Puerto Rico — Former Guantanamo detainees have organized a jailbreak in Afghanistan, kidnapped Chinese engineers and taken leadership positions with the Taliban, the U.S. military said Tuesday.
The former detainees were released from the prison at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba from 2002 to 2004 by claiming to be innocent or low-level figures, the military said in a statement, responding to questions about ex-prisoners who have allegedly resumed fighting.
The Pentagon gave brief descriptions of six detainees, including two it said were killed in fighting in Afghanistan, which the U.S. invaded to oust the Taliban regime following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in the United States.
The statement suggested that the six were released from Guantanamo by mistake.
"These former detainees successfully lied to U.S. officials, sometimes for over three years," said Navy Cmdr. Jeffrey Gordon, a Pentagon spokesman.
Last week, a Pentagon official, Joseph Benkert, testified to Congress that about 30 former detainees have rejoined the fight against the United States. Other U.S. officials have made similar claims about prisoners at Guantanamo, where the military now holds about 380 men mostly on suspicion of links to al-Qaida or the Taliban.
Guantanamo critics have been skeptical of the claims, saying they are part of a U.S. campaign to justify the detention of hundreds of men without charges at the remote base.
Comments
LJWorld.com doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
The statement suggested that the six were released from Guantanamo by mistake.
"These former detainees successfully lied to U.S. officials, sometimes for over three years," said Navy Cmdr. Jeffrey Gordon, a Pentagon spokesman.
===================================
Or could it be that arbitrary kidnapping, imprisonment and torture created new enemies?
paladin (anonymous) says…
"The most important human endeavor is the striving for morality in our actions. Our inner balance, and even our very existence depends on it. Only morality in our actions can give beauty and dignity to our lives."
-- Albert Einstein --
Kam_Fong_as_Chin_Ho (anonymous) says…
Or could it be that arbitrary kidnapping, imprisonment and torture created new enemies?
========
Agreed. With that in mind, the prisoners currently being held at Camp X-ray should never be released as it would almost certainly guarantee that they will join Al Qaida upon their return. The doors at Guantanamo should be shut; no more coming in, and no more going out.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
"The doors at Guantanamo should be shut; no more coming in, and no more going out."
Brilliant. Now they'll be punished for being innocent. Typical logic of a Bush sycophant.
Kam_Fong_as_Chin_Ho (anonymous) says…
Brilliant. Now they'll be punished for being innocent. Typical logic of a Bush sycophant.
============
Innocent? You're the one who stated that they are "new enemies" as a result of their experience at Camp X-Ray. Enemies should not be released. I was just agreeing with you. By the way, I voted for Kerry!
ksmoderate (anonymous) says…
"This is what happens when liberals are in charge of the inmates."
Dambud, do you even think before speaking (typing)?
Ragingbear (anonymous) says…
I know that if I was locked in a cell so small that I could not even lay down completely for years without any outside contact, any rights, no legal counsel and being tortured on a regular basis that when I got out that I would definitely have a deep seeded hatred for my captors.
I also think this entire report is a load of bunk. Yet another in a long list of lies by the Bush administration to try to justify their war crimes against humanity.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
"Enemies should not be released."
So if I lock you in my basement, and torture you every day for a couple of years, is the fact that you might be a danger to me if I released you justification for not releasing you?
Agnostick (anonymous) says…
Exactly when were your despised "liberals" in charge of Gitmo, Dambudzo? Your rampant hatred of anything and anyone that doesn't subscribe to the narrow views spoon-fed to you by the talking C.H.U.D.s has removed all logic from your brain. Assuming you had any to begin with.
This only introduces evidence of yet another layer or level of mismanagement in the WOT. Bad enough to be hopelessly bogged down in a country where we're little more than human targets; now, to pour salt on the wound, these guys have gone back to their "Fatwah" in hopes of exacting some sort of revenge on America. When the suicide missions are posted at the training camp, these jokers will be trampling each other to be first in line to sign up.
posessionannex is correct: Gitmo should be a "holding cell" for the terrorists we find inside our own borders. We shouldn't have any POWs from the Mideast--they should simply be shot on the spot and left to rot in the sand.
Get out of Iraq, free up our soldiers, put on some fast, lightweight boots and start tearing around the countryside in small squadrons, and shoot to kill.
Quit wasting time with laser-guided missles and "smart bombs." Bring back the incindiaries, not just the Mark-77 but napalm, too. We need to show these extremist ragheads that they aren't the only ones willing to waste a few civilians in the name of their cause.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incindia...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napalm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firebomb...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_...
Agnostick
agnostick@excite.com
http://www.uscentrist.org
Kam_Fong_as_Chin_Ho (anonymous) says…
"is the fact that you might be a danger to me if I released you justification for not releasing you?"
=============
Obviously. Who on earth would want dangerous people released into society? If I was likely to kidnap or murder people, why should I be released?
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
"If I was likely to kidnap or murder people, why should I be released?"
