Cheney: Waterboarding works (YouTube)

[one...two...tree 2,762]

1. Fifty-five percent (55%) of the detainees are not determined to have committed any hostile acts against the United States or its coalition allies. 2. 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.

Only 55%? So the other 45% HAVE committed hostile acts against the US?

Yeah Steven, they are a-ok, we should just let them go.

Wise up. Who cares if they are affiliated with Al Qaeda, the Taliban or some other terrorist group?

Terrorists are terrorists.

Read the rest of that, Mark. I don't see how you can defend such idiocy (see below).

Also consider that only 5% of the detainees were captured by U.S. Forces. What was the source of the information used to designate the other 95% as enemy combatants? Pakistan and the Northern Alliance. There is no indication that the U.S. ever verified, or could verify, the information. Factor in how many were seized by bounty hunters and how many were conscripted against their will . The U.S. placed advertisements in both Afghanistan and Pakistan offering large amounts of money to those who turned over "enemy combatants." The report contains this one as an example:

Get wealth and power beyond your dreams....You can receive millions of dollars helping the anti-Taliban forces catch al-Qaida and Taliban murders. This is enough money to take care of your family, your village, your tribe for the rest of your life. Pay for livestock and doctors and school books and housing for all your people.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

1. Fifty-five percent (55%) of the detainees are not determined to have committed any hostile acts against the United States or its coalition allies. 2. 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.

Only 55%? So the other 45% HAVE committed hostile acts against the US?

Yeah Steven, they are a-ok, we should just let them go.

Wise up. Who cares if they are affiliated with Al Qaeda, the Taliban or some other terrorist group?

Terrorists are terrorists.

Read the rest of that, Mark. I don't see how you can defend such idiocy (see below).

Also consider that only 5% of the detainees were captured by U.S. Forces. What was the source of the information used to designate the other 95% as enemy combatants? Pakistan and the Northern Alliance. There is no indication that the U.S. ever verified, or could verify, the information. Factor in how many were seized by bounty hunters and how many were conscripted against their will . The U.S. placed advertisements in both Afghanistan and Pakistan offering large amounts of money to those who turned over "enemy combatants." The report contains this one as an example:

Get wealth and power beyond your dreams....You can receive millions of dollars helping the anti-Taliban forces catch al-Qaida and Taliban murders. This is enough money to take care of your family, your village, your tribe for the rest of your life. Pay for livestock and doctors and school books and housing for all your people.

Maybe some more modern art would show us the way!

[William33 110]

1. Fifty-five percent (55%) of the detainees are not determined to have committed any hostile acts against the United States or its coalition allies. 2. 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.

Only 55%? So the other 45% HAVE committed hostile acts against the US?

Yeah Steven, they are a-ok, we should just let them go.

Wise up. Who cares if they are affiliated with Al Qaeda, the Taliban or some other terrorist group?

Terrorists are terrorists.

Read the rest of that, Mark. I don't see how you can defend such idiocy (see below).

Also consider that only 5% of the detainees were captured by U.S. Forces. What was the source of the information used to designate the other 95% as enemy combatants? Pakistan and the Northern Alliance. There is no indication that the U.S. ever verified, or could verify, the information. Factor in how many were seized by bounty hunters and how many were conscripted against their will . The U.S. placed advertisements in both Afghanistan and Pakistan offering large amounts of money to those who turned over "enemy combatants." The report contains this one as an example:

Get wealth and power beyond your dreams....You can receive millions of dollars helping the anti-Taliban forces catch al-Qaida and Taliban murders. This is enough money to take care of your family, your village, your tribe for the rest of your life. Pay for livestock and doctors and school books and housing for all your people.

Steven,

Where did you get the notion that a large number of "enemy combatants" were captured this way? Most were captured under the "extraordinary rendition" program.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

He learns it from the left wing blogs! You know thats where are all the facts are hidden! You just have to hold your breath till things get foggy.

Edited December 19, 2008 by ={Rogue}=

[mawilson 2,133]

He learns it from the left wing blogs! You know thats where are all the facts are hidden!

[Amby 490]

Maybe some more modern art would show us the way!

water out the nose

[one...two...tree 2,762]

1. Fifty-five percent (55%) of the detainees are not determined to have committed any hostile acts against the United States or its coalition allies. 2. 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.

Only 55%? So the other 45% HAVE committed hostile acts against the US?

Yeah Steven, they are a-ok, we should just let them go.

Wise up. Who cares if they are affiliated with Al Qaeda, the Taliban or some other terrorist group?

Terrorists are terrorists.

Read the rest of that, Mark. I don't see how you can defend such idiocy (see below).

Also consider that only 5% of the detainees were captured by U.S. Forces. What was the source of the information used to designate the other 95% as enemy combatants? Pakistan and the Northern Alliance. There is no indication that the U.S. ever verified, or could verify, the information. Factor in how many were seized by bounty hunters and how many were conscripted against their will . The U.S. placed advertisements in both Afghanistan and Pakistan offering large amounts of money to those who turned over "enemy combatants." The report contains this one as an example:

Get wealth and power beyond your dreams....You can receive millions of dollars helping the anti-Taliban forces catch al-Qaida and Taliban murders. This is enough money to take care of your family, your village, your tribe for the rest of your life. Pay for livestock and doctors and school books and housing for all your people.

Steven,

Where did you get the notion that a large number of "enemy combatants" were captured this way? Most were captured under the "extraordinary rendition" program.

