Showing posts with label Guantanamo Bay. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Guantanamo Bay. Show all posts

Tuesday, February 21, 2017

Terror: 1 Million Pounds for Terror: Thanks to the people who care! Responsibility all around.

British man who launched Isil suicide attack was Guantanamo Bay detainee awarded £1m compensation 

 

A British Islamic State fighter who carried out a suicide bombing in Iraq this week is a former Guantanamo Bay detainee who was paid £1 million compensation by the government.

Jamal al-Harith, a Muslim convert born Ronald Fiddler who detonated a car bomb at an Iraqi army base near Mosul, was released from the US detention camp in 2004 and successfully claimed compensation after saying British agents knew or were complicit in his mistreatment.
He was freed following intense lobbying by Tony Blair’s Labour government.

Al-Harith, who used the nom de guerre Abu-Zakariya al-Britani, entered Syria via Turkey in 2014 to join Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, leading to questions at the time about the monitoring of terrorist suspects.

It also raised the possibility that compensation money paid by British taxpayers had been handed on by him to Isil.

Earlier this week Isil released an image of him sitting inside the bomb car grinning broadly, with wires and what may be a detonation button in the background.
A statement released by the terrorist group said: “The martyrdom-seeking brother Abu Zakariya al-Britani - may Allah accept him - detonated his explosives-laden vehicle on a headquarters of the Rafidhi army and its militias in Tal Kisum village, southwest of Mosul.”

_________________________

 There shouldn't be a question ... it is self-answered ... that money was used for terrorism, to kill innocent human beings.


 

 

 

 

 

Monday, April 4, 2011

Campaign in truth and govern the same way

Campaign in Poetry, Govern in Prose ...

And we all understand that, the reality ... or, some of us do.  Liberals apparently do not because they really really believed him - after all, the war in Iraq would be over, we would be out of Iraq and Afghanistan, Guantanamo would be closed, and the US would restore the rights to poor and unfortunate individuals detained illegally by US forces.  The above sentence summed up the over riding attitude of liberals, of those who opposed Bush and their reasons for supporting an inexperienced state legislator who turned US Senator for five minutes before running for president.

So ... where are we today.  Well, we should look at what Obamaessiah had to say about Guantanamo and the US actions toward the murderers held in the palace of prisons in Guantanamo.



So what exactly did candidate Obama say in 2008 when it came to trying accused terrorists?



First, he was going to close Guantanamo, calling it an ineffective "legal black hole:"   [For anyone keeping track - didn't happen]


"By any measure, our system of trying detainees has been a failure. Over the course of nearly seven years, there has not been a single conviction for a terrorist act at Guantanamo. There has just been one conviction for material support of terrorism," he said in June of 2008. "Meanwhile, this legal black hole has substantially set back America's ability to lead the world against the threat of terrorism, and undermined our most basic values. But make no mistake: we are less safe because of the way George Bush has handled this issue."


Then, he was going to restore habeas corpus rights to alleged terrorists [0 for 2]:


"Our courts have employed habeas corpus with rigor and fairness for more than two centuries, and we must continue to do so as we defend the freedom that violent extremists seek to destroy. We cannot afford to lose any more valuable time in the fight against terrorism to a dangerously flawed legal approach," he also said in June of 2008.


Promising to return America to the "moral high ground" in the war on terrorism, Obama issued a high profile executive order in his first official day as president that required the Guantanamo Bay detention facility be closed within a year. [0 for 3]

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
obama the useless

Sunday, November 28, 2010

Wikileaks: Close Guantanamo - and who cares what happens.

¶ Bargaining to empty the Guantánamo Bay prison: When American diplomats pressed other countries to resettle detainees, they became reluctant players in a State Department version of “Let’s Make a Deal.” Slovenia was told to take a prisoner if it wanted to meet with President Obama, while the island nation of Kiribati was offered incentives worth millions of dollars to take in Chinese Muslim detainees, cables from diplomats recounted. The Americans, meanwhile, suggested that accepting more prisoners would be “a low-cost way for Belgium to attain prominence in Europe.”


New York Times, 11/28/10




It is all about politics, nothing about security - and certainly, does not consider what our 'allies' thought - this administration pushed through what Obama wanted, which was not in the best interest of the US - but in his political best interest.  We close Guantanamo and we don't care what happens after that - or the consequences. 
 
The actions of this administration are as reckless as the action of the person(s) who made these materials public. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
the end of the world as we know

Tuesday, November 16, 2010

We have surely lost - Guantanamo Bay

Compensation For Ex-Guantanamo Prisoners


 November 16, 2010
Sky News
Carole Erskine and Miranda Richardson, Sky News Online



Compensation which could total millions of pounds is to be paid out to around a dozen former detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Sky sources say.

The controversial move comes after the Government agreed to settle a series of High Court actions brought by a group of the ex-prisoners.

Some of those thought to be receiving money have accused British security and intelligence officials of colluding in their torture and abuse while they were held abroad.

There are also claims the Government knew they were being illegally transferred there but failed to stop it.

Among those said to be receiving settlements are Binyam Mohamed, Bishar Al Rawi, Jamil El Banna, Richard Belmar, Omar Deghayes, Moazzam Begg and Martin Mubanga.

Most are British citizens or British residents, but some are said to be asylum seekers.

Justice Secretary Ken Clarke will make answer an urgent question on the issue in Parliament this afternoon.

This is a very significant and highly controversial move by the Government.

Sky's home affairs correspondent Mark White

Individual payouts of hundreds of thousand of pounds are expected and there are reports one former detainee is in line to receive more than £1m.

Sky News home affairs correspondent Mark White said: "This is a very significant and highly controversial move by the Government.

"Essentially the Government has come to an agreement with a group of former Guantanamo detainees.

"British residents who claim they were unlawfully imprisoned, that the British security services were complicit in their detention and subsequent alleged torture."

The settlement followed negotiations held over the past few weeks at a secret location.

David Cameron authorised the negotiations in July after a court ruling ordering the disclosure of 50,000 confidential documents.

It is thought the Government decided to make the payouts to avoid the expense and embarrassment of the secret intelligence documents being made public.

White said: "They were taking that through the courts. David Cameron was looking for some negotiated settlement in this case."

Shami Chakrabarti, director of Liberty, said the payments were "not very palatable" but there was "a price to be paid for lawlessness and torture in freedom's name".

"The Government now accepts that torture is never justified and we were all let down - let's learn all the lessons and move on," she said.

Of the former detainees, Binyam Mohamed travelled to Pakistan in 2001 and was sent to Guantanamo in Cuba in 2004 after being subjected to alleged torture by his US captors.

In October 2008, the US government dropped all charges against him and he returned to Britain last year.