Your circular logic is making me dizzy.
jonas (anonymous) says…
So Dambudzo, when you made this current iteration of a sign-on for this forum, did you just decide to bounce around being a generic goofball when you started? Was it only at this later date that you reverted back to your old passtime of riling up the easily-angered not-conservative members of the board with spurious comparisons? Or was there something in particular that forced you to revert? I'm not sure if I'm remembering clearly, but it seems like, for a time, you were merely somewhat silly and intentionally vacuous, and only started to use these methods in the last month or so. Is it just the election fever starting to kick in again, or am I simply mistaken that you were ever interested in being the generic wisecracker? Inquiring minds would like to know.
Now that I think about it, maybe I'm mistaking you with that Budwhyser guy. Maybe you've always just been the intentional jerk flamer. . . .
Agnostick (anonymous) says…
16 May 2007 at 8:05 a.m.
Suggest removal
Anonymous user
posessionannex (Anonymous) says:
Here's something I've been wondering: If we're all in danger by the Bush people, and they want to suspend our rights and make it possible to throw us arbitrarily in Gitmo, why aren't the "Fort Dix Six" in Gitmo? If anyone would be a candidate for being grabbed in the U.S. without due processs and tossed in Gitmo, it would be them.
_____________________________________________________________________
Apologies for any misinterpretation I may have made, posessionannex.
As to my "racist" remark: You may lobby for removal of any and all of my posts, if you like. You may even lobby for my removal from this board. The owners and operators will make whatever decision they see fit.
In my mind, I make a distinction between folks. For example:
"hypocritical bible-thumping holy-rollers" = folks like Falwell, Robertson, E.R.R., Dobson, Gingrich, and even some of the extremists on this board.
"Christians" = level-headed, intelligent people who quietly subscribe to a particular religious and/or moral code, and lead by example, rather than empty rhetoric.
So, yeah, in my mind:
"Muslim" = respectable, intelligent person, usually of Middle Eastern descent or origin, who quietly practices the Islamic faith.
"extremist raghead" = violent, outrageous terrorist-type person who twists the words of their faith to fit their own selfish political, ideological and military goals & agendas.
*yawn*
--Ag
jonas (anonymous) says…
Agno: I've always used the same differential system for jocks/athletes fratboy/fraternity member. I think it can be fairly valid, provided the difference is understood. Which, I suppose, is the real trick. On the other hand, it can lead without too much trouble into comparisons using words which are socially taboo (fill in the analogies with Blacks, Jews), in any circumstance. Not that one should expect social systems to have any consistency, I suppose. Of course, right now Right-Thinker is saying we should blame the ACLU, but that's another issue entirely.
Agnostick (anonymous) says…
You make a good point, jonas. Perhaps I need to re-think some things.
I'm increasingly grateful to have somebody like you around that can be even more level-headed than myself. :p
Thanks...
--Ag
jonas (anonymous) says…
No, Right-Thinker, I was commenting more as a general thing, blaming the ACLU. There aren't any current examples I was referencing in the particular.
Agno: No problems, though I fear I may have too many hang-ups to fully qualify as "level-headed." It should be considered possible that we are both merely insane in similar vectors. I'm pretty sure a number of people consider me a full-blown lunatic.
. . . well, maybe a third-blown lunatic. full-blown is probably giving myself too much credit.
paladin (anonymous) says…
The only foundation of a free Constitution, is pure virtue, and if this cannot be inspired into our People, in a greater Measure than they have it now, they may change their rulers, and the forms of Government, but they will not obtain a lasting Liberty. They will only exchange Tyrants and tyrannies. -- Pres. John Adams
Agnostick (anonymous) says…
posessionannex:
I apologize if anything I've written offended you and your sensibilities.
I extend the same apology to all the other posters, as well as to all the "lurkers" who may be reading this thread.
--Ag
paladin (anonymous) says…
"Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind.... And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind has closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded with patriotism, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader, and gladly so. How do I know? For this is what I have done. And I am Caesar." -- attributed to Gaius Julius Caesar -- The last dictator of the Roman Empire
paladin (anonymous) says…
"If your American chief be a man of ambition and abilities, how easy is it for him to render himself absolute! The army is in his hands, and if he be a man of address, it will be attached to him, and it will be the subject of long meditation with him to seize the first auspicious moment to accomplish his design, and, sir, will the American spirit solely relieve you when this happens? I would rather infinitely--and I am sure most of this Convention are of the same opinion--have a king, lords, and commons, than a government so replete with such insupportable evils. If we make a king we may prescribe the rules by which he shall rule his people, and interpose such checks as shall prevent him from infringing them; but the president, in the field, at the head of his army, can prescribe the terms on which he shall reign master, so far that it will puzzle any American ever to get his neck from under the galling yoke. I can not with patience think of this idea. If ever he violate the laws, one of two things will happen: he will come at the head of the army to carry everything before him, or he will give bail, or do what Mr. Chief Justice will order him. If he be guilty, will not the recollection of his crimes teach him to make one bold push for the American throne? Will not the immense difference between being master of everything and being ignominiously tried and punished powerfully excite him to make this bold push? But, sir, where is the existing force to punish him? Can he not, at the head of his army, beat down every opposition? Away with your president! we shall have a king: the army will salute him monarch; your militia will leave you, and assist in making him king, and fight against you: and what have you to oppose this force? What will then become of you and your rights? Will not absolute despotism ensue?"
