Barack Obama restarts Guantánamo trials (1 Viewer)

[timschochet]

When he campaigned for president Ronald Reagan pledged to attack Roe vs. Wade and lead Congress in making abortion much stricter than it was. Once in office he never did a thing on this issue, which greatly displeased some on the social right, who threatened not to re-elect him or to challenge him in the primaries. Of course, Reagan was re-elected in a landslide.

I used to be on NCCommish's side on this issue, but some of the arguments made here in past threads, especially those by Yankee23fan, changed my mind. Either way though, is it really that big an issue in the overall scheme of things in terms of supporting a president? Not to me- there are issues out there that are much more vital.

jon-mx- perhaps the reason that Obama is not being attacked is because he really isn't worthy of attack. He wanted to do something, examined the consequences in more detail, and changed his mind. Big deal. Compared to the economy, the budget, and the Middle East, is this really so important a story?

It's a big deal to me and it's a big deal in how the world changes it view of us. We will not profit from the change.

Who are you referring to? As far as I can see, the world is and always has been quite cynical of American idealism. Most people around the world believe that we have always acted in our best interests. I can't see that this decision changes that perception.

 

[DiStefano]

Everything seems so easy to do when you're sipping Chardonnay with your Ivy League pals...

But the big thing is Obama wanted to change it. That shows he's in touch with his feelings, we can all sing Kumbaya.

 

[Christo]

Good thing all the major media outlets are all over this story holding Obama accountable. Obviously this story is leading all the broadcast news and top of the front page of the NYT. Oh wait, this was out of the Guardian......

Is there a way to block certain posters from posting in the threads you start?

 

[bueno]

There is one point that has been missed so far: if you believe some of these people might be wrongfully interred, then you should be upset that Obama's failure to act has meant that some people have been wrongfully interred for two years more than they had to be if tribunals had continued as they did during the Bush years.

If you really believe in rights, this should be a huge deal to you, even of the economy does have a more immediate impact. It's not like the government can only juggle one ball at a time, is it?

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Obama has been a lot better than I expected on these sorts of issues. My only complaint was the half-baked idea to try these people in civilian courts, but that seems to have sensibly died a quiet death. Good for Obama.

Yeah because we have never successfully tried a terrorist in US courts or been able to keep them in supermax without any incidents. Oh wait we have.

We did a bunch of theads on this while you were away. I hate the idea of trying enemy combatants in civilian courts. If you think they're guilty of war crimes or something like that, then military tribunals are great for that sort of thing. Otherwise just detain them until the war on terror is over (with AQ and the Taliban formally surrendering) and then let them go, just like what we would do with enemy combatants in other wars. In practice that means lifetime detention, which I suppose is a downside for fighting on behalf of a non-state actor.

Well I'll try not to rehash then and as much as I like you my friend your hating it is not that big a deal to me. That's how my America does things. In the open so everyone can see and with full rights accorded. That's what separates us from Egypt.

Actually, this really is how your America does things. As far as I know, we've always detained enemy POWs until the end of hostilities without charging them with anything. This is how all civilized countries deal with enemy prisoners. The main difference in this case is that detention until "the end of the war" essentially means lifetime detention, but that's not our fault. I do agree with you and fatguy that we need to be careful to make reasonably sure that the people we're detaining really are enemy combatants. My main argument is that regular criminal courts aren't the place for this. It isn't against the law (I think) for an Afghan citizen to be a member of the Taliban's armed forces, any more than it was against the law for a Vietnamese citizen to serve in the North Vietnamese army. Military commissions seem to me to be obviously better suited to handling these issues.

 

[Chadstroma]

To me this is an interesting window into the political souls of many Obamaniacs. Is it the man or the positions that they love. I may disagree completely with NC but I absolutely love the fact that he is angry about this betrayal (if you believed all the campaign rhetoric and voted for him, I can not see how you do not see this as a betrayal).

I applaud the President for making a good decision (although I am not sure if it was a decision or if he just decided it was not worth the political capital to fight the opponents on it).

I applaud those who voted for Obama because of positions he spewed on the campaign trail and those who rampaged against Bush for things like this and are genuinely angry now.

I laugh at those who try to minimize their anger or make excuses or hide away from it.... basically anything that they can do to protect their political messiah.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

What happened to the Guantanamo trials?

Also - anyone get the sense that the whole Taliban 5 / Bergdahl affair might make it actually more difficult to close out Guantanamo?

 

[NCCommish]

What happened to the Guantanamo trials?

Also - anyone get the sense that the whole Taliban 5 / Bergdahl affair might make it actually more difficult to close out Guantanamo?

As Ivan pointed out a long time ago we release POWs at the end of hostilities. Those guys were going to be released anyway. It's like having a guy you are going to cut and getting another team to trade for him so you get something.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

What happened to the Guantanamo trials?

Also - anyone get the sense that the whole Taliban 5 / Bergdahl affair might make it actually more difficult to close out Guantanamo?

As Ivan pointed out a long time ago we release POWs at the end of hostilities. Those guys were going to be released anyway. It's like having a guy you are going to cut and getting another team to trade for him so you get something.

Man, these sports analogies are terrible.

Reading Ivan above,I will say if that's the case considering so many at Gitmo are enemy combatants then Obama's arguments and grand plans to shovel the prisoners through criminal trials rings hollow in retrospect, even specious.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Obama has been a lot better than I expected on these sorts of issues. My only complaint was the half-baked idea to try these people in civilian courts, but that seems to have sensibly died a quiet death. Good for Obama.

Yeah because we have never successfully tried a terrorist in US courts or been able to keep them in supermax without any incidents. Oh wait we have.