Moazzam Begg was arrested on alleged terror offences in Pakistan in 2002 and spent two years at Guantanamo before being released without charge.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
guantanamo bay

Friday, July 23, 2010

The Mystery of the MIssing Man

Wanna bet where he will turn up?   Not that I believe for one minute Algeria is becoming a model for human rights.




Algeria denies detaining Guantanamo returnee



Reuters
Thu Jul 22, 2010


ALGERIA (Reuters) - An Algerian man sent home from the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay has not been detained on his return, an Algerian official said on Thursday, rejecting rights groups allegations he was being mistreated.

Abdul Aziz Naji was transferred from the military prison in Cuba to Algeria against his will, having said he feared persecution. A U.S. based rights group said on Wednesday he had gone missing and could be in secret detention.

U.S. President Barack Obama has made a commitment to close down the Guantanamo Bay prison and any evidence that former detainees are mistreated after they are released and sent home could make it harder for him to meet that target.

"It is out of the question that this person has been detained in Algeria," said Farouk Ksentini, chairman of Algeria's National Consultative Commission for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, a state body.

"I formally deny this information, which in my view does not make any sense," Ksentini told Reuters, though he added that he did not know Naji's whereabouts.

"One should not forget that Algeria has for a decade been applying a policy of national reconciliation," he said, referring to an amnesty for Islamist insurgents who have been fighting Algerian security forces since the early 1990s.

"I should also add that 10 Algerian detainees have returned to Algeria from Guantanamo and have had no problem whatsoever. Why should this gentleman be any different from the others?"

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
terror

Sunday, June 20, 2010

Silly Barrack and the Arabian King: Hug not fight.

Why not let all the Guantanamo prisoners go ... after all, they have been deprived of their rights, and as soon as you let them go, why not give them a plane ticket to Afghanistan, which is where many of them go anyway - and why not simply give them a plane to fly into Americans in Afghainstan - save them time and trouble.

The US government is behind the Saudi government's attempts at rehabilitation.  That is not a natural thing to do in Saudi Arabia - rehabilitate.





25 Saudi Guantanamo prisoners return to militancy


Ulf Laessing


RIYADH

Sat Jun 19, 2010 1:07pm EDTRIYADH (Reuters) - Around 25 former detainees from Guantanamo Bay camp returned to militancy after going through a rehabilitation program for al Qaeda members in Saudi Arabia, a Saudi security official said on Saturday.

The United States have sent back around 120 Saudis from the detention camp at the U.S. naval base in Cuba, set up after the U.S. launched a "war on terror" following the September 11 attacks by mostly Saudi suicide hijackers sent by al Qaeda.

Saudi Arabia, the world's top oil exporter, has put the returned prisoners along with other al Qaeda suspects through a rehabilitation program which includes religious re-education by clerics and financial help to start a new life.

The scheme, which some 300 extremists have attended, is part of anti-terrorism efforts after al Qaeda staged attacks inside the kingdom from 2003-06. These were halted after scores of suspects were arrested with the help of foreign experts.

Around 11 Saudis from Guantanamo have gone to Yemen, an operating base for al Qaeda, while others have been jailed again or killed after attending the program, said Abdulrahman al-Hadlaq, Director General of the General Administration for Intellectual Security overseeing the rehabilitation.

He pinpointed strong personal ties among former prisoners but also tough U.S. tactics as the reason why some 20 percent of the returned Saudis relapsed into militancy compared to 9.5 percent of other participants in the rehabilitation program.

"Those guys from other groups didn't suffer torture before, the non-Guantanamos (participants). Torturing is the most dangerous thing in radicalization. You have more extremist people if you have more torture," Hadlaq told reporters in a rare briefing about Saudi anti-terrorism efforts.

REHABILITATION SCHEME "A SUCCESS"

Despite the setback with Guantanamo prisoners, Saudi Arabia regards the rehabilitation scheme, which kicks in after militants have served a prison term, as a success.

"There is no doubt that there is an effect," Hadlaq said.

U.S. President Barack Obama ordered the camp shut after taking office in January 2009 but his plans have been stymied. There are now about 180 detainees left, among them 13 Saudis. At its peak, the camp held about 780 detainees.

More than 2,000 sympathizers of al Qaeda are still in prison in Saudi Arabia. Some 2,000 teachers have been removed from classrooms for their extremist views in the past five years while 400 teachers are in prison, Hadlaq said.

Saudi Arabia plans to build five more rehabilitation centers which will be able to accommodate 250 people each, he said.

The expansion plans are partly to cope with the eventual release of 991 suspected al Qaeda militants whom the authorities said in October were awaiting trial for 30 attacks since 2003.

In July, a Saudi court sentenced one unnamed Islamist to death and handed out to others jail terms of up to 30 years in the first publicly reported trials since the arrests.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
saudi

Saturday, March 13, 2010

Transparency, Honesty, Integrity: They have none.

It is only a problem if it is a Republican who had forgotten to remember about six cases.  If it is a Democrat, and a Democrat who opposes military tribunals, then forgotten a few cases is fine.

How can a man who opposed the use of military hearings, military detention, and Bush's larger policy of holding detainees without trial, become the man charged with enforcing policies that, each day appear a little more like Bush's - Guantanamo is still open, new people are held there, Obama has decided (rightly) to not hold civilian trials for Mohammad and his cohorts, they are still being detained, without trial as yet ... amazing Holder can work as an agent for the government on this issue.

And before we dismiss this as a case of oversight, I would have to ask - if Joe was applying for the position of Attorney General in 2009, what few sets of questions (themeatic only) would you ask him?  Assuming the guy you would work for has promised to close Guantanamo and give the terrorists civilian trials.  And yes, those were biggies - mentioned every chance he got on the campaign trail.  Wouldn't Guantanamo be a big one.  Wouldn't trials for terrorists be a big one and if you wrote a brief for one of the only cases to go mto civilian trial, wouldn't that get found and mentioned???  I think so, nay, I am certain it would if they were being open and transparent, rather than being swamp monsters.

Holder is sitting in an office, perhaps he is at a park, walking with someone and as they walk they discuss the Padilla brief and one thought mentioned is to simply forget the Padilla brief, simply forget to give it to the Senate.  Perhaps one of the two people walking is a Senator.  And further, the Senator, holding a complete list of briefs and cases Holder has beenn involved, checks off a couple other cases and hands it back to the other man - maybe leave off a few others, so as to ensure no one believes we did it on purpose, if that was the only brief, it would be evident, but if it is one of six or seven ... it was an oversight. 