--Patrick Henry, 1788, "Shall Liberty or Empire Be Sought?"
paladin (anonymous) says…
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes and blood of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the clouds of war, it is humanity hanging on a cross of iron." - Dwight Eisenhower, 1953 speech
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
"What do you do with Gitmo? What do you do with the prisoners?"
How about sending Dubya, et al, down there, and lock em all in the same room for a few days with the prisoners they've been abusing for all these years, and see what happens?
paladin (anonymous) says…
"The Virginia Ratification of the Constitution of the United States"
Virginia, to wit:
"We the delegates of the people of Virginia, duly elected in pursuance of a recommendation from the general assembly, and now met in convention, having fully and freely investigated and discussed the proceedings of the Federal Convention, and being prepared as well as the most mature deliberation hath enabled us, to decide thereon, Do, in the name and in behalf of the people of Virginia, declare and make known, that the powers granted under the constitution, being derived from the people of the United States, may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression, and that every power not granted thereby, remains with them and at their will; and therefore no right, of any denomination, can be cancelled, abridged, restrained or modified by the congress, by the senate or house of representatives acting in any capacity, by the president or any department, or officer of the United States, except in those instances in which power is given by the constitution for those purposes; and that among other essential rights, the liberty of conscience and of the press cannot be cancelled, abridged, restrained or modified by any authority of the United States. With these impressions, with a solemn appeal to the Searcher of Hearts for the purity of our intentions, and under the conviction that whatsoever imperfections may exist in the constitution ought rather to be examined in the mode prescribed therein, than to bring the Union into danger by delay, with a hope of obtaining amendments, previous to the ratification: We the said delegates, in the name and in behalf of the people of Virginia, do by these presents assent to and ratify the constitution recommended on the 17th day of September, one thousand seven hundred and eighty-seven, by the Federal Convention, for the government of the United States; hereby announcing to all those whom it may concern, that the said constitution is binding upon the said people, according to an authentic copy hereto annexed."
aeroscout17 (anonymous) says…
r_t wrote: "Americans=Arbitrary
Arabs=Deliberate"
...and so the frailty of a free-thinking, free-speaking, open republic is once again revealed. Just because YOU think something is arbitrary doesn't make it so (check the definition if you don't know what I mean).
On the other hand, being deliberate as you accuse the Arabs (and I hope you are meaning terrorists) is usually seen as a characteristic of totalitarian, dictatorship, or monarchical organizations/governments.
Which one do you want to be a part of?
aeroscout17 (anonymous) says…
BTW, r_t, before you flame me, I don't necessarily disagree with keeping them in Gitmo. I just don't like seeing idiotic posts.
It is a very narrow line we walk between personal freedom and being safe. Unfortunately, I believe we have given up many of those freedoms in the last few years. I now fear the government more than terrorists. Oh no, now I am sounding paranoid. Freedoms are what made this country great; the reduction of them will reduce us to the like of many other countries.
paladin (anonymous) says…
I never claimed to be a scholar. I'm a plumber. Also HVAC and electrical, full service, repair and installation. What does one society do with people from another society who have been arrested and indefinitely detained, who have committed no know offenses, have not been charged with any crimes, have been given no due process or adequate representation? Take them home and release them. What to do with Gitmo, a monument to oppression and tyranny? Tear it down, post haste. We should be ashamed of ourselves. We know better. We are just a small step away from enforcing this situation and condition onto our own people. A new term, phrase, unfounded fear, a targeted group, a new policy or procedure, and we're there. The existence of its menacing presence is against the constitution, US jurisprudence, and all we profess to value and believe as a nation.
aeroscout17 (anonymous) says…
posessionannex (Anonymous) says:What freedoms, specifically, have you lost?
Well, lets see. The government can now tap my phone or read my mail without a warrant. They can hold me prisoner without legal representation or a speedy trial. No, I am not a terrorist (so far as I know), but this an extremely slippery slope. Where do we draw the line? At what point can anyone be subject to these crimes against the constitution?
Although not a freedom (more of a loophole), I won't even broach the subject of a president who has has used (abused?) "signing statements" to upset the balance of power established in the constitution.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/art...
"The task force report states, "From the inception of the Republic until 2000, Presidents produced fewer than 600 signing statements taking issue with the bills they signed. According to the most recent update, in his one-and-a-half terms so far, President George Walker Bush ... has produced more than 800.""
http://www.abanet.org/media/releases/...
jonas (anonymous) says…
"Dambudzo (Anonymous) says:
It is scary to see liberals defend and worry about the well being of terrorists"
"Forgive them father, they know not what they do."
You're right, that is pretty scary.