We did a bunch of theads on this while you were away. I hate the idea of trying enemy combatants in civilian courts. If you think they're guilty of war crimes or something like that, then military tribunals are great for that sort of thing. Otherwise just detain them until the war on terror is over (with AQ and the Taliban formally surrendering) and then let them go, just like what we would do with enemy combatants in other wars. In practice that means lifetime detention, which I suppose is a downside for fighting on behalf of a non-state actor.

Well I'll try not to rehash then and as much as I like you my friend your hating it is not that big a deal to me. That's how my America does things. In the open so everyone can see and with full rights accorded. That's what separates us from Egypt.

Actually, this really is how your America does things. As far as I know, we've always detained enemy POWs until the end of hostilities without charging them with anything. This is how all civilized countries deal with enemy prisoners. The main difference in this case is that detention until "the end of the war" essentially means lifetime detention, but that's not our fault. I do agree with you and fatguy that we need to be careful to make reasonably sure that the people we're detaining really are enemy combatants. My main argument is that regular criminal courts aren't the place for this. It isn't against the law (I think) for an Afghan citizen to be a member of the Taliban's armed forces, any more than it was against the law for a Vietnamese citizen to serve in the North Vietnamese army. Military commissions seem to me to be obviously better suited to handling these issues.

I'd say it's pretty rare for a country to hand over captured top level military commanders and leadership before the end of hostilities, ie while the enemy is still shooting at Americans and trying to kill them in other ways.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

The Dangers of Emptying Guantanamo


- This is a pretty interesting rundown of the men being released from Guantanamo in the latest.

It's very long but also very thorough. But here is one such just as an example. It's especially interesting because it involves an Iranian agent:

11. Hamid al-Razak (a.k.a. Haji Hamidullah)

An Afghan from Kabul, al-Razak was born in 1963. Al-Razak was a founding member of Hezb-e-Islami Gulbuddin (HIG) in 1980, “head of the Psychological Operations (PSYOP) wing of the HIG,” and a “subcommander,” with “extensive familial ties to HIG leadership and the Taliban.” HIG is led by Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, a close ally of Iran; it is, with the Taliban and Haqqani, one of the three major components of the Afghan insurgency.

Al-Razak participated in the anti-Soviet jihad and was favourably disposed toward the Taliban when they initially rose to power. But much of the detail is missing since al-Razak has successfully evaded questions about his travels into and out of Afghanistan, and what he did while there.

In addition to HIG and the Taliban, al-Razak was “closely associated” with al-Qaeda. Al-Razak was “directly involved in the planning, support and execution of numerous [anti-Coalition] terrorist attacks and other activities in Afghanistan targeting U.S. and Coalition forces.” Al-Razak also had ties to extremist former members of Mahaz-e-Milli (the National Islamic Front (NIF)), a Sufi faction of the Northern Alliance.

Most interestingly: Al-Razak “and his father were employed as agents of the Iranian SAVAMA [or VEVAK] (Ministry of Intelligence and Security).” Al-Razak and his father left Mashhad for Kabul in January 2002 as agents of the Iranian government and were housed by Ismail Khan, an Iranian-supported warlord who is currently Afghanistan’s Minister of Water and Energy. Incredibly, even after becoming a minister, in December 2005 Khan “met with two Pakistanis and three Iranians to discuss the planning of terrorist acts and to create better lines of communication between the HIG and Taliban.”

Al-Razak then took shelter with “his close friend and fellow HIG operative, Mullah Ezat Ullah, a Kabul regional warlord and an Iranian intelligence affiliated Taliban sub-commander.”

Iran’s influence spread to Mullah Abd al-Kabir, a former HIG operative and Taliban Governor of Jalalabad and Wahildullah Sabayun, the former head of HIG Intelligence, who ran for president in 2004 and became the Minister of Tribal Affairs, while dishing out Iranian-supplied weapons to a rogues’ gallery that included Jalaluddin Haqqani, Mullah Berader, and Mullah Dadullah. In the aftermath of the Taliban, al-Razak worked at Iranian direction with the NIF to stir up monarchists and try to bring King Zahir Shah back into the country, no doubt to disrupt the Western-overseen transition. Ullah (Izatullah) was another “Iranian intelligence affiliated Taliban sub-commander,” also in Kabul, who was “responsible for many terrorist attacks against coalition interests”.

At the time al-Razak was arrested by the Afghan army on 31 July 2003, a consignment of rockets were on their way to Kabul via HIG, which had been given £2 million by the Iranian regime to acquire them. Al-Razak was working closely with “Samoud Khan [who] has extensive links with Taliban and al-Qaeda and direct ties with Saifullah Rahman Mansour,” a senior Talib.

HIG also had connections to Russian intelligence and JTF-GTMO assessed that al-Razak was likely aware of those, too, including the ongoing efforts of Russian and Iranian intelligence—working through Hekmatyar’s jihadists—”against the Karzai Afghan government.”

And, of course, al-Razak had connections with Pakistan’s dangerous intelligence apparatus:


December 2002 reporting linked [al-Razak] to a Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate (ISID) initiative to create an office in Peshawar combining elements of the Taliban, HIG, and al-Qaida. The goal of the initiative was to plan and execute various terrorist attacks in Afghanistan. Members were to attack the foreign headquarters in Kabul in late January 2003.



Unsurprisingly, Al-Razak was assessed as a “high” risk to the West and of “high” intelligence value. He was a “medium” threat prisoner.

- Allegedly or so we are told AQ & Iran aren't supposed to like each other but it's been pretty well established they do and have.