Guantanamo Bay detention facility has long been a burr in the side of Democrats, as has the use of enhanced interrogation techniques used on members of the terrorist group al Qaeda, who, if Democrats would care to recall, attacked the United States on 9.11.2001, killing almost 3,000 people, not too mention all those who have become sick and even died later from all the pollutants released. They really, really want it closed, and the Islamic jihadis sent off to rejoin the battlefield, to the extent of taking the side of the terrorists, as the NY Times Editorial Board shows
A Stark Reminder of Guantánamo’s Sins
It is haunting, maddening even, to revisit the facts of Abu Zubaydah’s time in American custody more than 14 years after he was detained in Pakistan in the frenzied period following the Sept. 11 attacks. Abu Zubaydah, the first prisoner known to have been waterboarded by the Central Intelligence Agency, loomed large in America’s imagination for years as the personification of evil.
On Tuesday, a small group of human rights advocates and journalists got a fleeting glimpse of Abu Zubaydah — the first since his detention — when he appeared before a panel of government officials to argue that he would not be a threat to the United States if he were released from the Guantánamo Bay prison in Cuba. The hearing, which civilians were allowed to watch part of from a live video feed, is an opportunity to reflect on the shameful tactics employed during years of national panic about terrorism and to reinvigorate efforts to close the prison.
Was waterboarding necessary? Perhaps. Perhaps not. But, it was in the backdrop of
And this
Images that Leftists would prefer not be remembered. The utter evil of al Qaeda and people like Abu Zubaydah
Years later, it became clear that Abu Zubaydah wasn’t a top figure in Al Qaeda after all. It also became clear that he had willingly provided insights into terrorist groups when he was interrogated by F.B.I. agents, who treated him cordially. By the time he was turned over to the C.I.A., his knowledge about threats to the United States appears to have been largely exhausted. Yet agency personnel insisted on the need for torture, waterboarding him at least 83 times and subjecting him to other cruelty.
The Times forgot to mention a few things. Abu was, in fact, a big shot al Qaeda member, involved in training, intelligence, and planning. The CIA and FBI under Bill Clinton saw him as a trusted aid to Osama Bin Laden and as having played a key part in the 1998 US embassy bombing in Tanzania and Kenya. He is woven all through the pre-9/11 intelligence. This guy is a very bad dude. And the NY Times is taking his side because he was interrogated with harsh techniques.
Never charged and never tried, Abu Zubaydah has also never been allowed to speak publicly about his ordeal. His American abusers have never been held to account.
President Obama is likely to leave office having failed to close Guantánamo, which he promised to do when he ran for office in 2008, calling it an insult to the Constitution and American values. He has, however, made significant headway in winnowing down the detainee population. Only 61 of the 780 men who have been detained in Guantánamo remain.
And hundreds have returned to the battlefield. Perhaps Obama would be OK with a detention facility near his out-of-office house?
The two people seeking Mr. Obama’s job have staked out opposite positions on Guantánamo. Donald Trump has vowed to keep the prison open, expand it and “bring back a hell of a lot worse than waterboarding.†Hillary Clinton has rightly concluded that “over the years, Guantánamo has inspired more terrorists than it has imprisoned.†That outcome could well have been avoided if men like Abu Zubaydah hadn’t been tortured, and if they had been given a chance to contest their detention in a court of law.
Poll after poll sees Americans support keeping Gitmo open. Poll after poll shows Americans support enhanced interrogation of terrorists. It’s only in Progressive World where they are worried about the feelings of stone cold jihadis, to the point of taking their side.
Crossed at Right Wing News.
The problem with Guantanamo is that you should never, ever take anyone prisoner whom you are unwilling to ever see released. We took prisoners on the battlefield, and other places, who should never again have seen the light of day, yet they have been being released — some of them under President Bush — and some of them have returned to the fight.
Dana prefers to use the word “some” rather tahn most when refering to the detainees released under Bush
In fact almost 90% were released under Bush.
Gitmo was a huge boost for radical recruitment. By torturing the USA lost the moral high ground. All nations who torture feel that they have the right to do so if their national security is at stake.
Torture at Abu Gharib helped birth ISIS
It allowed Bathists and radical islamists to join together against the USA as a common enemy
No Teach “hundreds” have not returned to the battle field.
And let’s not forget who was reading The Pet Goat when 9/11 happened. Teach would you like to see American law enforcement use torture on other law breakers besides suspected terrorists?
Do other countries also have the right to torture? or only the USA?