William, this has been on record for awhile now. Point to a report that contradicts this one...

http://law.shu.edu/news/guantanamo_report_final_2_08_06.pdf

A Profile of 517 Detainees through Analysis of Department of Defense Data

By

Mark Denbeaux

Professor, Seton Hall University School of Law and

Counsel to two Guantanamo detainees

......

Some Guantanamo Bay Detainees Reportedly Hated The Taliban

(CBS) On April 10th this year, a 21-year-old student earning extra money for his family drove a taxi out of a stand in Kabul.

As CBS News Correspondent Allen Pizzey reports, three hours later he rolled up to a roadblock outside the town of Gardez and then disappeared.

A few days later, his father, Sayed Roshan, learned he had been handed over to U.S. troops. And then heard nothing more.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/11/...ain525342.shtml

......

William, I don't see how anyone can rationalize the methods that were used to round up these detainees....ransom money for bounty hunters? Is this how our police round up criminals??? No, they offer money or legal immunity to informants when and only when the information they give turns out to be accurate. There are many tried and proven ways to infiltrate into criminal organizations but pulling someone off the street because someone else fingered them and then beating a confession out of them isn't the way. This isn't Jack Bauer...this is real life. But apparently the Bush Administration led by a man who confesses that he doesn't read books, went with the Jack Bauer method, cuz Jack does it so good on 24.

Edited December 19, 2008 by Mister Fancypants

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Here's another report...

Judge throws out detainees cases at Guantanamo Bay

Today, a judge sitting on one of the military commissions set up to try detainees at Guantanamo has thrown out two cases for procedural reasons.

......

For more than five years, hundreds of prisoners have languished at the facility.

Some have faced abusive interrogations, using questionable techniques such as sensory deprivation. Last year, three prisoners committed suicide in what a senior US military commander labelled an "act of asymmetric warfare".

Only one detainee, the Australian David Hicks, has stood trial on terrorism charges. The remaining three hundred and eighty five remain in limbo.

Overnight, the US tried to start legal proceedings against two more prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, but a military judge threw both cases out.

The problem is that the rules of the military commissions say they can only try "unlawful enemy combatants".

The two prisoners are designated "enemy combatants" without the word "unlawful".

http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2007/s1943219.htm

......

You know it's laughable when a military appointed judge throws out cases.

Edited December 19, 2008 by Mister Fancypants

[mawilson 2,133]

William, this has been on record for awhile now. Point to a report that contradicts this one...

http://law.shu.edu/news/guantanamo_report_final_2_08_06.pdf

A Profile of 517 Detainees through Analysis of Department of Defense Data

By

Mark Denbeaux

Professor, Seton Hall University School of Law and

Counsel to two Guantanamo detainees

A report that contradicts this one? Why? There's nothing in the report that suggests

that Guantanamo should be closed.

It says that 45% of detainees have committed hostile acts against the US and that

a lot of them were not affiliated with Al Qaeda or the Taliban, but who the f#ck cares

what terrorist group they represent?

Some Guantanamo Bay Detainees Reportedly Hated The Taliban

So effing what? They hated the Taliban, so they must be innocent? What if they hated

the Taliban but loved the Islamic Jihad?

William, I don't see how anyone can rationalize the methods that were used to round up these detainees....ransom money for bounty hunters?

Whatever works. Don't compare these guys to ordinary criminals - US laws do not apply in Afghanistan.

Today, a judge sitting on one of the military commissions set up to try detainees at Guantanamo has thrown out two cases for procedural reasons.

...

You know it's laughable when a military appointed judge throws out cases.

Laughable? Hardly. Are you going to laugh when these guys released "for procedural

reasons" go out and murder more people? The military should appoint judges who take

things more seriously.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Ideologically appointed judges? Hmmm

[HAL 9000 96]

If they are criminals they should be charged as such. If there are no charges they should be let go.

As you know, it's not that simple. Most of these people could not be tried or convicted in a US Federal court with the scum lawyers out there. Most information (evidence) is not releasable to the public, or US intelligence sources and methods would be compromised. The evidence was thin in most cases, yet something needed to be done to:

1.) Attempt to flush out Bin Laden

2.) Discover future attempts at terrorism in the US

3.) Identify others that may have useful intel

Extraordinary rendition gone wrong, definitely. However, after the 9/11 intelligence debacle, a knee jerk response ensued.

The USA was caught "flatfooted" on 9/11 and this was the Bush Administrations approach at shutting in down. A bumbling success, I might add.

I disagree. If scum lawyers were so prevalent in the USA, then one of two things could happen-

1) Many more criminals in regular criminal cases would go free.

2) Laws could be changed to safeguard the criminal defense legal representation system.

Out of that we have to observe one thing when apprehending and trying foreigners accused of any bellicose action against us:

International law. We want to avoid observing the Geneva conventions, fine. Then we should at least uphold our own laws of due process.

Its as easy as that.

[mawilson 2,133]

Ideologically appointed judges? Hmmm

Aren't they all?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Ideologically appointed judges? Hmmm

Aren't they all?

I doubt it.

I can't imagine calling the judge "liberally biased" would be considered a valid defence in a criminal courtroom.

[HAL 9000 96]

Ideologically appointed judges? Hmmm

Aren't they all?

I doubt it.

I can't imagine calling the judge "liberally biased" would be considered a valid defence in a criminal courtroom.

Sure... to some folks there is the weird notion that these supposed 'liberal judges' want to excarcerate all criminals in custody and acquit all others on trial. Which is a really, really, really weird stereotype.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Generally speaking, we don't throw out the justice system when a criminal gets off for procedural reasons or lack of evidence. Nor do we keep people locked up just because someone arbitrarily decides that they must be guilty simply because they think they are.