I wonder how close I might be.  Oh wait, Democrats did this with the secret meetings Cheney had - they imagined all sorts of subjects and theories and conspiracies, and attributed all sorts of malfeasance to the Vice President, knowing nothing, other than a meeting occured.  Sort of like the several secret meetings between Obama and Soros at the White House - no transcript or record of their conversation was demanded.  No Moveon.org people creating fictitious copnspiracy theories of Obama and Soros. 

Interesting how 'truth' works.  Interesting what 'transparency' really means. 




Att'y general failed to give legal briefs to Senate




WASHINGTON
Fri Mar 12, 2010 4:38pm EST


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Attorney General Eric Holder failed to tell the Senate about seven legal briefs he signed when lawmakers considered his nomination to his current job, according to a letter released on Friday.

Two of the briefs involved appeals to the Supreme Court for Jose Padilla, who sought release from a military prison in South Carolina where he was being held after then-President George W. Bush designated him an "enemy combatant."

Padilla was held in a military brig for three years before his case was moved to a criminal court in Miami, where he was convicted on charges of offering his services to militants.

The Justice Department sent the Senate Judiciary Committee, which vets presidential nominees, a list of briefs that were omitted on Friday. "We regret the omission," Assistant Attorney General Ronald Weich said in a letter to the panel.

Holder has been facing intense scrutiny as the Obama administration tries to decide whether to prosecute terrorism suspects like the self-proclaimed mastermind of the September 11, 2001 attacks Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, in military or criminal courts.

The attorney general had been spearheading that effort but concerns about holding those trials in criminal court forced the White House to intervene and officials are now weighing whether to prosecute Mohammed and four of his alleged co-conspirators in a military court.

Previously, Holder has disclosed to the Senate five briefs he submitted to the Supreme Court during his law practice. From July 2001 until being confirmed by the Senate as attorney general, Holder worked at Covington & Burling in Washington.

Earlier this week, the Justice Department said Holder failed to tell the Senate about one brief he signed related to the Padilla case, prompting outcries from Republicans who said it offered more details about Holder's views on key policies.

The other six briefs related to issues such as race discrimination and a challenge to a prison sentence.

 
And dear Retardicans, lest we feel left out - all the members of Congress in the Republican party (the Retardicans) do not have the brains to comprehend the level of complexity of the lies and cover-up that Losercrats do daily.   It is very sad to watch.  You stack a Retardican against a Losercrat and the poor Retardican needs the Losercrat handicapped, bound, tied, gagged, drugged, and thrown into a sack, to even the odds, and they still lose.  And it is not because of the values held by Retardicans - their core values are far closer to the values of this country and our shared history than anything on the other side, rather it is simply the intellectual disparity between the two.  However, I know with certainty there are intellectual heavyweights on the Republican side, but for whatever reason (perhaps because the Retardicans keep hogging the news / spotlight) their arguments and cases are not as well known.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
obama

Friday, January 8, 2010

Our Way of Life, or Them: Survival of our Civilization or Death by Stupidity. American prison treatment versus their way.

If you have the inclination to visit, say ... Iran, you may wish to ensure you (as a female) cover your head before you leave the aircraft, or rather, if you wish to leave the aircraft, you must ensure you have your head covered.  There are consequences if you do not.  Mind you, there are also consequences if you wander around Tehran (any part) wearing tight fitting jeans, t-shirt, and a hijab.  The t-shirt and jeans have to go, or they must be covered with a manteau-type top (covering your rear-end).  If you do not, there will be consequences and if you are one of those enlightened Western women, the consequences will be truly primitive to your standards.

If you are gay, living in Tehran (and like people everywhere), you wish to meet and greet other gays, requiring you to go to parks or places typically inhabited by gays, you may wish to be careful.  Quite often the police will arrest you, take you back to their station where you will be repeatedly raped, before you may end up released.  This also applies to prostitutes, although a little different.  The police have a temporary marriage form filled out first, then they rape you, and send you on your way.  There are consequences. 

In Iran, many of the protestors from the June and December protests against the mullah-led regime, have reported arrests, beatings, and ongoing rape while they are held in the dreaded Evin prison.  Many protestors (both male and female) who end up being released, tell of being raped regularly throughout the day by groups of men (guards).  They tell of terrible humiliation - having photos taken (particularly of the men) being raped or forced to perform oral sex on guards, and then when released, threatened with the exposure of the photos.  Those released are the lucky ones - many have simply disappeared in Evin.  There are consequences. 

In Egypt, the stories that are told of prison experiences make the events seen in 'Midnight Cowboy' appear downright desirable.  A gay Arab, living in Israel, traveled to Egypt for a vacation that according to him was not for sex, rather just for rest.  He was arrested, taunted, humiliated, and finally after several weeks thrown into a prison cell 6x6, in his underwear.  He shared the cell with rats, roaches and all kinds of maggots.  Even when an officer of the guard reprimanded the guards for allowing the Arab-Israeli guy to sit in maggots, rats, and shit, little changed - he received a very thin mattress, a shirt and pants, and a plastic trashcan that he could use as a toilet.  Eventually after 40 or so days, the man was released.   

You do not want to violate Ramadan in Egypt either - breaking Ramadan - eating or smoking during the month could get you arrested and thrown into prison, or fined up to $2,000.  There are consequences.

In Pakistan, you surely do not want to violate Ramadan, or prison will be your future.  During the 2009 Ramadan, estimates are that more than 3,300 people were arrested for eating or smoking during Ramadan (in public).  Of these, 76 were foreigners.  Depending upon when you are arrested, your visit to the court could be considerably much later.  Spending one day in a Pakistani prison is worse than any time in a Turkish cell.

You most certainly do not want to go to Pakistan and make it known you are a Christian.  Abid Javed Francis was 31 years old when he was arrested and beaten in front of his mother for not paying a bribe.

It was not simply the beating by one police officer, more than 11 were involved in the actions against Francis.  The police demanded $125 from his family, who could not afford it, only to have the bribe increase to $625.  His family lives in one of the slum settlements in Karachi.

The police upped the ante by charging Francis with illegal arms dealing - several days after he was arrested.  Shortly after the illegal arms charge was filed, it was amended - Francis was charged with stealing a motorbike instead.

Francis was left in a cell in his underwear for a couple weeks, beaten constantly, and when his mother was told she could see him, he was stripped to his underwear, on a stretcher in an open area, exposed to chill.  He died a few days later from internal injuries sustained while in custody.  There are consequences.