More cooperation would have been had if we used our strongest cultural weapons agianst those detainees. We should have given them porn, Budweiser and cards and dice. That would show them how much better it would be for them to accept our way of life. Ohh and lottery cards to. Who would agree to be a suicide bomber when he might have a MegaMillions winner in his pocket.
Teach seems to forget that we are a nation of LAWS
Not the will of the mob. Virtually every SCOTUS went against the practices of GITMO
Teach are you a Constitutionalist ?
Do you believe in the Rule of Law?
Exactly why do you think Gitmo enhances our national security ?
As far as your security concerns about housing people convicted of terrorism related crimes, why are you allowing THEM to be in control of what we do tto them?
Why would you want to tell them that we are to afraid of them to put them in prison within the USA?
I live in NYC I wasn’t worried (except for traffic) when Obama wanted to try KSM in NYC where the crime was committed
I wanted him tried here
Bill of Rights: Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Convention Against Torture: Having regard to article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, both of which provide that no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment…
That is incorrect. Prisoners can often provide valuable information. It’s critical to capture prisoners, interrogate them, while also meeting U.S. treaty obligations against torture, or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Apparently, the retard and Z-boys feel the same way.
Boo fucking hoo!
Amusingly, none of these moslem pigs were wearing a military uniform therefore, they should have been harshly interrogated, sentenced as spies and summarily shot.
I am amused at how many people who have never fought in battle have such strong opinions about the disposition and disposal of the enemy.
Not wearing a uniform doesn’t make one a spy, though it can be a war crime. The U.S. has promised not to torture or summarily execute people. It is also against U.S. law. Does the word of the Americans mean anything?
I don’t know. Did everybody get to keep their doctor? Did everybody get to keep their insurance company? If our word means nothing to Americans why should it mean anything to terrorists?
Technically you are correct they may not be spies, however they are still not in uniform and killing our soldiers who are therefore, give them a quick trial then shoot them. Problem solved. Under no circumstances should they be brought there. They’ll end up running for president on the dem ticket.
I never had a problem with prisoners in Nam.
Hoagie,
Are you admitting to war crimes?
z,
You are talking about the “word of Americans” when you are supporting Hillary, a pathologic liar. Come on, have some consistency in your attitudes, even if they are pathetic.
Then it is beyond funny to see people going on about subjects for which they have zero knowledge. I believe that you have to factor in the concept of sovereign nations. A soldier, wearing a uniform, and representing a nation is afforded the benefits of laws of war as negotiated by that country. In the case of terrorist, they are not representing their respective nations, so protective laws only apply as the victor sees fit. There is no treaty that would cover these animals. I see no problem at all with torture or any other device that would elicit information from these folks. As to john’s comments, big bad wrong. Obama and Hillary caused the formation of ISIS and there is no debate there.
There is no debate. “Birthers” and “Sickies” and alt-rightists believe it like a religious tenet since their god-king, Trumple the First, said it. Normal people recognize the idiocy of the statement. So, no debate.
Does the word of the Americans mean anything?
Well in looking at Obama and Hillary I would say APPARENTLY NOT.
How do you feel about firing predator missiles into the living rooms of terrorists….killing his entire family, friends and half the neighbors…..
Thats why your Beloved Leader is doing right now……
How come no outrage at that….and do you think Hillary will STOP that practice….
I thought indiscriminate murder was against the law too….Unless your a Democrat….then you get to make up the rules…..
Hoagie typed:
What did you mean by that?
They generally did not surrender. Very, very few. Like the Japs in WWII. They fought till they died. The few who were captured were gold.
Jeff,
Leave Hoagie alone, he is more of a man than you ever thought of being and you are definitely not in his class.
Hey, little guy, he probably meant…
Fuck you, you were not there so why are you asking, asshole?
david duke and drowning asshole,
In what wars did you chickenhawks defend America?
Once again, cocksucker, you weren’t there.
You have no right to judge those who were.
Both the NVA and the Viet Cong were real mother’s in the field. Both very courageous fighters neither afraid to kill or die. Especially to capture an NVA officer was a big, big deal. They rarely surrendered in fact I can only recall a few times when any prisoners were taken after a fight and those taken were usually too injured to finish themselves off. It was common for two or three of them who were trapped to make it appear they were surrendering when they were really concealing explosives to detonate when they were close to us. Yeah, we didn’t get a lot of prisoners.
choking cocksucker,
I wasn’t judging was I?
Swallow big and go to bed.
You are conflating the words of a single politician with treaty promises.
The promises weren’t made to terrorists, but to the nations of the world, including America’s friends and allies.
Oops. Sorry about that. A preview or edit feature would be nice.