sweet, they taste like candy. you are officially old at the moment when you refer to ANY vegetable as being even remotely like candy.
October 17th, 2007 at 8:01 pmAlso, Exley, the Military Commission Act wasn’t passed from a sense of justice or out of respect for the concept of habeas corpus being the cornerstone of our consitution and the basis for juris prudence in the US. If that were the case, then I would imagine the legislation would have been passed much sooner that September 26, 2005.
October 17th, 2007 at 8:04 pm“I Can’t Simply Say We Have To Close Guantanamo”
Yeah you Yahoo. “I can’t simply say that your appointment should be endorsed.”
You spend a couple of days down there undergoing the “humane” waterboarding and when you resurface, we’ll talk.
Pelosi, honestly . . . you ain’t gonna let this Yahoo slip by?
Waterboard the both of you.
October 17th, 2007 at 8:38 pmGenoasail,
Sweet. You sound like a terrific old guy ; > )
October 17th, 2007 at 8:56 pmI” Can’t Simply Say We Have To Close Guantanamoâ€
Pelosi,
You can’t imagine why Congress’s approval rating is at an all time low . . . let me tell you . . .
Read the above . . read it again and again until it sinks in.
Soldiers are dying and being maimed in Iraq - read that sentence again and again until it sinks in.
Hello.
From the Americans that elected our Democratic majority.
You all have failed us. You have done nothing.
October 17th, 2007 at 9:03 pmExley, please provide us with a definition for “victory” in the “war” on “terror”.
And tell us whether we have to rely on the honesty of the executive branch to let us know whether that definition has been met.
Also, please explain to me why a president woudl want to declare “victory against terror” and thereby relinquish all his neato war powers? What possible benefit would a president gain from that? How could we make it possible for another terrorist attack to happen ever again, even in 100 years?
Does “victory” involve killing of capturing these folks too?
http://blogs.abcnews.com/ theblotter/ 2007/ 09/ armed-children-.html
if not, what are you going to do when they grow up, undeclare victory and start “terror war II”?
October 18th, 2007 at 1:36 am>How could we make it possible
sorry I mean IMpossible..
October 18th, 2007 at 3:04 amAnother snake in the grass.
October 18th, 2007 at 1:17 pm