One could go on all day and go through another thirty countries with these exact same, or worse stories, but it is truly a wasted effort, not to remember the lives taken by barbarians, but because it does not and will not change.  If you plan on visiting Saudi Arabia, you might wish to leave your Bible at home.  Some people do carry their Bible, perhaps because it is better reading than most novels, or perhaps because they wish to find a closeness with the past and with God that only the Bible, not Time magazine, can provide.  If you do take your Bible with you, understand that at the airport you arrive at, you will be searched.  Very much like the way you are searched leaving LAX or any American airport, you are searched as you ENTER the Saudi Kingdom.  If they find a Bible on your person or in your cases, it will be, in front of you, put into a shredder.  This is actually a better option than what could happen.  If you have two or more Bibles, you are arrested, and put into a Saudi prison - perhaps Al Hayar.  And for several days you could be chained to the door so that you cannot sit down or sleep.  Sleep deprivation will then play havoc with your mind.  In one case, one prisoner faced 5 days, then 11 days, then 14 days at different intervals, of sleep deprivation. There are consequences.  Your cell is no different than the one in Egypt, and your food appears through a hatch in the door, a concrete slab serves as a bed and fluorescent lights beat down on you 24 hours a day. I would think that is preferable to nail extractions, or whippings, electric shock, or cigarette burns, which all occur.

You could end up in a Saudi prison for any number of reasons - as a Westerner, you sit down with a female who is an acquaintance from work, to talk about your family or your work, and bing bang bong, you are arrested.  You cannot speak to a female who is not your wife, sister, mother.  There are consequences.

The torture in Saudi prisons is perhaps more refined than you find in Pakistan, but no less deadly - beatings,  punching, kicking, being thrown around the room, having your testicles stood on, being lain down on the floor in a hog-tied position, hands shackled behind your back and attached to your ankles, and then beaten over the soles of your feet, followed up perhaps by falanga - where you are strapped over a metal bar and hung upside-down off the floor so that your feet and buttocks are prominently exposed, and then you are beaten across the soles off the feet, across the buttock, and then every once in a while if you are unlucky, a quick shot into the scrotum.

Not that your Saudi captors care when they rape you (males) in an office down the hall from the cells, in the next room are dozens of officers or agents sitting and talking while you are raped.  Everyone knows what happens and what goes on - in fact a few may take turns doing you, before you are returned to your cell.   There are consequences.


Now, compare that to Guantanamo Bay.






Halal food, more than a dozen choices of food, three meals a day, time to worship, a Koran, doctors on call 24 hours a day, visits by the International Red Cross, attorney visits (all without American guards in the room during these visits).

This does not mean it is a paradise, certainly not.  A window, bed, sheets, heating and air, food, toilet (to their specifications), clothing ... of course it is not a paradise.  The majority of the 300 or so men held in Guantanamo were caught attempting to kill American soldiers and or as a result of direct links to terrorist groups or individuals.  Is there anyone innocent among the 300 or so.  It is not impossible, but it is not likely.

Use common sense, which I understand is in short supply by 30-40% of the American electorate and quite likely a larger percent of the world body, but try.  Why would CIA or the army, or whoever it is that puts people into Guantanamo, spend the energy, time, and money to put someone who has, with 100% certainty, no connection to terrorism or anyone involved in terrorism into a prison that will fill space and cost money.  Ok, so they don't care about the cost.  Flying a plane across the world with a few people on it, fuel costs to transport to Cuba, the food and upkeep for the guy while he stays in Guantanamo, and the eventual release of details about the prisoner ... all for no reason.  I apologize, but I do not believe CIA works that way as a matter of policy.  Nor does anyone in our system.  Now, in Egypt, the cost to keep the guy is maybe a gallon of gruel a month - reasonable, and doable.  Not going to break any bank.

Now to Abu Ghraib - what happened at Abu Ghraib.  Humiliation.  Simulated sex.  Prisoners forced to perform oral sex or simulated oral sex on other prisoners.  Fear tactics - prisoners were made to believe they could be electrocuted.  Most was psychological.  The dogs did not bite them, rape them, eat them, or piss on them.  The guards did not beat them nor rape them.  Abu Ghraib is a prison divided in two.  One half of the prison is for criminals, run by the Iraqis.  Common criminals get put into the Abu Ghraib prison.  In the middle is the administrative, medical section.  And on the other end is the terrorist prisoner side.  Common run of the mill criminals did not get put into the political section run by the Americans, BUT which included Iraqi doctors who would visit the prisoners or care for any prisoner taken to them for medical issues.  Several doctors who were involved in working at Abu Ghraib have written about their knowledge of events and how disproportionate the coverage by the US media of killers and terrorists. 






I do not suggest the images show tolerable behavior by American guards, rather they should have been relieved of duty and dishonorably discharged.

The electrical threat - not real.  It was imaginary, unlike the electrical shocks that did occur in Saudi Arabia.  It was intended to make them believe ... and they did.  Was it torture - it was certainly very strong psychological intimidation, right before they got to return to their cells, get dressed, eat, and sleep on their bunk.

It does not in any way, remotely come close to the actions in ANY country I mentioned above or for that matter in any of the other 30-40 I could go into detail about.

The men in this section of the prison were not common people - were any innocent, more likely yes, given how some of them ended up in Abu Ghraib (as compared to Guantanamo). Many of the men involved were within the Saddam regime, torturers, or involved in efforts to undermine US control and kill Americans.

Do I feel bad for any of them?  IF any were truly innocent of any and all charges, yes.  For the rest - no.

Americans were held hostage by the Iraqis.  When the US invaded Iraq, we moved so quickly that supply lines had to catch up, and a few times, were lost and attacked.  Lori Piestewa was the driver of one such truck part of the 507th, a mechanical repair team, used to service or repair vehicles.  In the front seat with her was Jessica Lynch.  Lori Piestewa was the first female and first mother, murdered in Iraq.  I understand that for the bleeding hearts, she isn't a part of any story - but she should be.




When their vehicle came under attack, she was wounded.  When she and Lynch realized they could not continue the fighting, along with several other males in their group, they surrendered.  Piestewa was wounded, but alive when they surrendered.  The Iraqi killers, shot her dead, in the vehicle, and took Private Lynch.  Lori Piestewa was not only the first female and first American mother murdered in Iraq, but she was also a Hopi and Mexican.  She had two children, and she bravely fought off the murderers until the very end.  Unfortunately, Lori did not look like her friend.  Jessica Lynch was also wounded, but she was blonde, blue eyed, and fair skinned.  She was of more interest to the Iraqi killers than Piestewa. 

Several other men were taken with Lynch.  Wounded, perhaps, but alive.  How do we know this?  The murderers had little time before US forces would arrive on the scene.  They had to act quickly and carrying away dead bodies is not an easy task. 

We also saw how these prisoners were treated by the Iraqi government and their killers.





They were all dead, while the above fool, marched around lifting and picking at the soldiers dead bodies all the while smiling for the camera.  This was shown on Iraqi TV in the hours before US forces ended the regime of death.

Perhaps you have seen the above image, perhaps the ones in color.  It shows an odd image of several dead Americans, with their pants undone at the button or zipper.  Odd.  Almost as if someone was inspecting them under their pants, either before they were executed or after.  Of course the Iraqis claim the men were not executed.  Hard to believe when the soldier has a hole in his head - you know, the place where his helmet was.  Our military investigated these images and the events, after we took Baghdad and had access to these people - the men were indeed executed, and then hastily buried in a shallow grave, in a pile.

When Lynch was freed, the Americans involved located the bodies, and without implements, dug up the bodies by hand, all the while acting as quickly as possible given the bombings and shooting outside the hospital, to take them home. 

Jessica Lynch has never spoken or written of the events in the room she was held, and that is her right - no one should have to relive it.  In all likelihood, the men involved were killed and are now being diddled by Satan. 

There is a difference in how Iraqis were treated in Abu Ghraib and how American war prisoners were treated by the Iragi Government, how terrorists are treated in Guantanamo, and how foreigners are treated in Arab prisons.  The media ignore some, play down others, and blow up into a mountain only what Americans did in Abu Ghraib.  As a result of the US media blowing Abu Ghraib up into an atrocity to end all atrocities, more than a dozen people died in rioting and attacks around the world, when that information became public.  It became a rallying cry for every anti-American on earth, and more recently, resulted in the deaths of a half-dozen Americans in Afghanistan - at least, according to the bombers wife.







By SELCAN HACAOGLU, Associated Press Writer
Fri Jan 8, 7:24 am ET

ISTANBUL – The Turkish wife of a Jordanian doctor who killed seven CIA employees in a suicide attack in Afghanistan says her husband was outraged over the treatment of Iraqis at Abu Ghraib prison and the U.S.-led invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Defne Bayrak, the wife of bomber Humam Khalil Abu-Mulal al-Balawi, said in an interview with The Associated Press that his hatred of the United States had motivated her husband to sacrifice his life on Dec. 30 in what he regarded as a holy war against the U.S.

Bayrak also said Friday, "I think the war against the United States must go on."

Turkish police questioned and released Bayrak on Thursday. But she says police confiscated a book she had written called "Osama bin Laden the Che Guevera of the East."



There are consequences for your actions.  There are only two sides (with slight degrees of variation on one side and none on the other) - you are either on one side or the other, you are not unbiased in a war that can end one of two ways.  For me, it is clear - I want my family, my children, my grand children, my civilization to survive, and I accept the necessary actions that must be taken to ensure the survival of our way of life.  Winston Churchill said it long before, and I am certain scores of historical figures before him - we need those men who will do, what the rest of us will not, to ensure we can sleep safely in our beds at night.

I understand the philosophical argument - we are better, we must show we are better, we ... and we will lose while we show how great we are, our children will be enslaved or killed, and our culture destroyed.  But, you will be able to write in a journal, that will be hidden away for several hundred years, that we did not infringe upon anyones liberty or wants, wishes, or feelings.

I am cognizant of the emotional reaction opponents will have to my comparisons - they will argue I have no idea or clue what I am saying, that nothing is similar, and I am conflating issues that are wholly unrelated.  I would argue that they are related and more so, show Americans as a great deal more compassionate and tolerant than any Arab prison / country, even at the worst of Abu-Ghraib.  Yes, bibles and sexual preference, and eating during Ramadan are different from terrorism and from war criminals.  I would expect the preferential Bible eater to be treated better (I combined them intentionally).  A country that imprisons someone for possessing a Bible, beats and tortures them for whatever their crime, beheads them, or rapes them repeatedly for being gay, and fines and imprisons people for eating during Ramadan (which is not by the way, religiously sanctioned by the Koran - the actions which are taken by police) - will be even more horrifying in the treatment of political prisoners or terrorists.  They do not humiliate, they rape.  The humiliation we were shown, was bad, but does not come close to anything we know of the treatment people face every day in Arab prisons.  We are also not selecting random people to imprison, individuals selected or collected are far less innocent than their lawyers claim.  After all, OJ's lawyers forever claimed he was innocent, still do.  The proof is in what happens when these killers, I mean innocent men, are released from their 1 Star lodging in Guantanamo.  They very nearly and immediately go off and blow themselves up, trying to kill as many innocents as possible.  I hope their lawyers can sleep.


There are consequences in the war against terror, and for those individuals who do not understand we are at war with a fascist ideology, they need to stand aside and allow those 'rough men' Churchill spoke of, to do their duty.  Even if the individuals do not want to be saved, the 'rough men' will save them anyway, because that is what they do.  They know the consequences if they don't.




















American prisons

Wednesday, November 25, 2009

Bad Policy, Bad Idea, Bad Everything: Obama and 9/11

This administration is naive and foolish - living in an utopian world that does not exist nor has it ever existed, but within a world that will surely result in the deaths of many more Americans due to their feckless policy.

If Obama would simply go off and bow to the rest of the world's potentates and leave important decisions to men who can make decisions - unlike his waffling and wavering on Afghanistan.  While he has twiddled his thumbs, men have died.  While he has sat around contemplating his navel, men have died.  Men who pledged to protect this country - have died.  The pledge he took, apparently does not include protecting those men.





New York travesty


chicagotribune.com
Charles Krauthammer
November 23, 2009


WASHINGTON -- For late-19th-century anarchists, terrorism was the "propaganda of the deed." The most successful propaganda-by-deed in history was 9/11 -- not just the most destructive, but the most spectacular and telegenic.

And now its self-proclaimed architect, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, has been given by the Obama administration a civilian trial in New York. Just as the memory fades, 9/11 has been granted a second life -- and KSM, a second act: "9/11, The Director's Cut," narration by KSM.

Sept. 11, 2001, had to speak for itself. A decade later, the deed will be given voice. KSM has gratuitously been presented with the greatest propaganda platform imaginable -- a civilian trial in the media capital of the world -- from which to proclaim the glory of jihad and the criminality of infidel America.

So why is Attorney General Eric Holder doing this? Ostensibly to demonstrate to the world the superiority of our system where the rule of law and the fair trial reign.

Really? What happens if KSM (and his codefendants) "do not get convicted," asked Senate Judiciary Committee member Herb Kohl. "Failure is not an option," replied Holder. Not an option? Doesn't the presumption of innocence, er, presume that prosecutorial failure -- acquittal, hung jury -- is an option? By undermining that presumption, Holder is undermining the fairness of the trial, the demonstration of which is the alleged rationale for putting on this show in the first place.

Moreover everyone knows that whatever the outcome of the trial, KSM will never walk free. He will spend the rest of his natural life in U.S. custody. Which makes the proceedings a farcical show trial from the very beginning.

Apart from the fact that any such trial will be a security nightmare and a terror threat to New York -- what better propaganda-by-deed than blowing up the entire courtroom, making KSM a martyr and making the judge, jury and spectators into fresh victims? -- it will endanger U.S. security. Civilian courts with broad rights of cross-examination and discovery give terrorists access to crucial information about intelligence sources and methods.

That's precisely what happened during the civilian New York trial of the 1993 World Trade Center bombers. The prosecution was forced to turn over to the defense a list of 200 unindicted co-conspirators, including the name Osama bin Laden. "Within 10 days, a copy of that list reached bin Laden in Khartoum," wrote former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, the presiding judge at that trial, "letting him know that his connection to that case had been discovered."

Finally, there's the moral logic. It's not as if Holder opposes military commissions on principle. On the same day he sent KSM to a civilian trial in New York, Holder announced he was sending Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, mastermind of the attack on the USS Cole, to a military tribunal.

By what logic? In his congressional testimony last week, Holder was utterly incoherent in trying to explain. In his Nov. 13 news conference, he seemed to be saying that if you attack a civilian target, as in 9/11, you get a civilian trial; a military target like the Cole, and you get a military tribunal.

What a perverse moral calculus. Which is the war crime -- an attack on defenseless civilians or an attack on a military target such as a warship, an accepted act of war which the U.S. itself has engaged in countless times?

By what possible moral reasoning, then, does KSM, who perpetrates the obvious and egregious war crime, receive the special protections and constitutional niceties of a civilian courtroom, while he who attacked a warship is relegated to a military tribunal?

Moreover the incentive offered any jihadi is as irresistible as it is perverse: Kill as many civilians as possible on American soil and Holder will give you Miranda rights, a lawyer, a propaganda platform -- everything but your own blog.

Alternatively, Holder tried to make the case that he chose a civilian New York trial as a more likely venue for securing a conviction. An absurdity: By the time Obama came to office, KSM was ready to go before a military commission, plead guilty and be executed. It's Obama who blocked a process that would have yielded the swiftest and most certain justice.

Indeed the perfect justice. Whenever a jihadist volunteers for martyrdom, we should grant his wish. Instead this one, the most murderous and unrepentant of all, gets to dance and declaim at the scene of his crime.

Holder himself told The Washington Post that the coming New York trial will be "the trial of the century." The last such was the trial of O.J. Simpson.












obama

Wednesday, November 18, 2009

New York Trial for Khalid Sheihk Mohammad

Interesting.

The very last paragraph/sentence in addition to Obama having already found the guy guilty, and sentenced to death.  Both are worth reading.

The last sentence - $75 million in security costs.  At Guantanamo there would be no unusual costs.  In the US there will be.  For each it would be between $50-70 million each for security + $5-8 million for court costs, plus appeals ($10-15 million) + $80k a year in prison ... MULTIPLY all of that by about 200 prisoners.





Obama: Professed 9/11 mastermind will be convicted


Nov 18, 2009
08:54 AM US/Eastern
By DEVLIN BARRETT
Associated Press Writer



WASHINGTON (AP) - President Barack Obama predicted that professed Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed will be convicted, as Attorney General Eric Holder defended putting him through the U.S. civilian legal system.

In one of a series of TV interviews during his trip to Asia, Obama said those offended by the legal privileges given to Muhammed by virtue of getting a civilian trial rather than a military tribunal won't find it "offensive at all when he's convicted and when the death penalty is applied to him."

Obama quickly added that he did not mean to suggest he was prejudging the outcome of Mohammed's trial. "I'm not going to be in that courtroom," he said. "That's the job of the prosecutors, the judge and the jury."

But he did say it!

In interviews broadcast on NBC and CNN Wednesday, the president also said that experienced prosecutors in the case who specialize in terrorism have offered assurances that "we'll convict this person with the evidence they've got, going through our system."

Obama said the American people should have no concern about the capability of civilian courts to try suspected terrorists. Attorney General Eric Holder last week announced the decision to bring Mohammed and four others detained at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to trial at a lower Manhattan courthouse.

Holder sought to explain U.S. prosecution strategy in remarks prepared for delivery later Wednesday before the Senate Judiciary Committee, where lawmakers are likely to spar over his decision last week to send Mohammed and four alleged henchmen from a detention center at Guantanamo Bay to New York to face a civilian federal trial in New York.

Critics of Holder's decision—mostly Republicans—have argued the trial will give Mohammed a world stage to spout hateful rhetoric.

In his prepared remarks, Holder said such concerns are misplaced, because judges can control unruly defendants and any pronouncements by Mohammed would only make him look worse.

"I have every confidence the nation and the world will see him for the coward he is," Holder says in a written version of his remarks obtained by The Associated Press. "I'm not scared of what (Mohammed) will have to say at trial—and no one else needs to be either."

Holder says the public and the nation's intelligence secrets can be protected during a public trial in civilian court.

"We need not cower in the face of this enemy," Holder says. "Our institutions are strong, our infrastructure is sturdy, our resolve is firm, and our people are ready."

Holder announced Friday that five accused Sept. 11 conspirators currently held at the U.S. military base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, will be transferred to federal court in Manhattan to face trial—just blocks from the site of the former World Trade Center.

Five other suspects, Holder said, will be sent to face justice before military commissions in the United States, though a location for those commissions has not yet been determined.

The actual transfer of the suspects to New York is still many weeks away. The transfers are a key step in Obama's pledge to close the detention center at Guantanamo, which currently houses some 215 detainees. The administration is not expected to meet its January deadline to shutter the facility.

The president echoed Holder's comments about the New York trial.

"I think this notion that we have to be fearful that these terrorists possess some special powers that prevent us from presenting evidence against them, locking them up and exacting swift justice, I think that has been a fundamental mistake," Obama said in an interview with CNN.

In addition to the 10 detainees named Friday, Holder is expected to send others to trials and commissions in the United States.

Another, larger group of detainees is expected to be released to other countries. Some, the president has said, are too dangerous to be released and cannot be put on trial, and those detainees will continue to be imprisoned.

The attorney general says his decisions between trials and commissions were based strictly on which venues he thought would bring the strongest prosecution.

Opponents of the plan, including Holder's predecessor Michael Mukasey, have accused him of adopting a "pre-9/11" approach to terrorism.

Holder emphatically denies that.

"We are at war, and we will use every instrument of national power—civilian, military, law enforcement, intelligence, diplomatic and others—to win," Holder says.

Separately, a member of the Judiciary Committee, Democrat Charles Schumer of New York, is urging the administration to reimburse the city for what he says could be $75 million in extra security costs related to the terror trials.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
trial in New York

Friday, November 13, 2009

Obama: Try the Murderers of 9/11 in Civilian Court in NY.

What a bloody joke.







Lieberman: Bringing terror suspects to U.S. for trial 'inconceivable'

By Michael O'Brien
11/13/09
The Hill

It is "inconceivable" why the U.S. would bring the alleged terrorist masterminds of the 9/11 attacks to New York for trial, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) said Friday.

Lieberman, the chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, said that the terror detainees including alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed should be tried in military tribunals outside the U.S.

“The terrorists who planned, participated in, and aided the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks are war criminals, not common criminals," Lieberman said in a statement. "The individuals accused of committing these heinous, cowardly acts of intentionally targeting unsuspecting, defenseless civilians should therefore be tried by military commission rather than in civilian courts in the United States.”

Lieberman, an independent who caucuses with Democrats but who maintains a hawkish streak on national security issues, said that the terrorist suspects are not entitled to the same rights as U.S. citizens in court.

"I share the views of more than 140 family members of the victims of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks who recently wrote to the Senate urging that the individuals charged with responsibility for those attacks should be tried by military commission rather than in civilian courts in the United States," Lieberman said. "It is inconceivable that we would bring these alleged terrorists back to New York for trial, to the scene of the carnage they created eight years ago, and give them a platform to mock the suffering of their victims and the victims’ families, and rally their followers to continue waging jihad against America.”

Lieberman voted with Republicans last week on a losing vote seeking to bar U.S. courts from trying terrorist detainees.




and yet ....





Obama decision to try 9/11 defendants already drawing fire



Nov 13, 2009
By Alex Brandon, AP
USA Today

`
Even before Attorney General Eric Holder made it official, the Obama administration's decision to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in a New York City federal court drew fire from conservatives who question his willingness to wage war on terrorists.

Debra Burlingame, the sister of a pilot whose plane was hijacked and crashed into the Pentagon on 9/11, said in a statement that "the trial will be a travesty." She supports military trials for Mohammed and four other defendants.

"In open court, it will be Khalid Sheikh Mohammed who will hold forth," she said, "mocking his victims, exulting in the suffering of their families, ridiculing the judge, his lawyers and the American justice system, and worst of all, rallying his jihad brothers to kill more Americans."

In his announcement, Holder said the Justice Department will seek the death penalty against Mohammed and the other defendants. He said five other defendants, including a suspect in the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole, will be tried before military commissions.

"For over 200 years our nation has relied upon a faithful adherence to the rule of law," Holder told reporters. "Once again, we will ask our legal system in two venues to answer that call."

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, also a supporter of military trials, said the decision reflected a pre-9/11 mindset, treating the 9/11 attacks as a typical crime rather than an act of war. "These terrorists planned and executed the mass murder of thousands of innocent Americans," he said. "Treating them like common criminals is unconscionable."

Rep. Peter King, a Republican from New York, said the decision makes the city more of a target. Holder responded by citing New York City's experience in conducting previous terrorism trials, including the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center.

Michael Anton, a national security aide for President George W. Bush, predicted that that Mohammed's lawyers "will work hard to ensure that his trial is all about what he 'endured' at the hands of the U.S. government, and not at all about what he inflicted on the American people. They will strive to put in the dock George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, George Tenet, John Yoo, the CIA, and the United States government and the American people."

The Anton and Burlingame statements are available on The Weekly Standard website.

Tom Andrews, director of a campaign to close the Guantanamo Bay prison facility, applauded the decision. He added, "as long as Guantanamo remains open, America's image abroad will continue to be one of torture and our ability to lead will be hampered."

Andrews assailed the "fear based attacks by right-wing critics of President Obama." He noted that 195 terrorists have been convicted in U.S. federal courts since 2001, and that those who attacked the World Trade Center in 1993 were tried and convicted in federal court.

"Those responsible for 9/11 are not warriors, they are criminals and mass murderers,' Andrews said. "Treating them as anything else plays into al Qaeda's hands and rewards them an elevated status that only stokes their desire for 'martyrdom.'"










 
 
 
 
 
terror

Sunday, September 27, 2009

Obama Frees More Gitmo Detainees

The warning was given ... let us watch and see, what happens within the next year. Whether these three ... become good citizens of whatever respective dirt pile they crawl into, maybe back to inspecting textiles, or whether they join up to do what they tried to do the first time and were stopped.

Let's see if they are successful the next time. Given the past history of releasing 'innocent' people from Guantanamo Bay ... we will see what happens within a year (blow themselves or others up, or are shot dead trying to kill American soldiers somewhere).






Obama Administration Frees Three More Gitmo Detainees
September 26, 2009
ABCNews.com-->


The Department of Justice Saturday evening announced that two detainees had been transferred from Guantanamo Bay to Ireland, and one had been transferred to Yemen.

There are more than 220 detainees remaining at the prison. In the last couple months, the White House has made it increasingly clear that the President will not make his self-stated January 22, 2010 deadline to close to prison.

Alla Ali Bin Ali Ahmed, a native of Yemen, was captured in Pakistan in 2002 and returned to Yemen today. The Yemeni Embassy to the US issued a statement saying the country welcomed, "with enthusiasm, the release and transfer of its citizen."

Known at Gitmo as Captive 692, the government labeled Ali Ahmed an "enemy combatant," saying he "was associated with Al-Qaeda. He was present on the front lines in Bagram, Afghanistan. He was identified by a senior Al-Qaeda facilitator as having been a resident at a safehouse in Kandahar, Afghanistan in 2000 (his individual also saw the detainee at a safehouse located in Faisalabad, Pakistan in February 2002 with a group of Yemenis who had fled Afghanistan). Finally, the Detainee was identified by another individual, a senior Al-Qaeda operational planner, as having resided at a safehouse located in Kandahar in 2001."

Al Ahmed denied almost all of the charges.

"I never went to Afghanistan, ever. You have to prove how you came to the conclusion that I am a member of the Taliban," he told a military commission.

Al Ahmed claimed he left Sana'a, Yemen around 2000 for Karachi, Pakistan to learn about textiles, with $3,500 -- most of which was from his mother -- in his pocket.

After several months of partying -- "We spent the whole six months going out, having fun, ladies," he says of one leg of his journey -- he ended up in a house full of university students in Faisalabad, Pakistan.

"I didn't have any relationships with anyone in that house," Al Ahmed testified. "They were trying to inspire me and to do the religious things, like look at my religion because most of the students were studying the Koran...They realized that we weren't really in harmony together because I used to use drugs and hashish and things like that. I used to read magazine. Most of the time, I would stay in the backyard, so I was keeping my distance from them."

"I stayed two weeks and the Pakistani government came and captured all of us," Ali Ahmed said.

The government alleged that the home in which Ali Ahmed was residing was "run by a high-ranking al Qaida operative...Several of the individuals arrested in the March 2002 raid on the guesthouse in Faisalabad, Pakistan were identified as al Qaida associates who had received training in, or fought in, Afghanistan."

In May, U.S. District Court Judge Gladys Kessler found the government's case rather wanting and ordered Ahmed released.

In her ruling, Kessler said that "it is clear that the accuracy of much of the factual material contained in those exhibits is hotly contested for a host of different reasons ranging from the fact that it contains second- and third-hand hearsay to allegations that it was obtained by torture to the fact that no statement purports to be a verbatim account of what was said."

Evidence that Ali Ahmed had traveled to Afghanistan or was associated with al Qaeda came from four sources, Kessler said.

One is "an individual whose credibility has been cast into serious doubt -- and rejected -- by another Judge in this District." That witness, a Gitmo detainee, claimed to have overheard conversations at Gitmo about Ali Ahmed's travels in Afghanistan. "He does not identify who made these statements and under what circumstances, or any details of the conversation."

The second statement was "riddled with equivocation and speculation," she said.

The third witness claims to have been tortured at Bagram or Dark Prison, and the "Government has presented no evidence to dispute the allegations of torture." He had made the claim against Ali Ahmed, recanted it, then reaffirmed it.

The fourth witness is believed to be Mohammed Al Qahtani -- believed to be a member of al-Qaeda who was planning on taking part in the 9/11 attacks -- though much of Kessler's ruling has been redacted. Al Qahtani stated that Ali Ahmed "received military training in Afghanistan near Kabul." But Kessler ruled that evidence to be a "nine word hearsay allegation" with no details to back it up.

She ruled that the government failed to prove Ahmed was "part of, or substantially supported Taliban or al-Qaida forces or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners."

The Ireland deal has been in the works since at least March.

On July 29, as we covered at the time, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs announced Ireland had agreed to accept two Uzbek detainees from Guantanamo Bay.

Taoiseach Brian Cowen told CNN at the time that "it is incumbent on us, those who called for [Guantánamo’s] closure, to assist the United States now in ensuring that certain prisoners be relocated elsewhere."

“Obviously we will keep an eye on them very closely,” he said.

Irish Justice Minister Demot Ahern said in July that Ireland would “adhere to the norms of official procedure in respecting the rights of the two men to their privacy."

The Obama administration did not name the detainees released to Ireland. "Pursuant to a request from the government of Ireland, the identities of these detainees are being withheld for security and privacy reasons," read a statement from the Justice Department. Amnesty International has been lobbying Ireland to accept Uzbek national Oybek Jamoldinivich Jabbarov, and another Uzbekh.

At the time of his detention by U.S. forces in 2001, Jabbarov, now 31, lived with his pregnant wife, infant son, and mother lived with other Uzbek refugees in northern Afghanistan in 2001 when fighting broke out between the Taliban and the Northern Alliance.

“Oybek was not captured on the battlefield, nor was he armed,” his attorney Michael Mone testified before Congress in May 2008. “Instead, he accepted a ride from a group of Northern Alliance soldiers he met at a roadside teahouse who said they would give him a ride to Mazar-e-Sharif. Unfortunately, instead of driving him to Mazar-e-Sharif, the soldiers took Oybek to Bagram Air Base where they handed him over to U.S. forces, undoubtedly in exchange for a sizable bounty. In a desperately poor, war-torn country, Oybek was an easy mark for soldiers responding to leaflets dropped throughout Afghanistan by the U.S. military offering thousands of dollars in cash rewards to anyone who turned over a Taliban or foreign fighter.”

Before the Combatant Status Review Board, Jabbarov was accused of having “supported the Taliban and al Qaida.”

The U.S. government claimed that Jabbarov “admitted that he was a member of the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan,” which appears in the United States Department of Homeland Security 'Terrorist Organization Reference Guide,’ and having attended IMU training camps.

The government said he “stayed in a safe house owned by the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group,” which also appears on the 'Terrorist Organization Reference Guide,” and “reportedly is used by al Qaida to obtain travel documents.”

“These allegations are not true,” Jabbarov said before the US tribunal. “I served in the national army of Uzbekistan; and I’ve been fighting against the IMU and these Islamic terrorist organizations. I agree that the IMU is a terrorist organization, but I have nothing to do with them. As a soldier in Uzbekistan, I have been fighting against these groups. I took the oath, and I swear it, that I will fight these groups, as a soldier, I took the oath.”

He denied having attended an IMU terrorist camp, having stayed in a safe house owned by the LIFG, never having heard of the LIFG before coming to Guantanamo, or ever even having seen any Arabs before he was brought to Guantanamo.

He said he was only in Afghanistan to buy and sell livestock to support his family. The government asserted that he “made a conscious decision to fight with the Taliban.”

“That’s not true,” Jabbarov said. “I never made that decision. I never supported the Taliban and I’m against their laws and rules.”

The government asserted that he “participated in fighting between the Taliban and the Northern Alliance.” “So far I haven’t seen any war,” he said. “I never picked up or touched a gun.” He asked of the woman reading the list of accusations: “where did she get all this information” Does she have any proof? At least if one of these had evidence, if it was true, people could read."

Jabbarov was cleared for release in 2007.

**

The Obama administration informed Congress and the Supreme Court earlier this month that it intends to transfer eight of the detainees to the obscure Pacific nation of Palau.

[I have to wonder whether the island nation of Palau is capable of defending itself against an attack by al-qaida to rescue its adherants? This may place the people of Palau in danger. This island nation is near Micronesia, near the Philippines and gained its independence in 1978 ... it is not very old. It is 2.5 times the size of Washington D.C in land and has 20,000 citizens. It is unlikely it could hold against 30 drunk Marines let alone al qaida.]

The eight are Uighurs -- a Turkic Muslim minority from the Xinjiang province of far-west China -- who were living in the Tora Bora mountains in Afghanistan run by the Eastern Turkistan Islamic Movement, a Uighur independence group the State Department designated as terrorist three years after their capture.

Evidence indicates that some of the Uighurs intended to fight the Chinese government and received firearms training at the camp.

They fled to Pakistan after U.S. aerial strikes destroyed their camp after September 11, 2001 and were turned over to the U.S. military and detained as “enemy combatants" though they had no apparent animus towards the U.S.














Obama

Make Mine Freedom - 1948


American Form of Government

Who's on First? Certainly isn't the Euro.